Two very different takes on Halloween
So the French President stuck his foot in his mouth and stirred up an internet backlash.
The president of France shouldn’t speak for women—and certainly not on how many children they decide to have.
French President Emmanuel Macron recently said, “I always say: ‘Present me the woman who decided, being perfectly educated, to have seven, eight, or nine children.”
“Please present me with the young girl who decided to leave school at 10 in order to be married at 12,” he added during his remarks at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s “Goalkeepers” event, which was held last month in New York.
Of course, most women agree with Macron on child brides.
But it’s insulting to moms of large families to imply a big family is akin to marrying off children.
I spoke to one such woman, Catherine Ruth Pakaluk, an assistant professor of social research and economic thought at the Catholic University of America, who has eight children—and no regrets about that.
“When I saw [Macron’s] quotation, my first thought was, ‘Hey, wait a second, I exist, and I know lots of people like me that exist,’” Pakaluk, who received her bachelor’s degree at the University of Pennsylvania and her doctorate at Harvard University, told The Daily Signal in an interview.
She added that she thought plenty of moms of large families would share the reaction to Macron of thinking that, “Hey, wait, I exist, and my family is not the product of ignorance.”
Plenty of moms have contributed pictures of their beautiful large families to #postcardsforMacron.
Macron’s comments about women having “too many” children are stupid for many reasons but the one about girls leaving school too young to marry… projection anyone? Good grief. He wasn’t a child bride obviously, but he is young-ish, childless, white, male, and the boy toy of a much older woman — a woman who was a teacher at his school! He probably should have kept his mouth shut.
Other than incensing all the educated mothers of large families, he also brought on well deserved criticism for his elitist, patronizing attitude. Only people with degrees are intelligent apparently.
Melody Lyons of the Essential Mother had a perfect response:
I don’t care what the president of France thinks about my motherhood and he doesn’t care what I think. Perhaps I shouldn’t even waste my time with this but I’m not writing for him.
I know that for every highly educated, wildly successful mother-of-many out there (and all the internet posts suggest they are abundant!), there are even more throughout history who are like me…
…A woman who started her family instead of finishing college.
….Who didn’t think the weight of debt was a good trade-off for the value of a degree.
…Who has gained knowledge and experience outside of the popular institutional model.
…Who believes that our creative purpose is not defined by a certificate.
The truth is that civilizations were built on the servant leadership of “uneducated” women who poured their natural gifts into the care of their husbands and children… who have gone on to lead the world.
It is not a weakness of womanhood that we bear this role. It is our genius. JPII said, “To serve is to reign” and those of us who rock the cradle understand this on a deeper level than men.
But the worldly reality is that even if Macron cared about the level of our education or our resumes (he does not), he can always point to the many women like me and say,
“She proves my point.”
I’m not going to play that game with him or the internet because, honestly, I can’t win it. I’m not educated or successful in any way that he specifically means. I also do not buy into his agenda (which is really his issue).
And… it doesn’t matter at all.
At the end of the day, Macron will still think I’m a stupid breeder and I will still have 8 children. Nothing about seeing alphabet soup after my name will ever change his perspective because his point is not really about education… it’s about elitist, narcissistic power, antagonistic to the heart of Jesus Christ.
My own true value as a mother will only ever be weighed correctly by the Power of my God, not by some haughty flash-in-the-pan politician.
To every mother who didn’t participate in the public hashtag event because perhaps you stumbled over your skinny worldly resume…
You are free. You are not defined by men like Macron. He IS talking about you but it doesn’t matter. Neither are you defined by the resume of another woman. They ARE impressive but irrelevant to the genius of your own life.
You are doing it the way the majority of women throughout history have done it. Without fancy modern degrees and accolades. Giving the best part of yourself to your family. Heroically. Quietly. Intelligently. Wisely. Keeper of the flame of love. Guardian of Joy and Faith. Carrying the weight of the restoration of culture on your back.
You don’t owe an explanation to Macron. And when his legacy dies with his mortal body, yours will live on through your children through history and eternity.
No joke. Chuck Norris for Christendom College!
Well, I guess all that clamor about Christendom being a rotten rape-tolerating school hasn’t gotten around to Chuck Norris. Or maybe that no one’s taking it seriously.
Norris, a New York Times best-selling author, warned students and parents about the progressive transformation of colleges in America, calling many of them “one-sided” in their educational offerings. Rather than blindly assuming that any college will do, Norris recommended that parents and graduates look at private and Christian universities instead.
“I’m asked just about every year to give a commencement speech somewhere. I couldn’t accept any invitations this year due to being outside the country, so I’ll state here what I want to say to every student who is graduating and their parents. It’s a warning and a call for wisdom. … And there’s more you can do…. To counter so much progressive indoctrination in American culture, you can also have your graduates consider attending a private, conservative or Christian college or university, such as Liberty University, Biola University, Hillsdale College, Christendom College, Westmont College or Grove City College,” wrote Norris.
Read more here
Some possible reasons for the increases in feminized men and masculine women:
Moira Greyland is a very brave woman to have written this book, The Last Closet: The Dark Side of Avalon (especially considering when asked how she’s doing, she says “I am not good”). I do not think I have the stomach to read the book. Reading about the book is hard enough. LifeSiteNews interviewed Ms. Greyland (Read the whole thing here)
This section deals with a very un-PC view of homosexuality and its genesis, sheds some light on the whole Milo episode, and illustrates how critical it is to protect children (and how incredibly evil this whole thing is).
LifeSite: The homosexual movement has a long history of association with organizations and groups that are sympathetic to pedophilia or promote it outright. Your father was a homosexual activist and an open advocate of pedophilia. For decades the “North American Man-Boy Love Association” (NAMBLA) marched in homosexual “pride” marches, and major homosexual organizations, like the International Gay and Lesbian Association, used to have NAMBLA as a member. Do you see the embrace of pedophilia as a natural outgrowth of the homosexual movement?
Moira Greyland: In my father’s book, Greek Love (J.Z. Eglinton, 1962), he explored at length the fact that pedophilic and pederastic relationships are the historical norm, and peer-to-peer gay relationships are a modern phenomenon. Where I completely deny my father’s contention that pederastic relationships do anything positive for young men, I do believe that nearly all gay men were initiated in this fashion as boys by older men.
Attempts to sanitize these “initiations” of younger boys by older men are ongoing, including in the recent movie “Call Me By Your Name” which Hollywood gushed over, despite its appalling content.
Since the reality of gay culture depends on these initiations, there are only two choices: keep the reality of the genesis of a gay identity secret, or yank it out of the closet and risk the outrage and hatred of the general public.
Here is the trouble: screaming “homophobia” at anything which has a problem with homosexual conduct will only go so far. As soon as our children are endangered, and their seduction praised, the torches and pitchforks rightfully come out.
After all, this is the Big Secret, and the truth behind a gay identity. Father-son porn is the number one topic of all gay pornography. Why is this the actual reality? In male nature, there is the need to pursue, to vanquish, to conquer. This is much easier with a young, vulnerable, hairless and helpless male. They can be manipulated into adoring an older male, putting up with darned near ANYTHING for his love and approval (read: fathering) and they submit. Always in male homosexual relationships, there is the top and the bottom, the giver and the receiver, and these roles are predicated on age and the ability to project masculine dominance.
This is the conclusion I reached, not only from knowing far too many young boys seduced by my father, but also reading the words of former gay men like Joseph Sciambra and Robert Oscar Lopez.
Male homosexuals know, and count on the fact that a young man who does not have a present, protective father in his life will be much easier to seduce than either a masculine boy who obviously has a strong father, or an older man who might well beat or kill them for a sexual overture. They seek out boys who are unsure or effeminate, precisely because of those qualities.
How can they persuade those they persuade? Boys tend to be perpetually sexually frustrated, and know that vanishingly few girls will go along with their advances at that age. Predatory male homosexuals take advantage of this knowledge, and offer porn and intoxicants to lower the inhibitions of their target. Once the sexual assault has taken place, even involuntary arousal on the part of the male victim is used as “proof” that the boy is actually gay.
This attitude assumes that being gay is a physical, inevitable reality which other gay men can “see.” But the truth is that the first sexual experience will usually create an indelible impression, a longstanding change to a male fantasy life, deliberately imposed. These raped and molested boys are not “gay,” they have been forcibly imprinted with a sexual act meant to permanently alter their fantasy life.
Claiming the involuntary arousal suffered by the boy “proves” they are gay is like claiming that bleeding as the result of a stab wound proves the victim wanted to be stabbed.
In any case, the raped boy is destroyed three times. Once by the betrayal of the sexual assault, even if they end up going along with it, once by the permanent alteration to their fantasy life, and once by the forced imposition of a “gay” identity which is made to seem inevitable and indelible.
Without pederastic relationships, there would be no adult gay men. But as it is the Big Secret, don’t expect any admissions about this. When Milo joked about his own initiation at thirteen, he was demolished in the press. Shortly thereafter, he admitted on video that he actually had been raped, and it actually was a horrible experience.
It is no joke. When I see a man who identifies as homosexual acting out in a flamboyant way, I see the thirteen year old boys in my house screaming with rage: “I meant to do that! You did not hurt me, I am no victim, and you will not own me, you BASTARD!”
With the most recent school shooting in Florida, all the “gun-control” arguments will be rehashed on the news and by celebrities and politicians. Maybe some proposed laws will be put forth. Lots of crocodile-teary-eyed liberals yelling about republicans, especially Trump, and the NRA having “blood on their hands!” Lots of exaggerating about the problem and prevalence of “gun violence” and “school shootings” in our country. (See this article for a debunking of some of the claims: No, there have not been 18 school shootings so far in 2018)
Sigh. Here we go again.
It is a tragedy that kids were killed. What the shooter did was horrible and evil. The grieving families deserve our prayers. But how can anyone be genuinely surprised? Or honestly, even feel much of anything? The constant tragic, compassion-triggering news cycle has had the effect of making me un-shockable and compassion-numb. Before anyone starts wondering if I’m secretly a psychopath, let me assure you that in real life I often truly feel for people I know and care about, even people I don’t know sometimes. Their pain causes me pain. I cry with them and for them. But people I don’t know? Not so much. My ability to feel compassion over distant events and people has been exhausted by mainstream media manipulation and selective reporting and twisting of events to serve their narrative. If you can’t trust the story-teller, you can’t trust the story.
While “gun-control” will be the focus of the day (or week, or month), with well-deserved side-notes about mental illness and psychotropic drugs, and maybe even a mention or two about “problems in our culture,” no one will point out the surest way to stop all school shootings. All sensible and honest people know that even if you made all guns illegal, it wouldn’t prevent crazy and/or evil people from acquiring them and shooting up schools. Murder is already illegal. Schools are already “gun-free zones.” The shooter at the Florida school had already been expelled and banned from campus. Laws don’t discourage or prevent people from committing crimes as much as we wish they did.
President Trump seems to get that and appears to be referencing all those predictable attempts to “fix” the problem with gun laws. From a statement he gave following the Florida Shooting (my emphasis):
Later this month, I will be meeting with the nation’s governors and attorney generals, where making our schools and our children safer will be our top priority. It is not enough to simply take actions that make us feel like we are making a difference. We must actually make that difference.
Since out-lawing guns won’t do it, what is the surest way to stop all school shootings? Abolish schools. It would be more effective than “common-sense gun laws.” That might sound insane to people who think the public school system is necessary and good, but it makes a lot of sense if you understand that the public school system is NOT necessary or good, and is probably impossible to “fix” (just look at the decades of legal attempts and massive amounts of money dumped into the schools with no positive effect). It is ineffective at truly educating students. It is out-dated and doesn’t train them to succeed in the current world or job market. It is often just a tool of indoctrination for the liberal agenda. And it’s a damned dangerous place to send your kids, even if they’re never victims of a school shooting.
As Vox Day so aptly puts it: Homeschool or Die. After quoting a victim’s mother who blames Trump for the shooting, he has this to say:
While one has to make allowances for a distraught mother (assuming she is not a crisis actor, which is far from a certain assumption), the idea that the President of the USA can do anything to prevent people from shooting up schools is absurd. Why not simply have him ban poverty, drugs, and teenage pregnancy while he’s at it? It’s not like there is a law against murder or anything, right?
The truth is that there is only one solution to the problem of school shootings: homeschool.
Although not putting boys on psychotropic medications would probably help.
The way schools handle boys and frequently put them on medications (like Ritalin and an assortment of anti-depressants and anti-pyschotics) has been suggested as a possible factor leading up to school shootings. But schools are bad for all children and cause plenty of problems that are less obvious than the “going off the deep end” school shooter type (which most likely have multiple contributing factors). Unfortunately, so many parents still don’t understand this.
I was recently horrified to witness a conversation between several Christian parents. It went something like this:
Parent 1: Look at this example in the news about a teacher being beaten up by a student. This terrible student behavior, disrespect for adults and lack of Christian morals in schools and in our culture is part of the reason we choose to homeschool our kids.
Parent 2: Oh, that’s just a rare extreme example given to stir things up. Those sorts of things don’t happen here. My kids are in the public school system and have great teachers! They’re doing really well and growing up to be good Christian kids. They have plenty of nice friends. I’m sure they’re not being exposed to anything bad. I’ve never heard anything from the kids about anything bad here [continues defending the public schools for some time & several other parents chime in with similar arguments].
My mental response: Ha! yeah… even if your kids end up with good teachers (and counting on that is like playing russian roulette), you have no idea what the other students are exposing your kids to and the teachers will never know. And your kids might never tell you either. Or they will, but it will be too late.
Just because you think your kids are having a good experience doesn’t mean that school isn’t a physically and morally dangerous place for kids to be. I know a few things about the particular school system in which Parent 2 is placing so much trust. Yes, it’s ok compared to some places and probably not as SJW infested as many, but I personally know several people working in the elementary schools whom I would not trust with my children, people who are gay, gender-confused, leading immoral lives and/or very supportive of these sorts of lifestyles. I do not have children in this school system, and I know these things. Why does no one else notice? Or care?
Need another example of why you should take your kids out? Jonathon van Maren writes for Lifesite News:
If the progressive Left can claim one cultural victory that is nearly total, it is their infiltration and conquest of the public education system. Public schools across the Western world—especially Canada, the United States, and Great Britain—now serve as purveyors of post-modern ideology, replete with “social justice” classes and sex education that is designed to mainstream a wide variety of alternative lifestyles. The latest news on this front is out of the UK…
“Announcing an ‘LGBT-inclusive’ update to all of its products, education giant Pearson has launched a guide to pushing ‘social justice’ activism in every part of the school curriculum…
Organised by subject, the guide lists suggestions to ensure LGBT visibility across the curriculum, for example recommending teachers set questions which reference homosexual relationships in maths and science, and introduce terminology specific to the lifestyles of sexual minorities in foreign language lessons. One example given is to begin a question with: ‘Two women would like to have a baby together, and the doctor recommends they use In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF)’ …
In history lessons, pupils should “study the links between different social justice movements”, while art teachers are urged to “explore the way that art has been, and is being, used to effect social and political change, including LGBT equality, race equality and tackling climate change”…
There has been some backlash, of course—not that it will be heeded: UKIP education spokesman David Kurten stated that… “Maths should be about maths, it should not be about sexualizing children,” he told Breitbart London, warning the new textbooks will make it significantly more difficult for parents “to protect their children from the malign influence of left-wing identity politics.”
We can all expect the curriculums of public schools to change and evolve as fast as the LGBT Alphabet Soup is—and we can all expect parental protestations to be ignored.
If you don’t want your children to be indoctrinated, take them out of the public school system. It’s the only choice you’ve got.
An increasing number of parents are making that choice, and turning to homeschooling, perhaps for many of them for these reasons. According to the National Home Education Research Institute:
There are about 2.3 million home-educated students in the United States (as of spring 2016). This is up from one estimate that there were about 2 million children (in grades K to 12) home educated during the spring of 2010 in the United States (Ray, 2011). It appears the homeschool population is continuing to grow (at an estimated 2% to 8% per annum over the past few years).
Homeschooling – that is, parent-led home-based education; home education – is an age-old traditional educational practice that a decade ago appeared to be cutting-edge and “alternative” but is now bordering on “mainstream” in the United States. It may be the fastest-growing form of education in the United States. Home-based education has also been growing around the world in many other nations (e.g., Australia, Canada, France, Hungary, Japan, Kenya, Russia, Mexico, South Korea, Thailand, and the United Kingdom).
There are many things over which the government shouldn’t have so much control or influence. Education is one of them. Choosing to homeschool could mean saving your child’s soul, and possibly life.
I’ve wondered about the connection between identity politics and un-met needs to belong and to be part of a “tribe,” a community, but I hadn’t yet followed that train of thought far enough back.
In The Primal Scream of Identity Politics, Mary Eberstadt provides as assessment of identity politics and our culture that takes us back to the foundation: the family. She examines several other authors’ analyses of identity politics (and our cultural climate) and concludes that while some have noticed important factors, no one has gone deep enough in their questions and conclusions. The whole thing is worth a read.
“Mine! Mine! It’s mine!” The manifest panic behind cries of “cultural appropriation” is real—as real as the tantrum of a toddler. It’s as real as the developmental regression seen in the retreat to campus “safe spaces,” those tiny non-treehouses stuffed with candy, coloring books, and Care Bears. In social science, the toddler’s developmental “mine!” is called the “endowment effect”—the notion that humans ascribe extra value to possessions simply because they’re theirs. Some theorists consider it a subset of another human proclivity: loss aversion.
Maybe that cultural scream of “mine!” is issuing from souls who did have something taken from them—only something more elemental than the totemic objects now functioning as figurative blankies for lost and angry former children. As of today, less than 65 percent of American children live with both biological parents, even as other familial boughs have broken via external forces like the opioid crisis, criminality and incarceration, and globalization. Maybe depression and anxiety have been rising steadily among children and teenagers for a reason. Maybe the furor over “appropriation” unveils the true foundation of identity politics, which is pathos.
Did anyone really think things would turn out otherwise—that the massive kinship dislocations of the past 60 years wouldn’t produce increasingly visible, transformative effects not only in individual lives and households, but on politics and culture, too?
After all, it defies common sense to believe that the human surroundings during one’s formative years have no effect on the life to come. There’s also a library of social science, now over half a century in the making, tracing the links between fatherless homes and higher risks of truancy, criminality, psychiatric trouble, and the rest of the ledger suggesting that ripping up primordial ties hasn’t done society any favors. It’s all there, no matter how many of us have deep reasons for wishing otherwise.
One irony is certain. While identity politics has become an object of conversation in the left-leaning circles of Anglo-American and European political thought, deliverance from today’s disfigurations cannot come from the same quarter. The reason is simple. Not only identitarians but also liberals and progressives who are now anti-identitarian or identitarian-skeptical all agree on one big thing: The sexual revolution is off-limits for revision anywhere, anytime. It is their moral bedrock.
No-fault divorce, out-of-wedlock births, paid surrogacy, absolutism about erotic freedom, disdain for traditional moral codes: The very policies and practices that chip away at the family and drive the subsequent flight to identity politics are those that liberals and progressives embrace.
Then there are related family-unfriendly social realities that they also deem benign. Pornography, which once upon a time some feminists objected to, is now the stuff of their full-throated enthusiasm. Prostitution has been re-defined as the more anodyne “sex work.” And, of course, abortion is—in the unnervingly theological modifier applied to it by Hillary Clinton and many others on the left—“sacrosanct.” In the end, asking liberals and progressives to solve the problem of identity politics is like asking the proverbial orphan with chutzpah who murdered his parents.
Yes, conservatives have missed something major about identity politics: its authenticity. But the liberal-progressive side has missed something bigger. Identity politics is not so much politics as a primal scream. It’s the result of what might be called the Great Scattering—the Western world’s unprecedented familial dispersion.
Anyone who’s ever heard a coyote in the desert, separated at night from the pack, knows the sound. Maybe the otherwise-unexplained hysteria of today’s identity politics is just that: the collective human howl of our time, sent up by inescapably communal creatures who can no longer identify their own.
My very simplified conclusion after reading all of The Primal Scream of Identity Politics is this: maybe all the immature, hysterical acting out going on in this country really can be traced back to the destruction of the family or put more personally, mommy and daddy weren’t there to provide a stable, loving childhood. Today’s adults were yesterday’s children who were spoiled rotten in many ways, but not given what they really needed to be able to grow-up into mature human beings.