Dalrock, Sheila Gregoire, and internet debates

I'd like to start the discussion by posting the video below. In all future internet debate type posts please mentally refer back to the video. It's not so much that I think I'll change someone's mind as that I like poking ideas with a stick and then reflecting on how clever I am. In short, I have dude brain :)

Ok, now that's out of the way I'd like to point y'all in a couple different directions. First, go visit Dalrock to see what the trouble is all about. Then I suggest you go poke around Sheila Gregoire's blog.

So as you can see the main trouble is that Dalrock and Sheila have two very different ways of writing about marriage, and according to Dalrock Sheila's way is wrong and detrimental to the state of marriage as a whole. Many of the commenters vehemently agree. I did comment with my two cents, but in an effort to stay on topic I thought I'd toss this little post up here.

To open with an academic cliche, I think that Dalrock and Sheila both have their points. On one hand, I love how Sheila has encouraged me to love my husband and put thought into our marriage. On the other hand, people like Dalrock are like a deluge of cold water in the barren wastelands of today's modern marriage - rather shocking but extremely necessary if we're to restore beauty and fertility to today's marriage culture. To that end I would love to see more collaboration from men like Dalrock when they encounter other public figures like Sheila (to anyone from the manosphere who may read this - collaboration doesn't necessarily mean whatever dreadful hell corporate America has turned it into as I'll explain shortly) instead of the wholesale denouncement of her person, marriage, and ministry that is so common. When I say collaboration I mean that men/marriage bloggers should indeed challenge her when they believe it's necessary, but they should do so in a manner that acknowledges they're challenging a woman writing in a different context from theirs to what is possibly is a different audience and with the expressed goals of helping Christians have more fulfilling sex lives. On other words, Sheila and Dalrock might be fighting on different fronts, but they're still on the same side.

So how do I think that would look? First let's consider what they are saying. Take Sheila's post on what it means to deprive a spouse of sex. Part of her context is that there are men who think they hold all the cards and can dictate universally the quantity and kind of sex they have, and there are women who go along with this and build up a reservoir of hurt and frustration. So she gave men and women what I felt like was a pretty decent take on what it means to sexually deprive someone and how women can take a little ownership of the sexual relationship. Naturally, this is problematic for manosphere bloggers because their context is almost universally inverted. In their experience women are the ones taking all the sexual prerogative and who assume the right to dictate the frequency and nature of all sexual contact, and these men's approach is largely aimed at helping men regain sexual initiative and fulfillment. So we have men talking about getting more sex and women talking about having less sex, and everyone gets highly freaked out and points fingers saying "There - that's the problem. See! S/he said that men/women need to start pushing for more/less sex!" 

I think the most helpful approach someone like Dalrock could take in writing about someone like Sheila would be to re-contextualize her position in light of what most modern marriages face and point out where she could strengthen and/or further her argument. Here's a quick example of how that might go:

Sheila's argument about "do not deprive" can be valuable under certain circumstances. My concern is that those circumstances aren't widely reflected in the circumstances facing many married men. In fact, for these men the opposite is frequently and sometimes aggressively true, and the advice given here will likely only add more fuel to the fire of selfish entitlement that threatens to sweep away society's most basic foundations. That given, there are instances where this advice applies. However, I would frame the argument with the clear understanding that sex is a fundamental tenet of marriage and that no woman worth the title "wife" would ever consider her sexual preferences as more worth meeting than those of her husband.

This could be followed with an outline of the specific circumstances which might merit a wife pushing back sexually (illness, particular practices, etc) and continue into a discussion of responsive desire and describe how women who aren't "in the mood" can change their minds when they experience a display of desire from their husbands. I think this is important because what did bug me most about that article was the man who commented saying that he had essentially trained or convinced himself to wait for his wife to initiate. I really just wanted to shake him by the shirt collar because I know his wife, however unfair this may be, is probably insanely frustrated that "he never wants her." This is why being high drive can be hard on a woman. We were, by and large, made to respect and respond to a man's leadership. This mean that "leading" in the bedroom can be as frustrating as leading in other areas of marriage. This is also where blogs like MMSL (explicit warning) and Dalrock can be so crucial because, whereas your average Christian marriage blog emphasizes "service" (ie flowers and chores and the like), MMSL and Dalrock emphasize building leadership/husband skills that result in things like men having more sexually responsive wives. While I don't buy everything I read other there (hence in large part my desire to write more about marriage) I do believe they are a invaluable resource for understanding and dismantling the reigning gynocentric culture. Part of my work here is looking towards what will replace it.

Back to the main point however. Naturally much of this particular discussion is frivolous if you believe that "do not deprive" means "never say no." Short answer, Allen and I don't. It's just too tricky in practice. For instance, how sick is too sick? As a woman I could technically be nearly comatose and still "participate." This is where people would likely say to "use some common sense." My response would be that, in which case, I'll use my common sense to say that either party can, in the context of a generous and healthy marriage, small "r" refuse the other person with the understanding that the other person's tacit consent is solicited and that feeling the need for a hard, capital "R" refusal signals a deep rift in the marriage. Either way, I feel the discussion could be carried out in a more constructive manner than it currently is.

Cultural Hegemony, comment moderation, and Laura Wood

I've tossed up a few posts in the past month or two referencing Laura Wood and her site "The Thinking Housewife." In general I think she's shooting at the right targets and therefore stay out of the way, but I recently got into something of a discussion with her that I thought I'd continue here for the sake of further articulating my differences with her.

About ten days ago (sorry folks, I don't always have time to blog the news as it happens) a post popped up on my Thinking Housewife reader feed that was submitted by a parent talking about educating his (her?) children in an atmosphere that encouraged critical thinking and reading in between the lines. He cited as an example the ways that liberals will often talk about Native American cultures - whitewashing some of their disturbing pagan rituals and using language that portrays them as victims instead of aggressors. An example he gave being "A massacre in the northern reaches of Colorado occurred and the entire Ute nation was threatened by whites" where a more accurate telling would have specified that the Ute nation was threatened after they massacred some white settlers. However, as this parent noted, liberals don't boycott these idyllic mountain resorts that were created by settlers carving out a home in the wilderness and in fact often flock there with their crystals and communes and their touchy, feely, pantheistic spirituality. All well and good and according to Laura Wood. However, in closing he made the statement that,"I will in no way excuse how Indians were treated in this country. It was shameful. But I also will not subject my children to this one-sided treatment of history, which is why we homeschool."

That last little bit, which I thought was only considerate given the broken treaties and piss poor treatment with Native American's received more than once from settlers and the American government, started a minor storm. At this point I suggest you read the comments on that post. There aren't many of them. It should be clear why I have real problems with some of what Laura Wood says and thinks. First off, there's a clear assumption of white Anglo/European cultural superiority. This won't be a popular statement, but I rather agree with her here. I like my culture (most of it anyway). I think we have a rich tradition of arts, justice, education, Christianity that has enriched us in ways that a primitive tribe in Central America can't even comprehend. Despite the downward spiral of Western Civilization we at least have the idea of cathedrals and great institutes of learning and glorious, edifying, challenging art. There's a real sense that we're falling from something and not just tripping over our boots. Concomitant with that view is that we have a certain responsibility to act with justice and mercy. To whom much has been given much is required.

Having ordered the Indian Nations about and disrupted (and in the case of forcible reeducation) tried to obliterate their culture we have an obligation to them that free health clinics and welfare don't even begin to cover. Let us suppose for a minute that in every case where the government moved Indians to reservations and made them essentially wards of the state the US government was perfectly justified and acted only in good faith. I don't believe that's true, but lets assume it for the sake of argumentation. Laura Wood says that I have infantilized Native Americans. What I have tried to do is point out that if white Americans had the right to move Native Americans about and tell them what they could and couldn't do then it makes no sense whatsoever to call Indian issues a tribal sovereignty affair in which the US government can't interfere because (and here's the kicker) tribal sovereignty only applies when the US government says it does. It's a shoddy cop out to blame Indians for becoming what the US people have essentially asked them to become - in many cases wards of the state clinging to the vestiges of their culture in the only ways available to them. I say this not to, as Laura Wood claims, universally condemn white Americans for what has happened to Native Americans but to call Americans to remember their responsibilities with regards to justice and mercy and the least of these.

However, I shouldn't have been surprised to see this move from Laura Wood because I've seen it before. I can't link directly to the post since it's lost in the archives, so you'll unfortunately have to trust me on this one. Basically there was a discussion of black American culture and its breakdown in the recent past - absent fathers, welfare, crime, and the like. In the discussion a black woman pointed out that most of the social policies that everyone was so loudly bemoaning were actually voted in by whites. You would have thought she questioned Mrs. Wood's paternity so great was the scorn brought down on her. But this woman had an excellent point. To put in bluntly, there are not enough black people in America to unilaterally bring these policies into existence. That's why they are a minority. There's fewer of them. In some municipalities they may be the majority, but nationally they are not. The point which should be staring you in the face is that even if black people wanted to enact some of these policies they couldn't do so without a substantial number of whites working alongside them. These whites are equally to blame for bad policies, and blacks today are, together with whites and other races, equally victims of bad lawmaking.

In case you aren't seeing how this ties in with Native Americans, I'll state that you can't both claim and deny cultural hegemony. Black issues aren't merely black issues when a majority of white congressmen voted in the offending legislature. You can't just stand over there in your white culture bubble and sneer at how bad things are in the ghetto. Who built that ghetto? Who writes the welfare checks? Who enacted policies that create financial incentives for fatherlessness. If the answer is 60%-80% white then you've got a problem going on in your own little bubble. When you drive Indians onto reservations and then say, "Oh hey, umm, we've decided we can't tell you not to run a casino even though we know that will probably further degrade your people." you've got a white problem. If white people can "give" Native Americans a piece of land and stick them on it and then yank their kids away to give them an "American" education I think they can put a simply zoning ordinance in place. National sovereignty has been blown to hell and back and is now raining down its smoldering ruin. Don't crook your pinky in the air and tell me what you can and cannot do because of some mythological rights that you've violated every single time it served your best interest.

Some people might look at this and say, "But they (whichever "they" you like) could have refused and taken the higher path." Well yeah. They could have. I won't deny moral agency. BUT! What have you said about these people? "Oh, they don't know any better." "They aren't civilized." "They don't understand work/marriage/diligence/thrift/insert pet virtue." So then you put them in a bad spot and expect them to take the high road. Yeah. You've got at least a thousand years of Christendom behind you informing your instincts, thoughts, and actions. Some of these people have a couple hundred years of sloppy evangelism and government mismanagement. By all means let's consider how they handle a difficult situation and then point fingers when they respond in less culturally mature ways. You could have helped them. Out of the largess that is Western Civilization you could have pointed to our stores of justice and mercy and the amassed learning of over two thousand years. You could have humbled yourselves just a little bit and learned to love a mountain like a Cherokee or love the blues like a Black. You could have, in receiving and appreciating the best in others, given the best of yourself. You could have taught a Gospel that didn't require people to be white (as defined by drinking tea or enjoying Chopin) and that instead redeemed their own culture and brought it into Christendom in the same way that Germany and England were brought into the Christendom of Rome and Greece.

But, as Allen pointed out, when it comes to culture wars I'm not the one out there on the front lines bashing people with a stick. There are other people who that, and some of them even do it well. I'm more behind the lines, trying to think two plays ahead. I don't just care about who we fight but how we fight. I want us to use the right words and clear thinking. Fortunately collateral damage from a blog post is rarely more serious than a few hurt feelings, but I dislike it when people like Laura Wood stop promoting the good in our own Anglo-European Christian culture and start bashing other people over an evil for which they are not wholly responsible. It does no good and only confuses the issue.

I'll close with this. Some people really appreciate Laura Wood's tightly moderated discussion. I'll admit it's a nice change from the mishmash you get on other sites. However, there's a question of transparency and integrity. I'm not saying that she lacks integrity but that it's harder to see it in that setting. My final comment on the post in question resulted from a private e-mail that Laura Wood sent me regarding the issue at hand. She didn't say she was going to post it, and she didn't ask. She also didn't include her question to me in framing my response. She posted one of my comments, her response, and then my response as if I were responding to her final comment. It's a minor issue I'll admit, but my respect for her abilities as a moderator fell somewhat. It didn't seem quite square to me. But that's an issue with bloggers anywhere. That's why I prefer not to take sides in issues of character between bloggers. If I only know you on-line it seems safer to just wish you well. I expect to no less from any bloggy friends should I find myself in some histrionic brouha.

You can be too humble

In my rambling across the blogsphere I came across Haley's Halo. She falls in line with a lot of generally conservative blogs except that she blogs more about things from a "Game" perspective. (Short, possibly inaccurate version - Game is a theory/practice whereby men are able to project/accrue status in a way that attracts and retains a higher class of mate(s) and avoids "nice guy syndrome.") Anyway, it's not something I see a whole lot of women writing about, so I was curious. Well, she's come across some real gems - one of which being this post on the trend of men (particularly Christian men) acting absolutely amazing that their wives manage to put up with their sorry backsides. It's rather silly how much they go on about how they don't deserve these women and how they'd be a complete mess without them ad infinitum. It sounds all humble and servant-y and sacrificial when in reality it's just a bunch of guys running themselves down in front of the women are supposed to be respecting, following, and looking up to them. To which the guys might respond "Well, she knows all the bad stuff anyway." Sure she does, and the expectation is that she'll continue to deal with the junk and find a way to respect and love you through that just as you're expected to deal with her junk while still loving and honoring her. If you're running yourself down all the time it sets up two scenarios. First, you're just looking for her to come right back and tell you how wonderful and caring and inspiring you are and how actually she's the one who doesn't deserve just a crazy awesome spouse. Secondly, you really do think she's displaying extraordinary perseverance in the face of your glaring faults. If the first is true you're resorting to jr high levels of interpersonal manipulation and neediness, and if the second is true you're giving her the idea that your bad stuff is special and she does deserve special credit for putting up with you and that if she was with another man she wouldn't have to put up with all this junk because, as you've said all along, she really deserves a man who will treat her better and not put her through the rigors of his imperfectly sanctified humor. The first thing is annoying, but the second thing is toxic because there's a good chance that if you tell a woman this long enough she'll come to believe you. Oops! Now instead of being ingratiatingly humble you're being berated or sighed at for stuff that just happens in marriage - like not being able to read her mind and spontaneously bringing home pizza for dinner one night when she spent all day making lasagna. I know what I'm talking about guys - if you tell your wife often enough how bad you are at something she'll start to believe you. Instead, give her reasons to respect you. Talk about something you accomplished at work. Explain why some politician/theologian/mechanic is completely up a tree on some issue and what they should be doing differently. Look for chances to flex your integrity muscles and help your wife grow in character and righteousness. Fill up her respect tank so that when you do come home feeling utterly defeated and disparaged your wife can dish it right back out to you. (And by which I don't mean that wifely respect should be conditional - it's just that it's easier to respect a man when has respect for himself.)

Along those lines I'd like to share one of the most honest love songs on the air today.

A rant - on men and marriage and blogs without comment moderation

I've tried to keep this post tame, but you might not want your kid reading every single word.


Over the past few months (year?) I've done my fair share of rambling through the world of manosphere/Game/anti-feminist/marriage oriented blogs. And it's depressing. Like really depressing. I realize that our no-fault-take-the-kids-and-all-his-money divorce system is also really depressing, but this other stuff is also bad? Why? (Now remember this is a rant ie not a carefully thought out series of syllogisms). Because it's patronizing. And whiny. And vicious. And contains about at much logic as the ocean contains longleaf pines. On one hand the guys have a point - marriage in America is messed up, but it goes beyond that. From elementary school onwards men are increasingly pushed into ways of thinking and acting that come easier to girls - in skills ranging from fine motor skills in kindergarten to collaborative thinking in offices to "sharing" at the church's men's group. It's hard being a rough and tumble boy in this sociological climate. Heck, it's hard being a quiet, studious, won't take guff from anyone kind of boy. Unless you're into "feelings" and telling women what they want to hear it's hard to fit in anywhere. So we get the manosphere/men's rights movement. And I'm not just rolling my eyes. For one of my philosophy classes I elected to report on The Myth of Male Power. Not exactly a feminist screed. And what I read really amazed me and changed the way I felt about men in general. I didn't realize that in many ways sex discrimination had swung so far over as to actually discriminate against men - particularly with regards to the law. But the way the author is this book reacted against it was all wrong. The way most men react to this reality is all wrong. Instead of "manning up," a phrase they hate, they do a whole lot of whining about how this b*^&% left them with no clue and took everything. They whine about the pastors who shame men and praise women. They whine about the women who won't sleep with them, and then they whine they can't find some little virgin to have their babies. If a girl disagrees with them they just refer to her menstrual cycle or compare her brains to rodent wheel. When a girl does kiss up to them they accept her contributions as fitting tributes to their maleness. Then they whine some more when a woman says that women can divorce for reasons beyond "And I caught him bed with that whore when I came home late one day after driving all over town to find his favorite brand of car wax!" Just because your last wife accused you of "emotional cruelty" doesn't mean that your neighbor's wife didn't actually experience it! Now who's arguing based on their emotions? Really?

And for the record I really don't think men suck. I do think they should in general behave in a more assertive/less PC gentle manner than they currently do, but I don't think men suck. I just think men are capable of a whole lot more than finger-pointing and blaming. If you hate the church you're attending you could talk with the pastor, start a group for men to discuss issues pertinent to them, or even decide to join the pastorate yourself and start a church that is able to value men and women without devaluing either one. If your wife drags you to a counselor who plays the "mean man" card then calmly but firmly tell your wife that you won't be coming back (or paying for her to go back) until you find a counselor who is able to respect both your roles. If you haven't been having sex for months don't be surprised when she divorces you! You should have been talking about this after 7-10 days! Of course her reasons for leaving you are BS! She's probably fighting the real reasons tooth and nail. You've got a couple of options. Listen to her rail at you and then go whine to your blogfriends, or ask her what's really going on and keep working at it until you figure it out. Any savvy counselor knows that the reason most likely isn't the reason. Here's a question. Ask what's got her so scared. If things have been rocky she might be scared you don't care if she leaves, so maybe she's going to test the waters. Maybe no one ever told her that women can be attracted to multiple men and therefore she's scared she made a mistake (or that she's going to make a mistake). Whatever you do, don't just stand there. Unless of course you're a radical egalitarian and don't believe that men have ecclesiastical or paternal headship. In which case you should probably just go back to your man cave and pray to your large screen tv. It probably won't do any good, but at least you can watch the game. But if you're a MAN that means that you've got agency, authority, and responsibility. In short, you can act. Incidentally is also means that when your wife leaves that she left under your watch. That doesn't mean you were a crappy husband, but it does mean that you were supposed to be there at the wheel guiding things along and that you actually being down the hold counting rocks doesn't change anything. To extend the metaphor, an unfaithful wife is guilty of desertion and not mutiny. It's still your ship even if she decides to scupper the bilge and scram.

So when I say "man up" what exactly am I saying? I'm not saying that men should be more touchy-feely, sacrificial, whatever-says-goes appeasers. Although I haven't seen the movie I think that given what I've heard "Fireproof" is a pretty dumb movie. Buying your wife's love isn't being a good husband. My dad was an appeaser. Let me tell you, it often sucked. You're heard the saying "If Momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy!" It should read, "If Momma ain't happy she should keep it to herself and stop blaming the kids!" While I do talk with Allen when I'm frustrated I really do try to keep in a "I"m trying to work out my emotions" vein and not a "you know you really tick me off because (insert inconsequential reason here)." That said, if I'm not talking about appeasement, what do I mean by "manning-up"? I mean that men can and should be proactive with their wives. They should be talking enough to know when she's bringing home bad attitudes from her fabulous single bar-hopping friends so that he can encourage her to spend time with other women (young moms, her aunts, a deacon's wife, his friend's wife) who can encourage her personally and as a wife. Note that I'm saying husbands have a measure of authority/responsibility over how their wives spend their time. In a similar vein he can be on the lookout to encourage efforts at womanliness - compliment her when she wears a nice skirt or when you're at a bookstore ask if there's a cookbook or home design book she's been eying that y'all could get while you're there. If she already cooks for you then appreciate it, and teach your kids to appreciate it. If all that sounds too wishy-washy for you, try this one - keep encouraging her to do things that please you. I tend to not put the lids back on things, but after a year of Allen saying "Hey, Natalie, I'd appreciate you putting lids back on things" it's actually a pretty consistent habit with me. Allen is happy there aren't lids cluttering up the counters, and I'm happy that I'm doing something of which Allen approves. Finally, this is something Allen mentioned early on in our marriage. Men should look for ways to genuinely say yes to their wives. Hear me out. This doesn't mean that men need to bend over backwards to a wife's unreasonable demands. With some men it might seem like all her demands are unreasonable, but keep looking. If from a cloud of BS you suddenly hear, "And this darn faucet has been driving me crazy 'cause half of it sprays sideways when you try to use it" then let me suggest you hie yourself to Home Depot so you can replace her faucet. What have you done? You've listened to her. You've met a legitimate need. You've provided. You've done what a good husband should do. Hopefully you've even spoken to her heart. At any rate, you aren't just standing there anymore.

And finally, can I just say that the emotions and language used by these manosphere bloggers is just over the top and often gross? Allen says to not read the comments because nothing good happens in comment threads, but I like to scan them to get a sense of the context in which a post or blog exists. Whoo boy. The manosphere isn't for the faint of heart. If someone even suggests that men have responsibility in a marriage that's broken up or that they're swaggering around with egos like a couple of big balloons taped to their puffed out chests then the finger pointing, sarcastic, patronizing "wit" that is man scorned descends on the sinners head like crude oil erupting from an old Texas geyser. And here's where my woman card probably comes the most into play. I don't get it. These guys all talk game theory and then when someone on the internet says something they don't like, instead of ignoring it with alpha male disdain, they show up en-mass and complain. And by complain I don't mean refute. I mean they toss around words like "strawman" and "feminits" and "wimmin" and "betrayal" and generally pound their chests a lot. I recently saw a great deal of this on a blogpost talking about power dynamics in relationships and ego. You'd 'a thought she posted pictures of a diminutive nature and attached their name to it. My stars! But here's the deal, "hurt feelings" is a (immature) woman's game, and men who do it pretty instantly lower their status. So they have to do a whole lot of patronizing and posturing so it doesn't look like they're complaining. "Oh, what's that? I'm not licking my wounds. This is an old injury I got the time I bagged a supermodel while wrestling a boa constrictor on a peak in the Alps. I just think it's a pity you're probably eating cold ramen alone with your eight cat." On another site I also saw several references to whether or not it'd be a good idea to deliver some verbal smack down to an opponent since it would lead all the women reading said smack down to become sexually aroused. EWWWW! Creepy old internet dude. I'm beginning to wish I'd followed Allen's advice to not read the comments. For being a bitter old man who doesn't care about women he seemed pretty intent on the reactions he could elicit from said women.

Speaking of comments (and I promise I'll close with this), I saw plenty of comments relegating women to the role of disobedient child. It seems like all us wimmin need a firm disciplining hand in order to be good woman and receive the sexual fulfillment we crave. I gotta ask - where was this "firm hand" when that wife your were excoriating three comments ago left you? I suppose you woke up and learned game and have been having a high time of it since. But how many chaste, emotionally stable women have you attracted? Oh, 0. That's what I thought. While the principles of being alpha (ie displaying assertive, confident, somewhat dominant characteristics) might be generally attractive to women, the only women who are attracted to guys who think all women are emotional unstable are...(wait for it)...emotionally unstable. Maybe that's why some of these guys are so up in arms about "emotional abuse." Although I'll agree that the definition of emotional abuse has been stretched to mean something more like "and I just wasn't very happy," if you'll read a little about hardcore game theorists a lot of what goes on is certainly manipulative and at least borderline abusive. Just because she likes the bad boys doesn't mean that jerking her around constantly is in any way, shape, or form moral or manly. Trying that sort of BS on emotionally mature, chaste women will get you exactly no where, and men who respect women will despise you. By respecting women I mean men who are willing and able to lead their wives and daughters and who understand their wive's feminine gifts as a unique complement to their own. They aren't threatened when women roll their eyes at the funny things men do because they're either too busy doing those things or rolling their own eyes at the funny things women do. High status or low, they are confident enough in their own masculine ways of thinking and doing that they aren't offended when their wives express a similar confidence and pleasure in her own ways of doing things. These are the men who can protect and love women without becoming or creating either slave or tyrant.

Ok, so what does this amount to? Stop whining. Respecting yourself doesn't mean disrespecting women. God made men to be leaders - abdicating doesn't make it the woman's fault. Yes, there are some messed up women out there. You can still keep praying and looking. I was a messed up woman once myself, but Allen hasn't had any complaints :)

Nosy neighbors and involved communities

So here's a bone I want to pick from one of the Thinking Housewife's posts. The basic gist is that a woman wrote in talking about her experience with a neighbor ringing the doorbell and inquiring why she'd been hearing a child crying/screaming for the past hour. For context I'll add that this particular mom had decided, after making sure this wasn't a tired/hungry issue, to let her son work out his toddler tantrum alone in his room hoping that he'd cool down with a little space. During this process a neighbor rang her doorbell, expressed concern, and offered to help. This is part of the resulting conversation -starting the with mom quizzing her neighbor in turn.

“Do you tell parents it’s okay to let infants cry to sleep in their cribs? Because that’s NOT okay!” I spit that out fast.

“No, I don’t. How old is she?” (The fact that she automatically assumed it was a girl further annoyed me.)

“He is a boy, and he’s 18 months.”

“Well, I am a psychologist and I would like to come help you.”

“NO!” I was so annoyed.

“I am a mother,” I declared.

She smiled at me, as if she was thinking, “Oh, you’re so sweet; you think that matters!” But at the time, I thought maybe I had made some headway with my confident assertion.

“This is my second child. I did the same with my first, and he is a very obedient, well-mannered little boy.”

“But you may not want them to be obedient and well-mannered — (my face said, huh??) – you might want them to have free spirits.”

I laughed. I said, “You know, that’s the trouble with parents today is that they’re listening to that ridiculous advice. Pride is the root of all sin! I want my boys to be humble!”

“Can I come in to help?”

“NOOOO!” I was shocked that she was asking again. What nerve!

“Well, fine. But if I hear it again, I’ll call the police.”

“Go ahead!” I yelled, as she stomped down my driveway.

First, this neighbor was clearly off base with regards to threatening to call the police and how parents should discipline their kids. The former is a serious threat, and I really don't think people should be able to make anonymous "tips" about people like that. It's way too easy for disgruntled neighbors or people who just differ from you to wreck havoc. However, I was slightly baffled by the whole "atta girl" response to this post.

Here are my problems:

1. There was no call to be accusatory ("Do you tell people...?")

2. Assertions about peoples motives are highly problematic.

3. She didn't have to justify her parenting methods.

4. There were zero reasons for this mom to be offended in the first place.

Let me start with my last point. In the sort of communities in which people say they'd like to live I can easily imagine adults checking in when something seems to be a problem. You hear of cases where kids were terribly abused and people wonder where all the other adults were. Probably minding their own business. This is my default as well. But imagine a community where people did knock on each other's doors? I'd say the default for this should be "Hi, Mrs. Davies, I heard little Davies hollering for the past hour, so I thought I'd just step over and make sure no one was hurt." At which point Mrs. Davies calmly explains that her son is working out a little temper, was just told he couldn't visit his grandparents this weekend, in time-out for coloring on his sister's doll, etc. Everything looks good, and the neighbor walks away. But imagine the mom comes to the door drunk, or there's a new babysitter who hit the oldest, or the dad fell down the stairs and is hurt. In all those cases everyone would be better off for having a neighbor (and a neighborhood) where people knock on doors. The assumption should be that everything is ok, but when things do go wrong you've got eyes to see. While I agree that this neighbor sounds pretty out of touch (and potentially dangerous) I disagree that this sort of behavior is innately offensive.

The other points are mostly secondary. If I were the neighbor in question and the mom started acting all huffy and defensive I'd probably get a little nosier myself. If I ask you a parenting question (even if it's just "can I help you") and you return with baseless accusations, that doesn't exactly reflect the model of calm, competent motherhood that sets bystanders at ease. I'm guessing this mom felt judged ("Is she classing me with those people") and instantly made a defensive jab. Understandable and completely non-helpful. If someone asks you about your child all you know about that person (barring past history and perhaps extremely keen insight) is that they're asking about your kid. Now obviously I don't have kids, but I have had people question (and even shun) me over important decisions I've made. Bearing people's judgement isn't easy (ask me, I still do it all the time), but eventually you just have to smile and let things roll off your back.

How do I think this mom should have handled this? Like I said before, with as gracious a smile as she could muster and a "Thanks for checking on us, but Jason's just working off his toddler angst." If you feel inclined to go further you might mention that you thought letting him have a private tantrum in his room the best way to deal with it and ask whether your neighbor has any tips for dealing with bewildering toddler moods. Take the good advice, and just smile if you get a bunch of pc parenting light. It's really not that big a deal. If we're going to live in and cultivate the kind of communities where people have each other's backs then you'll have to deal with people actually asking if things are ok. When my pastor asks how my marriage is going I don't assume he saw Allen out to dinner with a tarted up skirt. I do assume he cares about us and wants to make sure small problems don't become larger ones. That's what a community does.

Homemakers and the economic downturn

Reading The Thinking Housewife I've frequently come across an opinion that I've occasionally thought but rarely expressed - that even if a woman is fully skilled and qualified to work at a career or profession that it is economically beneficial for her to remain at home. With unemployment at depressingly high levels we really don't need another warm body applying for that HR/data entry/managerial position. Women say they can't afford not to work when really the uncomfortable truth is that their uncles, brothers, sons, and even their single/divorced/widowed woman friends are the ones who can't afford it. It's simple supply and demand. If there are a pool of 20 male pharmacists in a given region and 10 female pharmacists enter that pool you've just increased the number of applicants for any open position. We'll further assume at least half of them (10 men/5 women) are highly qualified. A savvy hiring manager looks at the employment statistics and surmises that he can take his pick and probably not have to pay or treat them terribly well because (as he's seen during the application process) there are plenty more highly qualified pharmacists out there looking for a job. Let's further assume that 2 of those men retire and 8 of those women get married and become housewives. You've now eliminated 1/3 of the labor pool. Supply and demand tells us that for each of the remaining 20 pharmacists the demand for their labor has increased. When demand increases an employer also has increasing incentives to offer competitive (read: higher) wages and a stable, respectful work environment. In short, employee acquisition and retainment becomes more important. Wages are higher and jobs become more secure. For women moaning about how it's so difficult to be a housewife or full time mom, that means their husbands will have more income and better job security. In short, they benefit.

Now some people are going to say this is overly simplistic, and I realize that it doesn't take into account all the different factors in a given job market. Some jobs (oil rig tech) will always be dominated by men while other jobs (elementary education) will probably retain a fair number of women, which, incidentally doesn't bother me in the least. This isn't a screed again women working outside the home. There are plenty of women employed for perfectly legitimate reasons. However, when you take into account the larger job market, it's generally true that when people remove themselves from the employment pool in large numbers the price of a given person's labor will rise. Since I believe women should be generally home focused it makes sense that married women with and without children can benefit their communities by freeing up jobs for men. Mothers will naturally have their hands full, but I believe that women without children can likewise find fruitful occupation.

That brings me to the homemaker part of this post's title. There were several places in which Laura Wood at Thinking Housewife has vigorously defended the title of housewife in general and, in some cases, specifically said she prefers "housewife" to "homemaker." The argument itself isn't important, but it made me think about why I always refer to myself as "occupation: homemaker" and never as "housewife." First, I like the idea of having a home. We've all heard people repeat folksy quips about the difference between a house and home. They're cliched, but actually they're pretty good cliques for the most part. A well decorated house isn't necessarily a home. A house in chaotic order isn't necessarily a home. The word "home" embodies a quality of warmth, safety, and generosity that doesn't necessarily follow from the blue lines on an architect's drawings. I also like the active emphasis of the term "homemaker." It reminds me that I should be actively engaged in creating something beautiful, respectable, and worthwhile. My goal is one of those essential intangibles like grace or charity that are primarily conspicuous by their absence. Far from being a brainless occupation it requires character, intelligence, generosity, diligence, grace - in sum the total of a woman's resources. It can't be done by rote as doing it well requires careful study of the people who enter your home and the wise ministering of time and resources. This all sounds terribly high and lofty as I'm writing, and even though I'm describing aspirations instead of accomplished deeds I still think I'm saying something true. What we do matters terribly. It matters to the men who are trying to provide for their families, and it matters to families. I even think it matters to couples of all ages who aren't raising children even if we've forgotten what roles those families used to fill in our communities. For all those reason I want to be a homemaker. Some days I'm a lazy homemaker, but every time I write a blog post like this or spend a day painting the living room or anything of that nature it solidifies my resolve. This stuff matters.

Families without roots

A while back I stumbled on a the adventures of a traveling family, and by traveling I mean a little more than two weeks in July. This is a family that lives year round on the road traveling all across Asia and who knows where. I have to admit, after years spent hitting the road, their lifestyle seemed attractive if a little impractical, but after some more consideration I've concluded that for Christians such a lifestyle is probably better avoided. While I don't believe my objections carry significant moral weight, I do believe my reasons are largely sound.

1. Who is your neighbor?

When you're traveling all over the world/country/continent it has to be hard finding church communities wherein you can grow and learn to serve your neighbor. Suppose you speak English and Spanish and are spending a month in Korea? Where is your fellowship? Too many Christians are already going to church with a shop around, consumer mentality for me to think lightly of people voluntarily entering a situation that will drastically limit their opportunities for corporate worship. If we're going to actively love and serve and encourage and challenge each other that requires an investment in time you won't get if you're constantly moving on. While I'm not at church every single Sunday, I am there most Sundays. I grew up church hopping - going to one church for a few weeks or a couple years and then one Sunday just not going. I've got a lot of memories and no friends from those years. Fast forward to shortly after Allen and I met. For ten years (on and off as we've moved away and come back) we've been part of one church and one denomination. I've got roots here. There are kids here that I met at babies (or even attended their baby showers). Even if I don't know everyone so well as I would like, there's a history here and a form of faithfulness that we all come together and put up with each other. I don't really see how you can get that when you're always moving from city to city.

2. Where is your family?

While there are a few people who may be doing this without leaving grandparents, aunts, and other extended family behind that's not the norm for more families. There are siblings and parents and cousins and others who should have a place in your life. So maybe your kids have splashed in the Tigris and the Nile. Maybe they speak a little Mandarin or a have a favorite German street food. Is that more important than having a grandfather who taught them to build a fire on their first camping trip? Is it more important than the great pillow fight of '09 between your kids and your sister's kids? What about the Christmas Uncle Joe let them light bottle rockets? Do grandmothers not color in picture books anymore? The Bible is pretty big on taking care of family, and that's hard to do when family is on a whole different continent. You might not see Argentina very well in two weeks, but at least you'll be teaching your kids that love of people and duty towards family comes before treating life like some egoistic pleasure cruise.

3. What about your stuff?

This is probably going to sound like the least Christian objection. After all, if we're going to Heaven then working to earn a bunch of stuff seems kind of pointless. Except that God says it's not. Throughout the Bible God praises the wise and the diligent - the who seeks to lay up and inheritance for his children and who gives generously to the poor. When you seek a lifestyle that allows little for charity but gives you lots of "freedom" and "options" the main recipient of your generosity is yourself. We have a God who loves to give us good things, and some of the things might weight down the carefully curated selection of personal items in your L.L. Bean backpacks. That's ok! Stop spending your life focused solely on what you want to get out of it.

With all that said I love the idea of people traveling together as families. I think it's a huge blessing and a wonderful way for families to enjoy each other. I just think there are ways to travel that don't involve neglecting our duties to our families and to God. My family used to see a lot in nine days of RV travel. Some people might be able to take a month. I'm all for it. I just don't think it's wise for Christians to emulate this sort of vagabond, world traveler lifestyle. To me it smacks of egocentricity and a willful avoidance of the sort of productive community life I believe God desires for us.

Caveat: I realize that some of my objections can apply to foreign missionaries, and I don't want to sound like I believe long term life away from one's family or in an environment the necessitates few possessions is always wrong. Missionaries in many ways pay a high price for their service. The drawbacks are real, but the commission is also real.

Thoughts from a thinker - regarding sex ed.

Lately I've been spending a whole lot of time reading the Thinking Housewife. Talk about information overload! She is a prolific poster on many aspects of Christian and Western European/North American culture. For the most part I highly recommend her blog, but every once in a while I came across a comment that just made my fingertips itch. Right now I plan to get in a little scratching. I'm going to schedule some of them out though so that it doesn't become an extended monologue :)

In the comments following a post about some crazy Canadian educators who think sex ed should cover ways to tell if a drunk girl is really "consenting" I found, what I felt to be, a rather disturbing statement of the hyper-conservative kind.

Mary posted the following:

Parents abdicated because they were convinced by educators that one must discuss the *mechanics* of sex with their children. This is patently absurd and most unnecessary, as obviously the human species has managed to proliferate without classroom instruction for time immemorial. There is nothing embarassing about telling children that the procreative act is beautiful and sacred and reserved for marriage; delicate language delivers the message home without awkwardness because the children are not hearing nonsense or embarrassing detail from a stranger in a classroom full of people, but they are receiving eternal truth from the person designed by God to instruct them in eternal truths; and so they are beautifully receptive to it.

Especially in this day and age when they’re bombarded with images to the contrary, it’s a actually relief for children and teenagers to be told that this is something they don’t have to worry about yet, that they can take their time and grow up; that physical intimacy is one of the goods of married people and until they are married they need not be concerned about it. They are free to wonder in innocence and look forward to something lovely and to in confidence move beyond the pervasive sexual pressure present in our society. (emphasis mine)

.

Frankly, I think Mary has been parenting with a bucket on her head if she thinks she can just allude to some rather pleasant "procreative act" and leave her teenaged children to a sort of pre-Christmas blissful ignorance. Heaven help the poor kids if they visit a farm, pick up a book from the library (or the bookshelf - Dr. Dobson's book for adolescents anyone?), or spend a couple hours walking around the mall. Regrettably, we live in a highly sexualized culture, but we can't just wish it away. While I think that telling kids sex isn't something they shouldn't really be thinking about (ie concerned with) for a few years it probably good encouragement, I think that discussion should be framed with the understanding that kids will get as much information as they want (and is appropriate) from their parents. An older woman I know once told me she thought a girl could get pregnant if she was wearing a swimsuit and sitting next to boy also wearing a swimsuit. We hear stuff like that and laugh, but I'm sure it probably caused more than a little unnecessary anxiety on her part.

I don't have kids yet, but I don't plan to let my daughters (and sons) wander around in an information vacuum. Kids are curious little buggers and will often keep asking questions until they get an answer. Be glad they're asking you and not running off to a librarian or the internet. I wasn't told more than the bare minimum (which I already knew thanks to the good doctor mentioned above), and when I looked for more information I didn't always find the good stuff. I'm not saying that you should sit your kids down for a full move by move discussion, but it should be more than "Tab A, Slot B, feels good, makes babies, but don't until you're married." Talk to them about temptation and chastity. Don't leave them vulnerable to someone who might prey on their ignorance. Give them a true innocence that sees the good in God's order and dismissed all mankind's perversions. And if you can't parent up and deal with a little embarrassment then at least find some Mother in Israel who can answer their questions and fears and desires with humor, dignity and wisdom. Heaven knows someone needs to do it.


P.S.

I find it hilarious that she refers to a "sacred" "procreative act." Sex might be all that, but it's not only that. There's a whole lot of warmth and humor and enthusiasm and just plain old play as well. Sex is a pretty boisterous part of life and not something you pack away in dried lavender along with your first locket and Nana's lace hankies.