It seems that we homeschoolers have a reputation as weirdo outliers, a fringe group. I always figured as much, but have had a difficult time realizing just how strange we homeschoolers are when a huge chunk of my social circle are homeschooling parents. It's a cultural norm for us. Thus I had a moment of clarity while spelunking the HSLDA website the other day, when I came across a report that suggests, yes, homeschooling parents really do earn their weirdo outlier rep, as we are quite distinct in nature and behavior from more mainstream society, even while we produce a far superior product when compared to public schools. Consider:
- Homeschooling parents are nearly always married (98%)...versus 60-70% of PS students
- Homeschooling parents are unusually fecund (average of 3.5 children vs 2.0 children per family)
- Homeschooling parents are heavily Protestant (82%), less Roman Catholic (12%), and rarely atheist/agnostic (1%), Jewish (.4%), Mormon (.8%), or Moslem (.1%), compared with the national averages
Reading the study, I wonder if a goodly part of the superior results of homeschooling are an artifact of children being raised in the home of their married parents. I speculate that the marriage factor has a huge effect...just as with other measures of life success (wealth, criminality, IQ, unwed teenage motherhood, and the level of teen male social integration), whether or not children grow up in the home of their own married parents makes a decisive difference.
Not trying to take anything away from homeschooling mind you--for I am as little impressed with the Taylorized Prussian model of schooling as anyone--but I don't think I've seen any research that controlled for parent's marital status when comparing the test scores of homeschooled versus PS kids. How much of the superior test scores of homeschoolers is a function of the fact that they still live under the roof of both of their parents?
Speaking of test scores, I spied something interesting in the study that attracted my attention, both as a father and as a brother man. The study found that homeschooled boys test at the same level as homeschooled girls, which is a finding akin to dynamite in my opinion. For all that "end of men", "child man in the promised land" crowing that Mmes Rosin and Hymowitz have done, the hapless men they talk about are raised in increasingly female-led broken (or never-formed) homes, stewed in the fever swamp of anti-male feminist pop culture, and matriculated from fem-friendly public schools, themselves beset by policies and practices that boost girls while shoving boys aside or even down.
In light of these points of data, it seems to me that one of the best thing parents can do to save their children, and their sons in particular, is to (a) stay married, and (b) keep them out of the jaws of the public school system.
In this day and age, that seems to be weird. Times two.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Thursday, October 27, 2011
E Pluribus Universalum
Author's note: it is not my object to ignite a sectarian brawl with this post, as I'm fully aware that the distinctions that fundie Evangelicals can make to contrast themselves with say, Roman Catholics or Mormons, are easily made by those same faiths toward Evangelicals. Rather, my goal is to highlight how suppressing the public expression of these differences because it may be rude to some may serve a larger, more nefarious purpose than simply enforcing decorous behavior.
In a world where avoiding giving offense and inclusiveness are sacraments, it seems that drawing clear-cut distinctions between religious beliefs is a blatant act of bigotry and prejudice:
Which leads to some interesting considerations. First is that, when all religions are equal, there becomes little reason for major religions to exist at all, let alone individual denominations, with the result that the people themselves become completely irreligious (in the traditional sense) and thoroughly corruptible. Like a leaf in the wind, they are easily blown one direction and another. Second, such a squishy and pliant mass of value-free people strikes me as being ridiculously fertile soil to evangelize...into, say, acolytes for sec-humanism and their worship of that State-as-Lord. Third, that such a malleable population would lack the moral foundation upon which to discriminate between good and evil, Truth and lies. And how can they? For if all religions are equal, if none may lay claim to the Truth, then there is no absolute morality, no way to point to Evil without offending someone and sinning.
This I think is where diversity, pluralism, inclusivity takes us. To the lowest common denominator. To no belief whatosever, except that which does not offend. And certainly no labelling of others' beliefs "cultish", or worse, "Anti-Christ". Welcome to the Universalist Church of Sec Humanism.
This article first appeared at the blog Traditional Christianity on October 24th, 2011.
In a world where avoiding giving offense and inclusiveness are sacraments, it seems that drawing clear-cut distinctions between religious beliefs is a blatant act of bigotry and prejudice:
Several months ago, the media was in a tizzy over its sudden discovery of a doctrinal statement held by the church formerly attended by Minnesota Representative and GOP presidential contender Michele Bachmann. On July 13, Joshua Green of The Atlantic breathlessly reported his exciting discovery: Did you know that the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod's doctrinal statement states, in part, "... It is Scripture which reveals that the Papacy is the Antichrist?" Well-coiffed TV newspeople were aghast. Blogs were abuzz. Talking heads were incensed. And they all asked the same question: In light of this shocking theological discovery we've all just made, is Michele Bachmann an anti-Catholic bigot?Mainstream society, populated by quite a few of those who call themselves Christians, appears to have adopted a tepid, therapeutic Universalist faith that claims that all religions are basically the same and that salvation is evinced by overtly kind acts, inoffensive behavior, and inclusive thoughts and speech. The media, for its part, reflecting the theological ignorance of the society it serves, attempts to normalize this Universalism by name-calling and ad hominem attacks upon those so obtuse as to dinstinguish between sects or, gasp, claim that there is one Way, Truth, and Light. Put simply, under can't-we-all-just-get-along Universalism, it nigh upon scandalous, even sinful, for religious folk to declare their beliefs if such a declaration implies their belief system makes a claim of salvation that excludes other faiths and/or denominations.
Meanwhile, confessional evangelical Christians were yawning. Martin Luther's views on the papacy are in the Smalcald Articles, which he wrote in 1537...[h]ey, media: Way to blow the lid off a 500-year-old story!
On Friday, Jeffress introduced and endorsed Texas Gov. Rick Perry at the Family Research Council's Values Voter Summit. He went on to describe the faith of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney --the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - as a "cult." The reaction was immediate, and nowhere stronger than from Dr. Bill Bennett, [who]...rebuked Jeffress for his reference to Mormonism as a cult. "Do not give voice to bigotry," Bennett said in his speech at the same summit Saturday morning.
The question is this: Why is it bigotry to call Mormonism a cult? As even Jeffress himself put it to reporters: "That is a mainstream (Christian) view, that Mormonism is a cult." He's right. And again, Christians everywhere are saying: "This isn't even news." Mormons claim a belief in God, in Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost, but they do not believe in the Trinity, which the Bible teaches and Christians claim as a core doctrine. Mormons are not even monotheistic, as Christians are. They are polytheistic, believing in many gods. Perhaps most disturbing to Christians is the Mormon belief in the doctrine of "eternal progression," the idea that man may one day become a god himself. As fifth LDS president Lorenzo Snow put it: "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become." These doctrines are not taught anywhere in the Bible.
Which leads to some interesting considerations. First is that, when all religions are equal, there becomes little reason for major religions to exist at all, let alone individual denominations, with the result that the people themselves become completely irreligious (in the traditional sense) and thoroughly corruptible. Like a leaf in the wind, they are easily blown one direction and another. Second, such a squishy and pliant mass of value-free people strikes me as being ridiculously fertile soil to evangelize...into, say, acolytes for sec-humanism and their worship of that State-as-Lord. Third, that such a malleable population would lack the moral foundation upon which to discriminate between good and evil, Truth and lies. And how can they? For if all religions are equal, if none may lay claim to the Truth, then there is no absolute morality, no way to point to Evil without offending someone and sinning.
This I think is where diversity, pluralism, inclusivity takes us. To the lowest common denominator. To no belief whatosever, except that which does not offend. And certainly no labelling of others' beliefs "cultish", or worse, "Anti-Christ". Welcome to the Universalist Church of Sec Humanism.
This article first appeared at the blog Traditional Christianity on October 24th, 2011.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Tuesday Tomfoolery - Honey Badger Edition
Turns out that "honey badger" is quite the meme these days...but honey badger doesn't give a sh!t...
Sunday, October 23, 2011
How the Female Sentencing Discount Works
It starts just like this...with loaded, presumptive language that casts females as weak victims-in-waiting and men as perps:
Only those who bother to read further discover that these two female customers initiated the entire episode by vaulting over the counter and attacking a McDonald's cashier, after which he proceeded to strike them with a metal rod. Even then the loaded language continued: "grabbed a metal bar and fought back with savage force", "deliver crushing blows", etc.
Now perhaps I'm reading into this a little bit, but it sure seems as though the article, the way it is worded, goes out of its way to paint the cashier as the aggressor and the two women as victims, despite their aggressive and threatening behavior (key mitigating facts we do not discover until later).
Now I'll grant you that one's right to self-defense stops as soon as your assailants lack the ability to continue the attack, and this fellow apparently, allegedly, kept whacking away after his two attackers fell to the ground, but as a commenter to the article pointed out, that legal precept has been shown to be a bit flexible as there are many cases where police officers continue to use force after the subject is down *cough* Rodney King *cough*, are not effectively resisting, and are let off the hook. Perhaps his actions--allegedly continuing to swing away--after they allegedly fell to the floor and posed no further threat, explains the disparity in charges.
As for me, despite this fellow's prior criminal record which at this moment appears to have no bearing on the present case, these two females had it coming to them. If more hood rats of either sex had their offers of violence matched with equal and/or greater violence, I daresay there would be less of it, for they would suffer the consequences of their breaches of the peace.
It is also interesting to consider how the pass our society grants to female violence only leads them inexorably to greater violence...and this time their violence was met with equal violence by a male mentally and physically prepared to dispense it.
Last, I hope this case goes to a jury trial. For if the comments to this article are representative of the attitude of McIntosh's peers, he'll walk.
A cashier at a McDonald's on West Fourth Street in Manhattan was captured on video savagely beating two female customers with a metal rod on Oct. 13, 2011.Note the tone and diction of the headline and first line of the story. "Cashier who beat customers claims self defense" and "Cashier ... savagely beat ... two female customers with a metal rod". If you didn't read any further you might conclude that this fellow started whaling on two (don't forget female...ergo the beat-down was extra-special bad) customers for no reason whatsoever, and is cravenly using the legal refuge of the violent scoundrel: the claim of self-defense.
NEW YORK (CBSNewYork/AP) - A McDonald's cashier jailed for beating two irate customers with a metal rod says he was only trying to defend himself.
Rayon McIntosh was arrested Oct. 13 after a wild fight inside a McDonald's in the Greenwich Village neighborhood in Manhattan. Video recorded by a customer showed two furious women vaulting a counter to attack McIntosh after some sort of dispute. McIntosh grabbed a metal bar and fought back with savage force, continuing to deliver crushing blows even after the women were incapacitated on the floor. McIntosh, 31, was arrested and charged with two counts of felony assault and criminal possession of a weapon while the two women were charged with menacing, disorderly conduct and trespassing.
Only those who bother to read further discover that these two female customers initiated the entire episode by vaulting over the counter and attacking a McDonald's cashier, after which he proceeded to strike them with a metal rod. Even then the loaded language continued: "grabbed a metal bar and fought back with savage force", "deliver crushing blows", etc.
Now perhaps I'm reading into this a little bit, but it sure seems as though the article, the way it is worded, goes out of its way to paint the cashier as the aggressor and the two women as victims, despite their aggressive and threatening behavior (key mitigating facts we do not discover until later).
Now I'll grant you that one's right to self-defense stops as soon as your assailants lack the ability to continue the attack, and this fellow apparently, allegedly, kept whacking away after his two attackers fell to the ground, but as a commenter to the article pointed out, that legal precept has been shown to be a bit flexible as there are many cases where police officers continue to use force after the subject is down *cough* Rodney King *cough*, are not effectively resisting, and are let off the hook. Perhaps his actions--allegedly continuing to swing away--after they allegedly fell to the floor and posed no further threat, explains the disparity in charges.
As for me, despite this fellow's prior criminal record which at this moment appears to have no bearing on the present case, these two females had it coming to them. If more hood rats of either sex had their offers of violence matched with equal and/or greater violence, I daresay there would be less of it, for they would suffer the consequences of their breaches of the peace.
It is also interesting to consider how the pass our society grants to female violence only leads them inexorably to greater violence...and this time their violence was met with equal violence by a male mentally and physically prepared to dispense it.
Last, I hope this case goes to a jury trial. For if the comments to this article are representative of the attitude of McIntosh's peers, he'll walk.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Missing the Gator Closest to the Boat
Note: This article first appeared over at Traditional Christianity on October 15, 2011.
Social conservatives correctly recognize Islam for the aggressive, take-no-prisoners existential threat to Western Civ that it is, and rightly object when the public schools feature apologia for Mohammedeanism:
Thus the Left's hysterics about how the "Right" is out to turn the election into a "religious war" are actually a very savvy and cynical ploy to neutralize the faithful on the Right from mobilizing the silent religious folk out there.
Savvy, cynical, and very correct on the facts.
Like it or not, we are deeply embroiled in a religious war for the soul of our culture, a war for which we Christians and others of faith in this country have yet to seriously mobilize. We usually flee in the face of name-calling, from the slightest hint of accusation that we may be massing to do unto state-worshipping sec-humanists what they have been doing to us for generations. We run, instead of standing our ground and fighting. And until that happens--the standing of one’s ground in opposition to sec-humanism's religious and cultural aggression--freaky fundie Evangelicals, serious Catholics, and Orthodox Jews will be successfully marginalized by humanist mockery.
Yes, the culture that bearded cane-wielding Moslems represent is a threat to post-Christian Western Civilization. But the far greater threat to Western Civ, measured in terms of political influence, institutional capture, and sheer numbers (i.e., atheists, nominal Christians, liberal Jews, and sec-humanists overwhelmingly outnumber Moslems in the West) is the culture of the Illiberal Left and their centuries-long pogrom to scrub all vestiges of the God of Christianity and Judaism from the culture. Ms. Gellar calls for "serious pushback" against the threat of Islam. Her call is duly noted, but wonder if she's exhausted all potential opportunities for "pushback" in her own life. Yes, there is her highly trafficked blog which she uses as a megaphone for pushback in her own way, but what is she doing wrt the threat in her immediate circle, the threat that invades her house via media, perhaps even propagated in her own political agitations? Is she unwittingly aiding and abetting in other spheres, say through support of so-called “tolerance” and multikulti, that she rejects in others?* Has she killed her television? Does she dress modestly and serve as a positive example of a faithful mother to her four children? (Being a helpmeet is presently off the table--she divorced in 2007--whether she is a "choice mommy" who performed a parendectomy on her family I do not know for certain.) Has she pulled her children from the Molech of public school, which teaches the sort of post-modern multikulti curriculum that enables the very incidents she deplores? Does she herself evangelize for the tri-partite civilizational model that assures freedom and liberty she apparently desires: a secular state, a Christianity-informed para-state, and an robust enveloping cultural framework of Christian/Orthodox Jewish morality?
No? Perhaps her sights are set too far out on the horizon. She should be working the five-meter target, the proximal threat of the religion of sec-humanism, a far more dangerous enemy at this point in time and in this particular location than the distant one of Islamism.
PS - I did note her spadework opposing political Islam earned her a fair bit of stink eye from the Southern Poverty Law Center. If it is true that one is honored by the robust opposition of one's adversaries, then she is quite honored indeed.
Social conservatives correctly recognize Islam for the aggressive, take-no-prisoners existential threat to Western Civ that it is, and rightly object when the public schools feature apologia for Mohammedeanism:
Last week, we found that schools across Georgia were Islamizing the curriculum by selling misogyny to children. They were using a lesson plan that glorifies the cloth coffin that Muslims dress women in, as well as polygamy:The authoress, Ms. Gellar, is correct that it is proselytizing ("dawah" is part of every Moslem's duty just as Christians are Commissioned to spread the Good News), and that the PS system in question is off base in doing so. But what I find curious is that, while social conservatives and Zionists of the Gentile or Jewish persuasion regularly sound the alarm about Israel, Islam, and Islam's incompatibility with either Christian society, post-Christian secular humanist society, and Christian / secular forms of government, they spend their energies opposing an enemy far away when another equally deadly enemy has overrun them. I'm talking about the religion of secular humanism which, although familiar to Western Christians and Jews alike, is just as inimical to the Christian culture as the aggressive and hostile religion of Islamists half a world away.
My name is Ahlima and I live in Saudi Arabia. ... Perhaps two differences Westerners would notice are that women here do not drive cars and they wear abuyah. An abuyah is a loose-fitting black cloth that covers a woman from head to toe. I like wearing the abuyah since it is very comfortable, and I am protected from blowing sand. ... I have seen pictures of women in the West and find their dress to be horribly immodest...women in the West do not have the protection of the Sharia as we do here. If our marriage has problems, my husband can take another wife rather than divorce me, and I would still be cared for. ... I feel very fortunate that we have the ShariaA parent, Hal Medlin, complained: "I thought this was absurd. [The teacher] was trying to compare Islamic rules of dress and how they compared to school uniforms, which I thought was a stretch. The principal and the [superintendent] agreed with me ... but they wouldn't agree with my premise that it put Islam in a positive light because of the [statements]."
Of course it put Islam in a positive light. This is not education, this is outright proselytizing. Bear in mind that these letters are fictitious -- propaganda created to soft sell misogyny. It is time our children were taught about the 270 million victims of over a millennium of jihadi wars, land appropriations, cultural annihilations, and enslavements. And the systematic dehumanization of women: honor killings, clitoridectomies, and so much more. Where is the caning? Where is the prohibition of women leaving the house without a male family member? Where is the prohibition of women driving?
This document was hosted on a public school district's official website. When we called attention to it, the lesson was quickly pulled and scrubbed from the web. But I have screenshots of everything, because I knew that as soon as I exposed this dawah (Islamic proselytizing), the school official quislings would scrub this material. And they did -- so they know that what they are promoting is wrong.
Serious pushback is required. Do it. What parents need to do every time the school gives a Muslim, or an imam, an opportunity for dawah is demand that the same accommodation be made for a priest, a rabbi, a Hindu holy man. This must be the knee-jerk reaction. A priest should be invited to speak about his trip to the Vatican and the beauty of Christianity; a Rabbi should discuss his life-changing experience at the Kotel, and how Judaism is the mother of monotheism.
Thus the Left's hysterics about how the "Right" is out to turn the election into a "religious war" are actually a very savvy and cynical ploy to neutralize the faithful on the Right from mobilizing the silent religious folk out there.
Savvy, cynical, and very correct on the facts.
Like it or not, we are deeply embroiled in a religious war for the soul of our culture, a war for which we Christians and others of faith in this country have yet to seriously mobilize. We usually flee in the face of name-calling, from the slightest hint of accusation that we may be massing to do unto state-worshipping sec-humanists what they have been doing to us for generations. We run, instead of standing our ground and fighting. And until that happens--the standing of one’s ground in opposition to sec-humanism's religious and cultural aggression--freaky fundie Evangelicals, serious Catholics, and Orthodox Jews will be successfully marginalized by humanist mockery.
Yes, the culture that bearded cane-wielding Moslems represent is a threat to post-Christian Western Civilization. But the far greater threat to Western Civ, measured in terms of political influence, institutional capture, and sheer numbers (i.e., atheists, nominal Christians, liberal Jews, and sec-humanists overwhelmingly outnumber Moslems in the West) is the culture of the Illiberal Left and their centuries-long pogrom to scrub all vestiges of the God of Christianity and Judaism from the culture. Ms. Gellar calls for "serious pushback" against the threat of Islam. Her call is duly noted, but wonder if she's exhausted all potential opportunities for "pushback" in her own life. Yes, there is her highly trafficked blog which she uses as a megaphone for pushback in her own way, but what is she doing wrt the threat in her immediate circle, the threat that invades her house via media, perhaps even propagated in her own political agitations? Is she unwittingly aiding and abetting in other spheres, say through support of so-called “tolerance” and multikulti, that she rejects in others?* Has she killed her television? Does she dress modestly and serve as a positive example of a faithful mother to her four children? (Being a helpmeet is presently off the table--she divorced in 2007--whether she is a "choice mommy" who performed a parendectomy on her family I do not know for certain.) Has she pulled her children from the Molech of public school, which teaches the sort of post-modern multikulti curriculum that enables the very incidents she deplores? Does she herself evangelize for the tri-partite civilizational model that assures freedom and liberty she apparently desires: a secular state, a Christianity-informed para-state, and an robust enveloping cultural framework of Christian/Orthodox Jewish morality?
No? Perhaps her sights are set too far out on the horizon. She should be working the five-meter target, the proximal threat of the religion of sec-humanism, a far more dangerous enemy at this point in time and in this particular location than the distant one of Islamism.
PS - I did note her spadework opposing political Islam earned her a fair bit of stink eye from the Southern Poverty Law Center. If it is true that one is honored by the robust opposition of one's adversaries, then she is quite honored indeed.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
You First
First Warren Buffett says the rich don't pay enough in taxes. Fair enough. To him I suggest "you first", and thus far it appears that his highly publicized concern that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary stops short of him writing a voluntary check to the US treasury. Now comes Rosanne Barr, suggesting that the rich and banksters should give up a hunk of their ill-gotten gains or else...party like it's 1789:
To her, since she is willing to lop the heads off those who have 20% more than her, I say "you first". Go ahead and give government the power to decapitate the greedy idle rich. Go ahead and put your head under that blade. What? Suddenly not interested? Hmmm.
How very predictably left wing. Apparently all this high-toned talk about using violence to extract other peoples' money for her own political ends, stops when the gun points at her.
I do say that I am in favor of the return of the guillotine and that is for the worst of the worst of the guilty.I take this time to note that her arbitrary $100 million mark between those who should have their incomes/wealth confiscated appears a bit self-serving. But never mind. The real question is: why stop there? Why establish the cutoff (no pun intended) at $100M? How much is enough to live on, really? $10M? $1M? $100K?
"I first would allow the guilty bankers to pay, you know, the ability to pay back anything over $100 million [of] personal wealth because I believe in a maximum wage of $100 million. And if they are unable tolive on that amount of that amount then they should, you know, go to the reeducation camps and if that doesn't help, then being beheaded,"
To her, since she is willing to lop the heads off those who have 20% more than her, I say "you first". Go ahead and give government the power to decapitate the greedy idle rich. Go ahead and put your head under that blade. What? Suddenly not interested? Hmmm.
How very predictably left wing. Apparently all this high-toned talk about using violence to extract other peoples' money for her own political ends, stops when the gun points at her.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Men...Polygamy's Biggest Losers
The gradual acceptance of homogamy in our post-Christian culture has been greeted by shrieks of panic from those reactionaries among us who, probably correctly, fear that homogamy opens the door to other unions traditionally considered outside the realm of socially approved behavior. One of these out-of-bounds unions is the practice of polygamy. Technically, "polygamy" refers to both polygyny and polyandry but, outside of the modern habit of awarding chilimony to divorcing mothers (little more than quasi-polyandry on a societal scale),* there are very few polyandrous marriages in human societies. Therefore, when someone uses the word "polygamy", they are usually discussing polygyny. Accordingly, I will use this more descriptive term when describing this phenomenon.
The conventional wisdom about polygyny is that it is an oppressive institution for women, while the men in such an arrangement must be lucky fellows indeed. After all, those randy guys get to bed a variety of women, while the women, well, why are they in that sort of a relationship again? This sclerotic conventional wisdom results in little analysis of how men fare wrt to polgyamy, while the presumed unhappy fate of women in polygynous relationships is minced, parsed, and kvetched about ad nauseum. This installment over at the American Thinker follows the same pattern. Men, those evil, dominant, oppressive creatures, are assumed to benefit from polygyny, while those poor women who enter into a polygynous relationship are thought to suffer horribly:
Pretty hefty indictments indeed. Some elements of the indictment ring true, such as the putative link between polygyny and a slippery slope toward pedophilia and the "Mean Girls" behavior of the senior wife to the junior "concubines". I could also grok the legal no-woman's land for those gals electing to conduct a husbandectomy...after all, how does one address the thorny problem of property division and custody of children when there are 5 other women and 7 children as stakeholders?
Other portions of Ms. Voshell's argument I find less than persuasive, for instance, that polygyny is incompatible with so-called equalitarian marriage, or polygynous relationships being sexual slavery for women. ** Regarding the latter, clearly Ms. Voshell hasn't considered the demands levied on a single man by the requirement to service the emotional and sexual needs of several women for life. I suspect the "yee-haw" novelty of bedding the same group of women time after time, day after day, week after week, would wear off after a year or ten. Furthermore, regarding Ms. Voshell's argument that polygyny would assure the dominance of the single man over his cowering harem, I beg to differ. In fact, I think the opposite is more likely to occur--the first, dominant wife would likely rise to the fore as the ruler of the roost. It will be she that sits atop the pecking order of the household, not the man who will likely spend most of his time out of the home earning the bread required to support multiple wives and children. While he may superficially lead, particularly in matters exterior to the home, inside the four walls of the house, if there is a dominating figure in the household, I think it will more likely be that of the first wife, the oldest, the original, rather than the supposed patriach.
But as mentioned before, these arguments are about the women. What about the guys?
First, this quote from Ms. Voshell's missive:
This brings me to the second assertion of Ms. Voshell, that men and women are creatures treated equally before the law. A cursory look at our laws demonstrates the falsity of such an assertion, for a great panalopy of laws exist to advantage women over men in American society in general and wrt relationships between the sexes specifically. Moreover, in cases where the law technically may be written in a sex-neutral manner, the law is applied in a heavily sex-biased way. Thus I am unmoved when Ms. Voshell frets about what is to become of women who elect to jettison their big love. Who will pay their bills? Who will get the children? Her assumption seems to be that men are legally advantaged in the partial dissolution of a polygynous relationship. I do not share her concern, for while such jurisprudence may not yet be established, legal and social momentum up to this point has been to tax a man/men to ameliorate the consequences of a woman's choices. Therefore I strongly suspect a woman "escaping" from a polygynous relationship will receive the same helping cultural, psychological, and financial support as is presently provided to other women in more conventional relationships who are divorcing their husbands.
Third, polygyny will not benefit all men equally. It is simple math: polygyny, by assigning many women to one man, serves to reduce lifelong marriage opportunities for each man individually as it concentrates women marriage opportunities on fewer men. In other words, there will be more unattached single men. The math being simple, however, doesn't mean it will be obvious. Due to preselection, women look at men who can secure the affection of many women and think them desirable; moreover, they assume that all men benefit from polygyny the same way as they think these high-status men do. They do not perceive the lonely bachelors waiting in the wings. This then becomes another useful application of the 'apex fallacy', where the powerful men, men who can pull multiple women, dominate a woman's erotic field of regard. Her blind spot prevents her from acknowledging the existence of those men who fall outside this field. Ms. Voshell's entire article bears witness to this apex fallacy in action...she does not perceive the lonely fates of those men who do not have sufficient status to attract women into a polygynous relationship, and because she does not perceive them, they do not exist to her...permitting her to blithely assume the practice of polygyny bestows equal so-called benefits on all men across the society.
Fourth, polygyny forfeits for society those lost and lonely bachelors and their wealth-producing energies, swelling the rolls of unattached men with little investment in society. Our society last committed the error of failing to harness the energies of one of its sexes back in the 40s and 50s with the bored American housewife. The resultant Freidanesque revolution rocked our society to its core. How much worse will the next one be, when low-investment men express their displeasure at their disenfranchisement? Furthermore, with the plodding, average guy--the pillar of society--less likely to find a mate, he is less likely to produce excess wealth, preferring instead to produce only what he needs for himself alone. This will tend to lower the standard of living for the society as a whole and further concentrating wealth at the center where monogynous couples and polygynous families dwell. Those outside the nucleus, nearly always men since society labors to prevent women from falling through the cracks (see: advantage, above), will suffer the brunt of lost wealth-producing potential, criminal behavior, or warfare (the traditional method of taking care of swarms of excess lo-/no-investment males).
In sum, I found unconvincing Ms. Voshell's case that women's rights and the rights of women would be adversely affected by polygyny. Indeed, I did not see the status of women and children differing much from the legal/social/economic regime that is presently in play, except that polygyny would make society as a whole less wealthy due to lost productive potential, more afflicted with crime and other social ills attendant to a large population of unattached malews, and less able to support pyramid-style social spending due to reduced fecundity (case in point: Brigham Young's 55 wives and 57 children...a per-woman fertility rate of 1.04). The condition of men, on the other hand, would degrade rapidly in proportion to the spread of polygyny, making the "heaven" of polygyny for a select few a hell for many others.
* Serial polyandry aptly describes the sexual state of women who marry, establish a claim on a man's resources after a divorce, and remarry afterward. Wash, rinse, repeat.
** I chuckled at Ms. Voshell's hyperbolic claim that polygyny is tantamount to sexual slavery. She apparently fails to grok that the sort of serial polyandry that afflicts our society today is financial slavery. I wonder which is worse...the "slavery" inherent in sharing one man with multiple women--a "slavery" that is immediately cured by the "I have a headache" excuse, mind you--or the very real slavery of being forced to toil against your will for the material gain of another?
The conventional wisdom about polygyny is that it is an oppressive institution for women, while the men in such an arrangement must be lucky fellows indeed. After all, those randy guys get to bed a variety of women, while the women, well, why are they in that sort of a relationship again? This sclerotic conventional wisdom results in little analysis of how men fare wrt to polgyamy, while the presumed unhappy fate of women in polygynous relationships is minced, parsed, and kvetched about ad nauseum. This installment over at the American Thinker follows the same pattern. Men, those evil, dominant, oppressive creatures, are assumed to benefit from polygyny, while those poor women who enter into a polygynous relationship are thought to suffer horribly:
Legal polygamy would guarantee that women in the West in polygamous relationships would begin to resemble third-world women in multiple marriages. The achievements of the struggle for women's rights in Europe, the Americas, and indeed around the world would be blown to smithereens, for the premise of equal rights for men and women begins with the equality monogamous marriage provides as a bedrock for equal rights for men and women before the law. Polygamy destroys the hope of equality at the core level, making the relationship between the man and the women inherently unequal.Well, there you have it. Polygyny allegedly renders women lesser beings, the dominated partner in an unequal relationship, exposes them to rivalry of the Mean Girls kind, promotes pedophilia (not to be confused with ephebophilia; presumably the authoress would object to that preference as well), is a kind of sexual slavery, and destroys romance.
[T]he destruction of monogamous marriage and the institutionalization of polygamy will automatically result in the reduction of women to mere concubines, with all the evils attendant to that lesser status. Historically, wherever polygamy has reigned, women and children suffer, and male dominance, in the real sense of that often overused and misapplied term, is guaranteed. Male dominance means sexual dominance, among other things. The woman is reduced to a plaything, her capacities as a being equal to man subsumed under the male. Her influence and significance are divided among a plurality of wives and concubines.
The misery of women mired in polygamous relationships is stunningly depicted in the brilliant film Raise the Red Lantern (1991), starring Gong Li. Director Yimou Zhang avoids idealization of concubinage and polygamy, preferring the cold eye of realism. He depicts the vicious rivalry among the wives, the betrayals leading to the death of rivals, the dismissal and denigration of the aging concubines, and the downward trend toward pedophilia as younger and younger women are desired. But one does not need to read Old-Testament stories or view Zhang's film to understand that women are basically little more than sexual slaves when polygamy is a societal practice. The point is reinforced time and again by societies dominated by religions allowing polygamy. Attendant to the misery and subjection of women is the unequal treatment concerning their children, who are also completely under the dominance of fathers.
Regardless of the exposure of the realities of polygamy and the disgust with which the jury reacted to [FLDS leader Warren] Jeffs' prurient sexual practices, liberals continue to push for polygamy as just an "alternate lifestyle" without fully comprehending the deleterious, indeed catastrophic consequences to society. It is to be doubted that the left has contemplated, for instance, that polygamy would mean the death of the Western concept of romance.
Pretty hefty indictments indeed. Some elements of the indictment ring true, such as the putative link between polygyny and a slippery slope toward pedophilia and the "Mean Girls" behavior of the senior wife to the junior "concubines". I could also grok the legal no-woman's land for those gals electing to conduct a husbandectomy...after all, how does one address the thorny problem of property division and custody of children when there are 5 other women and 7 children as stakeholders?
Other portions of Ms. Voshell's argument I find less than persuasive, for instance, that polygyny is incompatible with so-called equalitarian marriage, or polygynous relationships being sexual slavery for women. ** Regarding the latter, clearly Ms. Voshell hasn't considered the demands levied on a single man by the requirement to service the emotional and sexual needs of several women for life. I suspect the "yee-haw" novelty of bedding the same group of women time after time, day after day, week after week, would wear off after a year or ten. Furthermore, regarding Ms. Voshell's argument that polygyny would assure the dominance of the single man over his cowering harem, I beg to differ. In fact, I think the opposite is more likely to occur--the first, dominant wife would likely rise to the fore as the ruler of the roost. It will be she that sits atop the pecking order of the household, not the man who will likely spend most of his time out of the home earning the bread required to support multiple wives and children. While he may superficially lead, particularly in matters exterior to the home, inside the four walls of the house, if there is a dominating figure in the household, I think it will more likely be that of the first wife, the oldest, the original, rather than the supposed patriach.
But as mentioned before, these arguments are about the women. What about the guys?
First, this quote from Ms. Voshell's missive:
...equal rights for men and women begins with the equality [that] monogamous marriage provides as a bedrock for equal rights for men and women before the lawClearly Ms. Voshell thinks that Marriage 2.0 is synonymous with monogamy. She errs in this association, for Marriage 2.0, rather than being monogamous, is a three-way relationship between a man, woman, and the State, with the State casting a large and unmistakable shadow over the dynamics of the relationship. In addition, Marriage 2.0 is structured to be easily dissolvable, thus transforming traditional lifelong monogamy into something akin to serial monogamy with a traditional patina.
This brings me to the second assertion of Ms. Voshell, that men and women are creatures treated equally before the law. A cursory look at our laws demonstrates the falsity of such an assertion, for a great panalopy of laws exist to advantage women over men in American society in general and wrt relationships between the sexes specifically. Moreover, in cases where the law technically may be written in a sex-neutral manner, the law is applied in a heavily sex-biased way. Thus I am unmoved when Ms. Voshell frets about what is to become of women who elect to jettison their big love. Who will pay their bills? Who will get the children? Her assumption seems to be that men are legally advantaged in the partial dissolution of a polygynous relationship. I do not share her concern, for while such jurisprudence may not yet be established, legal and social momentum up to this point has been to tax a man/men to ameliorate the consequences of a woman's choices. Therefore I strongly suspect a woman "escaping" from a polygynous relationship will receive the same helping cultural, psychological, and financial support as is presently provided to other women in more conventional relationships who are divorcing their husbands.
Third, polygyny will not benefit all men equally. It is simple math: polygyny, by assigning many women to one man, serves to reduce lifelong marriage opportunities for each man individually as it concentrates women marriage opportunities on fewer men. In other words, there will be more unattached single men. The math being simple, however, doesn't mean it will be obvious. Due to preselection, women look at men who can secure the affection of many women and think them desirable; moreover, they assume that all men benefit from polygyny the same way as they think these high-status men do. They do not perceive the lonely bachelors waiting in the wings. This then becomes another useful application of the 'apex fallacy', where the powerful men, men who can pull multiple women, dominate a woman's erotic field of regard. Her blind spot prevents her from acknowledging the existence of those men who fall outside this field. Ms. Voshell's entire article bears witness to this apex fallacy in action...she does not perceive the lonely fates of those men who do not have sufficient status to attract women into a polygynous relationship, and because she does not perceive them, they do not exist to her...permitting her to blithely assume the practice of polygyny bestows equal so-called benefits on all men across the society.
Fourth, polygyny forfeits for society those lost and lonely bachelors and their wealth-producing energies, swelling the rolls of unattached men with little investment in society. Our society last committed the error of failing to harness the energies of one of its sexes back in the 40s and 50s with the bored American housewife. The resultant Freidanesque revolution rocked our society to its core. How much worse will the next one be, when low-investment men express their displeasure at their disenfranchisement? Furthermore, with the plodding, average guy--the pillar of society--less likely to find a mate, he is less likely to produce excess wealth, preferring instead to produce only what he needs for himself alone. This will tend to lower the standard of living for the society as a whole and further concentrating wealth at the center where monogynous couples and polygynous families dwell. Those outside the nucleus, nearly always men since society labors to prevent women from falling through the cracks (see: advantage, above), will suffer the brunt of lost wealth-producing potential, criminal behavior, or warfare (the traditional method of taking care of swarms of excess lo-/no-investment males).
In sum, I found unconvincing Ms. Voshell's case that women's rights and the rights of women would be adversely affected by polygyny. Indeed, I did not see the status of women and children differing much from the legal/social/economic regime that is presently in play, except that polygyny would make society as a whole less wealthy due to lost productive potential, more afflicted with crime and other social ills attendant to a large population of unattached malews, and less able to support pyramid-style social spending due to reduced fecundity (case in point: Brigham Young's 55 wives and 57 children...a per-woman fertility rate of 1.04). The condition of men, on the other hand, would degrade rapidly in proportion to the spread of polygyny, making the "heaven" of polygyny for a select few a hell for many others.
* Serial polyandry aptly describes the sexual state of women who marry, establish a claim on a man's resources after a divorce, and remarry afterward. Wash, rinse, repeat.
** I chuckled at Ms. Voshell's hyperbolic claim that polygyny is tantamount to sexual slavery. She apparently fails to grok that the sort of serial polyandry that afflicts our society today is financial slavery. I wonder which is worse...the "slavery" inherent in sharing one man with multiple women--a "slavery" that is immediately cured by the "I have a headache" excuse, mind you--or the very real slavery of being forced to toil against your will for the material gain of another?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)