Pregnant girls, by guest blogger Lulu
Bookworm on Mar 30 2011 at 8:35 am | Filed under: Children, Education, Sex
There is a pregnancy epidemic right now at the high school where I used to run a girls’ group. All the time I am shocked and saddened to see another young girl with a growing belly or another with babe in arms.
There is no stigma at all. Whatever happened to shame or pressuring boys to “do the right thing”? Gone are the rumors, the marginalization, the “slut” comments, the judgment of others, the pressure of peers that encourage waiting and responsibility. There simply is no stigma. In fact, the boys strut like proud roosters with their girl. The girl basks in the attention of her friends as they swarm around the mommy to be and kiss her belly.
And thanks to enforced ‘tolerance” and a determination not to marginalize girls who get pregnant in high-school, there is no longer any shame in it at all. That stinks because I believe shame is a very important emotion and shaper of our behavior.
The boys need to feel ashamed of themselves for using girls like objects, impregnating them, and then thinking their role as father is to drop in and buy pampers once in a while. The girls should be ashamed for casually bringing life into the world for their own selfish reasons (someone to love me, etc) instead of waiting until they could create an environment for the child that could provide stability and proper care.
I am angry with the school for not enforcing its own dress code. The low cut tops. The short shorts. The spaghetti straps. These are against the rules, but no one says anything. No one insists the girls cover up with an old hideous shirt from the lost and found, or old gym shorts. But they should.
Where are the staff to stop the fondling and making out on steps in full view of everyone on campus? Boys and girls. Girls and girls. No boundaries. No values.
So sad.
One exercise I did with my girls’ group a month or so ago was designed to have them explore their values versus their behavior. I wrote on the board these words:
Marriage
Sex
Relationship
Love
Dating
Living together
Baby
I asked the girls to make two lists. One was to put the words in the order in which they thought they should take place according to their values, and the other was to put the words in the order that they saw people actually following. They were allowed to leave words off if necessary.
Without fail, and to my surprise, all the girls wrote that the order things should take place in was this:
Dating, love, relationship, marriage, sex, living together, baby.
This is a very traditional view and I hadn’t expected it.
The list of what was actually happening was less sunny:
“Dating”, sex, relationship (all admitted this stage sometimes did not occur), baby.
I pointed out to them that there was a huge discrepancy between their values and their behavior. I asked them why they thought that was. Some looked so sad as they described the pressures to perform sexually or to end up alone. (Of course, they were alone anyway as these “relationships” did not last).
Will these kids ever be able to have a healthy relationship? A sex life with a caring and loving partner? What about their children who will grow up in a world of single moms, with children from multiple dads, all with different last names?
I can’t help but look at this and want to scream at the faculty, at the entire educational institution, for failing these children so egregiously, for failing to teach any moral standards at all. These kids are steeped in political correctness. Lord knows, they’ve had tons of diversity education, safe sex talks, say no to drugs, global warming awareness, and Identity politics. But at home and at school, no one seems to be willing to provide moral standards. No one is willing to upset the darlings by reminding them that having a baby too young is grossly irresponsible and even tragic. Shouldn’t society put some peer pressure on them to remember that a baby is a human being and not a doll? It’s not a Paris Hilton Chihuahua status symbol to dress nicely and neglect. A baby is a human that requires immense amounts of time and energy to raise.
They forget that a baby doesn’t stay a baby for long. Soon it will become a child that will require discipline, education, supervision, guidance, a future. What kind of environment is best for raising this child? Would it be a fifteen year old girl, no longer with the baby’s father, leaving the bulk of child rearing to her own resentful mother, and bitter because she can’t do fun teenage activities any more, or a stable, committed, financially secure, adult couple?
No one has told them how a baby interferes with fun and parties. Young mommies either have to stay home and care for the baby or drag it along- but it hasn’t occurred to them that their friends won’t want a baby along screaming in McDonald’s or an arcade. Babies are demanding, not logical, and if young mommies or daddies scream and ht them will only cry more. Once a teen has a baby, life will never be the same again. Finishing school and achieving life goals are do-able mainly for those girls who have parents willing to care for the baby for them.
Maybe if pregnant girls were once again shuffled off campus to a pregnant girl school it would be less glamorous and rewarding. Maybe the dads could be instantly shuffled into family court to be forced to take responsibility. Maybe along with sex ed the kids could get some values. Maybe the church should rise to the challenge and let young men know that impregnating girls is not a sign of manhood. Having sperm is no great accomplishment. Waiting to make a baby until you are mature and self-sufficient, and creating a whole and intact family, however, is a sign of manhood and maturity. We need to return societal pressure and judgment. Kids are falling apart from a lack of boundaries and moral standards. And they will take society with them.
I have yet to meet parents who say they wish their daughter became pregnant in high school (or even middle school), or that their son became an absentee father.
A final thought. In the past, and not so very long ago, girls were expected to marry as virgins. OK, many didn’t make it, but many did. Fear of pregnancy, social stigma, and wanting to be a “good” rather than a “fast” girl had a lot to do with it. But beyond that, by withholding sex and making the guys work for it- earn it, really- by getting a job and by marriage, the girls were forcing the guys to become civilized. Sex is a huge human drive and guys will work very hard to get it, and if becoming a responsible man and provider is the way to get it, by golly, guys will do it.
Now there is no incentive to be civilized. All the sex a guy can get without even buying her a soda, getting girls pregnant is a notch on a guy’s studly belt (so to speak), and he really has no parenting or financial obligations. Hey, it’s optional. And everyone is degraded. The babies suffer because they are born to a child and a shadow.
Has this generation degenerated to the human equivalent of dogs humping?
So very very sad.
I will keep you posted. I, for one, plan to react and bring in a series of speakers, former teen moms, their moms, and so on, to bring the kids a taste of reality. How will they know, if no one teaches them?
Email This Post To A Friend
145 Responses to “Pregnant girls, by guest blogger Lulu”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Lulu, there is something much more evil at work here than the “mistakes” made by these boys and girls (babies having babies).
The babies of these babies will likely become part of the permanently dysfunctional underclass, the way they have in Britain and the rest of Europe. There are parts of Europe where the welfare state runs as much as six generations in families. This underclass can only survive on government largesse, making them totally dependent upon and manipulable by the ruling class. They, for example, will always vote for the ruling class that provides their benefits because, without those benefits, they will perish.
The solution, of course, is to cut off the benefits that reward that sort of behavior that leads to teen pregnancy. Right now, boys can impregnate girls without consequences and the girls know that the State will support them.
The destruction of the nuclear family has long been a primary goal of the Left, because they know that the family unit exists as a direct threat to the power of the State. You are fighting a heroic battle that focuses on the value of the individual against the corruptive power of the State. You are doing a wonderful thing.
Danny’s right. It’s not just lives destroyed, it’s generations destroyed.
Shame and honor are two sides of the same coin.
The left wants all “choices” to be equally valid; emotion trumps duty, principle and self discipline. All should be “fair” as determined by whichever emotion rules the moment. They killed shame, and in so doing, killed honor.
The Left have been giving them a moral standard. It’s a moral standard based upon open sexual availability being good and independence being evil. This is enforced by government teacher’s unions, politically correct culture, and government welfare and funding.
The answer is not more government power through the courts or more social pressure, the answer to this must necessarily be to reinforce individual virtue and power.
Some looked so sad as they described the pressures to perform sexually or to end up alone.
All external pressure can do is to make people do what they are told. It’s never going to get people to do what they need to do, on their own. If it leads to the good end goal, then it’s irrelevant by what means it is accomplished. However, courts and social pressure are the cause of the malfunction. They are not going to be made into the solution any time soon. Individuals can be helped and bolstered. Society will take a lot longer to turn around.
I concur with Danny that is not a “mistake” but an engineered disaster intentionally caused because it benefits the people in power: the powers that be. You will not be in charge of the courts and what philosophy they use to decide matters that impact youths. You will not be in charge of society’s standards, the powers that be are in charge of society’s standards and they are aided predominantly by the MSM and Hollywood decadence. While those two things are hard to purge, it’s far more simple to focus on individuals and empower them to make their own roads in life, aided by a challenging goal and aesthetic (vision of beauty to strive for).
You see unions fighting for their funding in Wisconsin. This is not an indirect impact upon teenage pregnancy, it is a DIRECT impact, because it is teacher’s unions which predominantly set the tone of life at school, not administrators, teachers who simply do as they are told like brownshirts, and certainly not individual student leaders.
There is also the No Tolerance for fighting policy many schools adopted because of Leftist “anti-violence” (yea right, as if unions are anti-violence when it serves their economic greedy) ideology. This has made it far easier for bullies and terrorists in a school to gain social leadership positions, destroying the chances of those who would have made good leaders that would have looked after and protected the weaker members in school. In a dog eats dog school life, social conformity is crushing, for it is their only way to survive as they see it.
They did not kill shame. They only changed what people should be shameful of. NOw children are ashamed they are still virgins and don’t have a boyfriend/girlfriend. They are not ashamed of being lazy or being evil.
People think the Left are rampaging against something based upon principle, like shame. Remove your preconceptions of their good intentions. They did not act against traditional shame because they thought shame was bad. What they did, they did with a specific objective in mind, not based upon principles. Thus while they say shame is bad, in reality, they use shame to further their goals.
Meanwhile, while this is going on, you will see legions of people like Z here, talking about how the right are “reactionary” or “extremely tradition bound” or “unable to change with the times”.
Not only are they gaining money by fighting a war against our fellow Americans, but they recruiting entire new generations into their army as time goes on.
This is called a winning strategy. Things are only so bad because those with power allowed it to get this far. They were worried about everything except what they SHOULD have been worried about.
Ymarsakar is spot on.
In the famous interrogation scene in 1984 where O’Brien is remolding Winston Smith, he explains to Smith what the Party is really up to. Previous totalitarian parties, such as the Nazis and Communists, justified the horrors they inflicted on people in the name of some greater good, a glorious Jew-free or capitalist-free future of plenty, where everybody was equal and well cared for.
But the Party in 1984 is different, says O’Brien. Is aim, its purpose, its justification is the exercise of raw power for the sake of power. It does not pretend to want to take humanity to some utopia. As O’Brien tells Smith, “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face—forever.”
The left today claims, as did the Party’s propaganda aimed at the Proles, to want benign ends. But SEIU, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Fwank, et al., are after unadulterated power, the same as Orwell’s Party. The difference, of course, is that our current power lusters are willing to use soft strategies to gain power, such as the seduction of young people into lives of total dependency on the state via guilt-free sex, the dole, schools that deliberately do not educate, and so on.
So what we have is 1984‘s quest for total power meets Brave New World‘s multiple orgasms and mindless entertainments (I will confess here and now: I watch American Idol). It is a toxic combination, this worst of two very bad worlds.
Western civilization is disapearing before our very eyes.
Don’t get fooled by the technology, the cell phones and computers, and the ease with which young people use these technological marvels; young people are acting like primitive uncivilized savages.
Tribal behaviors are replacing everything we know.
The left is to blame for most of this decay but when you look at hard facts, you find out that
the rate of teen pregnancies is higher among Hispanos than blacks or any other group.
and guess which group is growing the fastest in the USA according to census numbers? Hispanos
Expect the number of teen mothers to quadruple before today’s babies become teenagers themselves.
Western civilization is disapearing before our very eyes, and if we can save it – which I know doubt we can – it will take decades of hard work.
Georges Soros must be proud…
Pride has nothing to do with George Soros. George Soros will make a bundle from other peoples’ misery, the same way he did early in his career by preying on his own (Jewish) people at the behest of the National Socialists and the same way he made his subsequent fortunes by crashing other countries’ currencies.
Teen pregnancy rates in the U.S. are lower today than in the 1950′s, though higher than in most other developed countries. Rates are higher in Red states than Blue states. Use of birth control for first-time sex has been increasing.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-ATSRH.html
http://media.komonews.com/images/101231_teen_births.jpg
This is the natural result of disallowing the supernatural into the classroom. When the bias in higher education is that one outgrows their need for God the smarter one gets the human is then the only reference point from which to judge what is normal you will only get what is relative to humans. Cells that evolved from primordial soup rather than purposfully knit together in their mother’s womb by a Heavenly Father. A haphazard collection of cells trying to make it through in a way that seems right in their own eyes. Like a two dimensional being (humnas no longer looking up) only knowing two directions to go, the third axis is not an option because it is superstition, a myth, a nearly neurotic pie-in-the-sky crutch for the less intelligent fools.
“1 Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. 2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.” Hebrews 12
6“Are not five sparrows sold for two cents? Yet not one of them is forgotten before God. “Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows” Luke 12
AS to one’s personal worth:
14″As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” John 3rd chapter
We as Christians may be less intelligent by the two dimensional world standards but are never alone and always loved.
I am sure that legalized abortion has had a huge impact on reported teen pregnancy rates.
Danny Lemieux: I am sure that legalized abortion has had a huge impact on reported teen pregnancy rates.
Abortion rates have also declined. What has increased dramatically is out-of-wedlock births. By the way, the thinking is that if you stigmatize young motherhood, you’ll encourage abortion.
All things considered, I’d rather see babies be born than eviscerated in the womb, even if they are born to clueless, uneducated teenagers. There is always the possibility, however remote, that the kids will make it out of whatever moral cesspool they’ve been born into and become decent, productive citizens.
But you can only do that if your mom, no matter how ditzy she was, recognized your humanity.
Zachriel
Teen pregnancy rates in the U.S. are lower today than in the 1950′s, though higher than in most other developed countries. Rates are higher in Red states than Blue states. Use of birth control for first-time sex has been increasing.
You do realize, I’m sure, that we have loads of liberal idiots in red states too, don’t you? I’m sure you also know that they have been in control of education and the removal of religious & moral teachings in the entire country…not just blue states. Never mind that according to the recent census data, red states are swelling with the refugees from blue state disaster projects. One would hope they would adopt some of the sensibilities of the more conservative states they have fled to, but we all know that won’t happen. So not sure what your point is by mentioning red state teen birth rates, as if the liberal cancerous ideology has been completely contained within the borders of blue states only and does not permeate all the TV/movies, education, music, and even churches in our whole society….
Clearly you don’t do a lot of thoughtful analysis before you type. Please try to do so next time.
Cheesestick: So not sure what your point is by mentioning red state teen birth rates, …
Because it may give a clue as to the causes of the disparaities.
CDC on birth rate by states.
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/files/2010/10/Capture4.jpg
Cheesestick: as if the liberal cancerous ideology has been completely contained within the borders of blue states only and does not permeate all the TV/movies, education, music, and even churches in our whole society….
If that were the case, then you would expect the highest rates in the Blue States.
The CDC ties low rates of pregnancy, birth, STD and abortion to prevention programs and education, along with access to primary health care and birth control. To learn more, visit the CDC site on Teen Pregnancy.
http://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/
If someone were to try to derail this discussion and have it spin off into a pointless back-and-forth about which states are smarter about preventing teen pregnancy, the tack would be to introduce the assumption that births itself is not a good thing and that we are lucky there are programs out there to prevent it.
But the discussion is not about trying to make births the bogeyman. It is about teaching young men and women a decent sexual morality that is not based on access to condoms, pills and abortions, but rather on learning how to respect themslves and their partners as humans, not objects.
birth itself
I can’t comment on the statistics, but I work in an emergency room, in the “heartland” of America…and it seems to me that the teen pregnancy right, at least where I’m at, is NOT going down. It is not uncommon to see 15 and 16 year olds who are pregnant. And when I go tell someone their pregnancy test is negative…it is the mother of the tested child, who is usually a single mom, too, that is disappointed!
But I’ve also worked with nurses whose kids became pregnant while single. These are nice folks, who work hard as heck, live in middle class communities and go to church. They shrug their shoulders and say “what can I do?”.
Therein is the problem. There IS still some shame out there, or at least a recognition that this is NOT good for these kids, but there is a surrender to whatever the numerous causes…it’s not just “the Left”, though I agree that destroying the nuclear family is a Marxist dream.
I also know that this surrender is completely unnecessary. My daughter went to a very small private, religious high school Pregnancy rate=zero. And the same for the class below and above it and I’m not sure there are any cases of pregnancy at this school. If there are, it has been well-hidden!
What has made the difference?
I can’t say which thing, but there are a number of different possibilities or factors. The high school is divided into a boys school and a girls, and they are NOT on the same campus. The parents as a group would ALL be shamed, upset and angry if the kids were sleeping around. The milieu of the school is entirely different than that encountered in the local public schools. The expectations are different. The religious teachings DO make a difference (and I realize these can’t be transmitted the same way in public schools). The kids don’t date, or rarely do…when ready for marriage, they will start looking to date in order to find a husband. It’s horribly, old-fashioned, and sexist…except…I have had two nieces who went through the same school, both marrying in their early 20′s, with a third, just recently engaged…one is a dentist, one is a physical therapist…not exactly kept barefoot and pregnant, though each does have several kids! They seem happy and well-adjusted, in spite of not sleeping around, in spite of not dating prior to looking for a husband, in spite of going to a single-sex school.
Do all religious schools have such a perfect record? Nope. I didn’t even want to mention which religion…it happens to be Orthodox Judaism…because the point is not to tout it as “better”, and I know kids who are in Orthodox schools that have had problems…we have a very small school in a small community, and schools on the East Coast have problems, for instance, that we don’t have…but even there, compared to the public schools, the number of girls who become pregnant is negligible.
The point I’m really trying to make is that some of those old-fashioned ways seem to work, and would include the idea of shame or wrongness that Lulu does such a wonderful job of writing about above. Saying “what can we do” and surrendering…well, it seems that the Tea Parties and the 2010 elections were a sign that we all haven’t given up yet. We shouldn’t in this area either.
“If a frog had wings, it wouldn’t bump it’s ass”
Charles Martel, if one has no moral compass, it drives a discussion riding little blue links.
oops…that really should be ‘its’ ass
>>Teen pregnancy rates in the U.S. are lower today than in the 1950′s,>>
There are two different statistics being conflated here – teen pregnancies and out of wedlock pregnancies. In the 1950s, it was not uncommon for couples to graduate, and within the same month, marry. If you were 18 when you graduated, it would be more or less expected that you’d have your first baby at 19. Use of contraceptives was not common at that time.
The table at this link gives you “out of wedlock” births. It is not the same as “teen pregnancy”, although there is division by age that gives some info. I’d love to find something on abortions in that period, but haven’t. You can pretty much assume that if a girl got pregnant, she gave birth. Maybe in another state, maybe not – but she gave birth.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/yi/y9607a.asp
Zach, do you know what a “shot gun wedding” is?
Or perhaps you’ve heard the expression “The first one comes any time – after that they take nine months.” Maybe you can explain it … and why it isn’t used much anymore.
Lulu
Do you have any insights or facts into the parents of the pregnant girls and absent fathers?
When you bring in the speakers, I hope one of them can address the economics (poverty levels) of being single with children.
Zachriel
Cheesestick: So not sure what your point is by mentioning red state teen birth rates, …
Because it may give a clue as to the causes of the disparaities.
No, you are only doing it because you would prefer to have a tit-for-tat conversation that goes no where other than trying to shut down the discussion by displacing blame.
If you were honest…which, I know is quite a challenge for you libs, but if you could try to be honest for a minute, why don’t you try to make the argument of why shaming irresponsible people & teens is a bad thing? Because that is a pillar of liberal doctrine, no? It is not conservatives who try to ameliorate the outcomes of people who have made bad choices, right? It is you libs that don’t hold anyone responsible for their actions. So own up to it…and make the case to us. Don’t try to blame red state vs. blue state politics for it. It isn’t churches that have been teaching that pre-marital sex or children having sex is A-okay. If a conservative (or red state) politician even makes a glancing comment regarding people’s personal behavior or taking personal responsibility for it, liberals squeal like stuck pigs. So man up and explain why removing/alleviating consequences for people’s actions benefits society more than it harms it. And your own words please…no links.
Great post, Lulu. I think you and Mosonny hit on the key factor of expectations. Nowadays we have a zero tolerance approach to so many things: no ‘intolerance’/hate speech, no drugs of any kind at school (including aspirin), no weapons (even Lego guns will get you expelled, etc. So we have very high expectations that kids know what is appropriate ans they will pay dearly if they don’t meet these expectations.
But when it comes to sex, the attitude becomes more along the lines of “we can’t stop kids from sex, everyone has sexual urges, so let’s make sure they have access to all kinds of information and birth control”. This attitude communicates that we have every expectation that kids will have sex.
>>What has made the difference? >>
How many come from families where the mother worked outside of the home?
Where did the children go after school? Home? who was there? empty houses?
Children don’t raise themselves. The age of “manhood” has always been 13 – in Jewish, Christian and even muslim religions. For fairly obvious reasons. Part of our problem is that we have allowed teens to remain children – now we’ve extended even the teen years to age 26. Why should we be surprised if they live at the expense of their parents with no real responsibilities, and driving urges that are allowed no expression? Either let them become men or restrict their activities as you would a pre-teen.
I’m of the opinion that you can give your infant into loving childcare with no problem until they’re about 18 months of age. Then you better be with them until they start school – when you should be home when they get there. Between about 8 and about 12, you can leave them at home alone after school, but come age 13 or so, you better be there. And _they_ better be there. No visitors of the opposite sex in the bedrooms. Period. No overnighters unless you know – and _trust_ – the other parents.
Don’t begin to know how to deal with the problems online or with phones. I’m sure glad I didn’t have to deal with those. I’d probably restrict TV channels as well. Poor kids – given the quality of most of the TV shows I’ve seen in recent years, they’d probably be restricted to Fox News, or I’d just disconnect the TV.
• Black and Hispanic women have the highest teen pregnancy rates (126 and 127 per 1,000 women aged 15–19, respectively); non-Hispanic whites have the lowest rate (44 per 1,000)
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-ATSRH.html
…
…
The 2010 Census numbers have been streaming out, and last week saw comprehensive race / ethnicity data released. Let’s take a look at some of the highlights and lowlights.
The big news was that the Hispanic population grew 43 percent during George W. Bush’s decade of 2000-2010, to more than 50,000,000.
Fifty million is a colossal number. That surpasses the population of the country of Spain and is about equal to England.
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/110327_census_2010.htm
…
It is a coincidence that they live in republican states.
Many republican states happen to be on the border of Mexico, and that is where the Hispnaics enter and decide to stay.
You find more Europeans on the east coast because they arrived that way, and you find more Chinese on the west coast because they arived that way.
Just like there is a high number of French Candians in state that touch the border of USA/Canada because that is where they entered.
It has nothing to do with blue state red state.
It has a lot to do with geography.
Mosonny, one of my oldest friends has two nieces who perfectly illustrate the difference between an “old-fashioned” way of looking at the world and one based on current secular fancies.
The older of the two girls, who were raised as Catholics, attended Rice University on a full scholarship and then later studied at Oxford. She returned for a post-graduate legal education at Duke. Along the way she had various affairs, making sure all the while to be a good modern girl and never get pregnant. She is now a tax attorney in Washington, DC, where although she acknowledges that her career is deadly dull, at least she can live among people who are as enlightened as she.
The last I heard she was living with a young man who is also a tax attorney and they were planning to marry.
She is probably one of the most provincial, ignorant people I have ever met. She is incapable of talking about anything outside her narrow field of expertise. I asked her once about Durham, the town where Duke is located, and she sneered something about not having the time to think about the podunk place she was living in. In other words, she had no curiosity about or engagement with Durham, a town with one of the most interesting histories in the South.
The younger sister, now married and with two children, is a devout Catholic. She attended Dallas University, an orthodox Catholic school, where she read the Great Books and engaged in spirited seminars with an international student body for four years. As a result of her familiarity with Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Virgil, St. Paul, Bede, Occam, Bacon, Aquinas, Maimonides, Erasmus, Shakespeare, Smith, Paine, Marx, Freud, Darwin, Einstein, and John Paul II, among others, she is one of the most interesting people I’ve ever talked with. Her curiosity is boundless, and she is a delight to be around. She finds the world to be one great Durham, endlessly fascinating because it brings her outside herself.
Her mother is quite disappointed in her for not taking as the same path as her older sister—you know, the one with Oxford on the resume and a glamorous life in Washington, unfettered by silly Catholic notions of sex and marriage. She takes her mother’s bitterness in stride, though, and loves her sister simply and willingly.
I know that one example does not make a case. But these two young women stand out vivdly in my mind because they make it so easy to see why falling for the seductions of the world does not fill the emptiness or remedy the vacuousness inside.
Charles Martel, that’s a hugely important point your story about the sisters.
The one who follows the Catholic teachings and learns from and about all those other figures and authors? She has a sense of purpose and doesn’t feel the same emptiness. That is a PROFOUND thing, and I think teens need that. They might not articulate it, but they need some real sense of worth, not the phony-baloney “self-esteem” they are being ‘taught’.
So it’s not just a lack of sense of shame, it’s a need to have something else in their lives. These girls are filling the emptiness the best they can.
The religious Catholic girl…and my daughter…very different religions, but I believe the point is the same. They are taught and have something outside of themselves and do NOT feel the same nihilistic emptiness. It’s “The Secret Life of the American Teenager” and reality TV versus the Great Books, or heck, a good movie or play versus the usual garbage at the theaters.
So these girls need a sense of shame…as do the boys…but they need something positive, too. Fantastic story about the sisters.
We read Lulu’s poignant story. It’s clear that she is in a situation where teen pregnancy is out of control. Her exercise in having teens compare their ideal values to those they actually live was very enlightening. However, Lulu then generalized to society at large. However, teen pregnancy and abortion rates have dropped over the last generation, and we posted relevant information concerning that fact.
Cheesestick: Clearly you don’t do a lot of thoughtful analysis before you type.
The facts don’t disappear just because they don’t match your preconceptions. Teen pregnancy rates are lower Europe than the U.S., in Blue states over Red states. Some of this may be demographic, but researchers have determined that education and access to birth control are important determinants in reducing teen pregnancy.
Charles Martel: If someone were to try to derail this discussion and have it spin off into a pointless back-and-forth about which states are smarter about preventing teen pregnancy, the tack would be to introduce the assumption that births itself is not a good thing and that we are lucky there are programs out there to prevent it.
That would be Lulu when she talked about how there was no disgrace to unwed, teen motherhood, and wondered whether it would be better if unwed teen mothers and fathers were stigmatized. Other the other hand, Lulu’s exercise may help strengthen the connection between the ideal values kids hold and their behavior.
But some kids are ‘in love’, and marriage is not always an option. The key is to provide the appropriate alternatives. That means destigmatizing abstinence for those who aren’t ready, promoting strong role models, while providing primary medical care, including access to appropriate birth control for the sexually active.
Lulu: There is a pregnancy epidemic right now at the high school where I used to run a girls’ group. All the time I am shocked and saddened to see another young girl with a growing belly or another with babe in arms. There is no stigma at all.
The fact that the teen pregnancy rate is significantly lower today means the problem is not epidemic, but endemic.
Charles Martel: All things considered, I’d rather see babies be born than eviscerated in the womb, even if they are born to clueless, uneducated teenagers.
Yes. Abortion should be the last choice.
suek: There are two different statistics being conflated here – teen pregnancies and out of wedlock pregnancies.
It’s good to emphasize that point. Teen pregnancy rates are significantly lower today, but as we said above, the out-of-wedlock pregnancy rate is much higher.
suek: I’d love to find something on abortions in that period, but haven’t.
There are no reliable statistics on abortion from that period, but they weren’t uncommon. However, we do know that the rate of abortion has declined over the last generation.
Cheesestick: If you were honest…which, I know is quite a challenge for you libs, but if you could try to be honest for a minute, why don’t you try to make the argument of why shaming irresponsible people & teens is a bad thing?
There’s plenty of shame for most women.
Cheesestick: It is not conservatives who try to ameliorate the outcomes of people who have made bad choices, right?
That’s seems contradicted by the discussion above. It’s apparently the ‘liberals’ who are doting on teen mothers rather than shaming them.
Cheesestick: Don’t try to blame red state vs. blue state politics for it.
Didn’t blame anyone. But the facts don’t go away because you don’t like them.
suek: How many come from families where the mother worked outside of the home? Where did the children go after school? Home? who was there? empty houses?
Great questions.
suek: The age of “manhood” has always been 13 – in Jewish, Christian and even muslim religions. For fairly obvious reasons. Part of our problem is that we have allowed teens to remain children – now we’ve extended even the teen years to age 26.
Another good point. However, much of this is due to changes in the human condition. Better nutrition means earlier onset of puberty. But a more complex social structure means a longer delay in reaching economic maturity. In other words, kids can make babies long before they can provide appropriate care. Also, the nuclear family is poorly constructed for the situation, compared to the extended family structure of the past.
Friend of USA: Many republican states happen to be on the border of Mexico, and that is where the Hispnaics enter and decide to stay.
Yes, some of the differences between Blue and Red states may be demographic. However, California has a very large Hispanic population (37%), yet still has a relatively low teen pregnancy rate.
Congratulations and thanks to Lulu for writing this and for facilitating the girls club. It is deadly important work.
I have been thinking about all of this for a long time. I think in my parents’ generation, and before them, it was enough to raise your own children to be productive, moral adults–then you had done your job in life and as an American. Not every parent or family did a good job at that, but there was a common standard of decency expected to be met, and a critical mass meeting it.
But somewhere along the line (which this crowd of commentors can point out quite accurately when and why) the bottom dropped out of our society. Americans can no longer count on their fellow Americans (regardless of income level) to be doing their expected job in raising moral kids and decent citizens. The situation has deteriorated to an alarming level. Many children in my kids’ top-rated public schools in an well-off area are cheaters, thieves, liars, bullies, skanks, allowed to disrupt classes and act out verbally–and it all seems to be accepted as part of the overwhelming tide better left undealt with unless their behavior meets egregious levels that can’t be ignored. Same here in the high school: a dress code honored in the breach. Of course the children are just reflecting the values of the homes and the “parents” they come from.
I have successfully (so far, knock on wood) taught my kids to swim against the tide. Thankfully there are many, many wonderful parents and kids here who model better behavior and values, and who inspire and enlighten me. But it seems that now our job as thinking, caring Americans involves more than just doing a good job within our own family. I think it has become incumbent on each of us to act in an “all-hands-on-deck” emergency call to arms, to do all that we can to make sure our common community ship is not going to sink. Without a common moral underpinning, and a decently-educated citizenry, I am not hopeful about the outcome.
Using Z’s own manner of behavior and values, I am forced to believe that Z’s lack of words on Leftist malignancy here demonstrates that Z, using his own manner of behavior and values, agrees with our statements about the Left. Who wudda thunk.
Pride has nothing to do with George Soros. George Soros will make a bundle from other peoples’ misery, the same way he did early in his career by preying on his own (Jewish) people at the behest of the National Socialists and the same way he made his subsequent fortunes by crashing other countries’ currencies.
I haven’t heard Z disclaim that view here, so Z must agree with it. Deshou.
Ymarsakar is spot on.
Since Z hasn’t spoke up in horror at that, Z must agree with Martel saying I’m right, deshou?
Zism can be fun if you play with it after sanitation.
Btw, people here are not against links or documentation, per say. When it comes to a factual question or a question of evidence, such as the Communist involvement with the Catholic Priest sexual molestation of children and teenaged boys, there must require a minimum of some documentation, some cross referenced sources, and some scholarly investment. Which I provided, naturally.
Z, however, is using other people’s words and authority to make arguments here on his behalf. He even admitted it, that he had no knowledge on science thus his only recourse was to use the “scientific community” that was in favor of Global Anthropogenic Climate Change. He even misspelled the big A word a few times. Like they said back in school, write it in your own words. No plagiarism. No copying somebody else’s stuff. No getting your friend to write it for you. IN your own words. Complete sentences, Z, with complete 5 sentence paragraphs.
That should be a great starting point for Z.
Ymarsakar, Please quite misrepresenting our views. Thank you.
The Zach team says: “But some kids are ‘in love’, and marriage is not always an option. The key is to provide the appropriate alternatives. That means destigmatizing abstinence for those who aren’t ready, promoting strong role models, while providing primary medical care, including access to appropriate birth control for the sexually active.”
Followed by: ”Yes. Abortion should be the last choice.”
This is so weird. Is it possible that we and Zach could be inching towards common ground on some issues? Do separate universes overlap?
Mosonny and Lulu, a question: who are you going to believe…. government statistics or your own lyin’ eyes?
Wow, a lot of thoughtful comments here; Don’t have much to add except a short, and hopeful, story.
Several years ago I happened to met a young girl (okay, she really was a woman as she was 20 years old; but to folks my age she is still a “girl”). Let’s call her “Gerry.” Gerry grew up in the housing projects surround by poverty, welfare, drug gangs (The Bloods were active in her projects, she told me how important it was to make sure that you didn’t wear the “wrong” colors – stick with gray everyone said, you can’t go wrong), etc. She did not know her father; she knew who is was; but didn’t really know him. She was raised by her mother and her aunt.
For some reason her aunt, after Gerry and her sister were old enough to be in school decided to move out of the projects. Being without children of her own, Gerry’s aunt was able to get a job as she didn’t need childcare. While in high school Gerry’s older sister, unfortunately quite typical, became pregnant, applied for welfare and child support (or whatever the government handout is called thesedays), dropped out of school with the intention of getting her GED one day. When I met Gerry, her sister still did not have her GED.
Gerry, however, stayed in school, ignored the taunts of “acting white,” finished high school (second in her family to do so, after her aunt), eventually moved in with her aunt (did I mention that they did NOT live in the projects?), got a temp office job. It wasn’t much – just some filing and other “boring” office work. But Gerry loved it – to her it was a very different world!
When I met her she had been doing office work for 2 years, trying to save money to buy a car – imagine that, she had goals! Without a doubt, her aunt was a great influence on her. Kudos to her and her aunt for wanting something better than what they grew up around.
Not much of a story, and it certainly doesn’t change what is happening to many people stuck in the liberal welfare state; but at least some are able to “break free.”
“…but at least some are able to “break free.”
Unfortunately, the exceptions not the rule.
>>Better nutrition means earlier onset of puberty.>>
Cites please. I disagree. Are you saying that male puberty occurs earlier than approximately 13 years of age? And fertility as well? Are you also referring to females? I’d definitely like to see statistics on that one.
>>But a more complex social structure means a longer delay in reaching economic maturity.>>
Agreed.
>>In other words, kids can make babies long before they can provide appropriate care.>>
Can, yes. Should??? I don’t think so. You’re a big proponent of “should”…what solution do you offer?
>>Also, the nuclear family is poorly constructed for the situation, compared to the extended family structure of the past. >>
Elaborate, please. Shotgun weddings worked well – is that what you meant?
By the way – I strongly disagree that pregnancies and abortions now are lower than they were in the 50s. Maybe the 70s, but not the 50s. The 60s? maybe. Your link did not address that period – only went back to the 90s, I think.
Lulu,
Thank you for your great post. I can give it no more meaningful compliment than to say that I plan on sharing it and discussing it with my daughter.
“Value-neutral education” – goal of the Statist left, oxymoron and societal disaster all rolled into one!
Are you trying to corner a monopoly on misrepresenting the views of yourselves, by yourself, Z? Is that how it is.
This is so weird. Is it possible that we and Zach could be inching towards common ground on some issues? Do separate universes overlap?
What it sounds like and what it is, two different entities. Much of what is heard from the Left, sounds good, on paper. When you get down to the methodologies, details, and actual distribution of power and resources, then you realize where the con is.
Zachriel: Better nutrition means earlier onset of puberty.
suek: Cites please.
Herman-Giddens, “Recent data on pubertal milestones in United States children: the secular trend toward earlier development”, Int J Androl 2006.
Keizer-Schrama & Mul, “Trends in pubertal development in Europe”, Human Reproduction 2001.
Van de Waal, “Secular Trend of Timing of Puberty”, Scientific and Clinical Advances. Endocr Dev 2005.
Here’s some Wiki: “The average age at which the onset of puberty occurs has dropped significantly since the 1840s. Researchers refer to this drop as the ‘secular trend’. In every decade from 1840 to 1950 there was a drop of four months in the average age of menarche among Western European females. In Norway, girls born in 1840 had their menarche at an average age of 17 years. In France the average in 1840 was 15.3 years. In England the average in 1840 was 16.5 years. In Japan the decline happened later and was then more rapid: from 1945 to 1975 in Japan there was a drop of 11 months per decade.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty#Historical_shift
In times past, someone could get a productive job at age 13 on the farm. They could then plan to marry, possibly living in an extended family household. Economic security, then children. Today, puberty comes sooner, but we would never consider sending a 13-year-old out to make a living. Education in the modern world is just too important. Puberty, then economic security. That may mean delaying a family for a decade after reaching puberty. This creates an ineviable conflict between biology and practicality.
Zachriel: In other words, kids can make babies long before they can provide appropriate care.
suek: Can, yes. Should??? I don’t think so. You’re a big proponent of “should”…what solution do you offer?
As we said, destigmatizing abstinence for those who aren’t ready, promoting strong role models, while providing primary medical care, including access to appropriate birth control for the sexually active.
Zachriel: Also, the nuclear family is poorly constructed for the situation, compared to the extended family structure of the past.
suek: Elaborate, please. Shotgun weddings worked well – is that what you meant?
Extended families mean young couples don’t have to be completely self-sufficient. The youngest children are tended communally, allowing the adults to work. The nuclear family leads to the problem of child care and latchkey children.
suek: By the way – I strongly disagree that pregnancies and abortions now are lower than they were in the 50s. Maybe the 70s, but not the 50s. The 60s? maybe. Your link did not address that period – only went back to the 90s, I think.
There’s no accurate numbers of abortions in the 1950′s. As they were illegal in many jurisdictions, doctors didn’t categorize them as abortions, and there are a variety of non-medical abortifacients that can be used. However, abortions have dropped over the last generation.
Teen pregnancy, birth, abortion rates since 1976, age 15-17.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/ppt/hp2010/focus_areas/fa09_2_ppt/Slide11.GIF
Teen births, percent unmarried
http://www.guttmacher.org/graphics/gr0501/gr050107f1.gif
All,
I’m kinda sorry I missed this thread.
Common ground exists. We all want what is best for humanity; we just don’t agree on the means or the values involved.
I’m against abortion (personal reasons previously expressed long ago on the blog); I’m for the reinstatement of adoptive parents’ rights in the U.S. (again, said a bunch on this before regarding the fall of adoption).
I’m for education – stressing abstinence with stress on saftey in the absence of abstinence.
I’m for school uniforms – because they’ve been proven effective in improving the learning environment (and in one study reducing promiscuity by reducing visual sexual cues).
I’m for enforcing the statutory rape laws as written against teachers and other abusers of BOTH sexes. Boys are just as damaged out of the situation as girls, it is just harder to see in the short term. Long term it screws up the wiring, leading to serious co-dependence issues and the inability of the boy to exist away from his rapist. It is very much an association with the abuser, and much harder to break since it is reinforced with sexual gratification. (putting away soap box).
I’m for advanced education, but I’d prefer to see more trade schools and recognition of the blue-collar value to the system.
I’m against the current system of unions – they aren’t the workers, they are, in the words of a friend of mine, a temp agency. The unions are now what they purported to be fighting – you work for the union, you can’t leave the union, they decide who you vote for, what you can afford, and what promotions you get. It’s worse than dealing with the boss’ new son in law; at least the boss is interested in making money and keeping the business going. The unions are only interested in taking your money, telling you they’re helping you, and if the business dies – eh. They’ve still got jobs with the union. Because they don’t work next to you and have absolutely no stake in keeping you employed. There are other workers giving them money and more wells to drain if your company fails.
I’m for expanding the energy industry in a “green” manner. Note that the “greenest” electrical generation system currently available in nuclear. I’ve moved my family (economic and deployment related) to a home less than 30 miles from a nuclear plant. I’d like to see that plant expanded with another three reactors (as originally planned). Mainly because power out here near the “clean” coal plant (Iatan) and the nuclear plant (King of Callaway) is CHEAP. I can run a 2000 sq ft house for the electrical bill of my buddy’s 600 sq ft efficiency apartment in Boston. Both places are all-electric. (end this rant)
I’m for military development. The only way we stay ahead is to develop and deploy new systems. The F22, B2, XM25, Paladin, M1A2, M2 Bradley, and JDAM make each service member more effective. Stuff is cheaper than trained soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.
I’m for privatizing Social Security Insurance and re-creating the lock box. There’s an economic model there I won’t go into here, but suffice it to say that when money keeps entering the market, the market goes up. Index style funds can produce returns that government IOUs cannot.
I’m for closing US bases in Germany, Italy, and part of Japan. I’m for 3-5 year staged withdrawals from the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, and Africa (in that order, non-concurrent).
I’m for a 12-Division Army (plus Reserve and Guard formations), a 12-Supercarrier Navy, and the realignment of DoD forces to stress the traditional roles (it’ll never happen, but I can dream) wherein the Air Force does flying stuff, the Army does occupation and force-on-force stuff, the Navy does the wet stuff, and the Marines do what Marines do best (kill people, break things, and look really, really good doing so). Oh, the Marines guard embassies because of those three things they do best – ’cause everyone knows about the first two and the third one keeps them from having to do it often.
I’d love to see a nuclear-powered battleship, based on the Iowa-class hull, with precision-guided submunitions for the main (16″) guns. The PGSM that are good to about 150 kilometer range and 5 meter scatter. Yeah, those 200+ kilogram “Have a nice day” PGSM.
(wow, testosterone rush thinking about those fun toys)
Anyhow, we have common ground. We have to have common ground. If no other common ground exists, then let’s go to Arlington. There are thousands of patches of common ground, eight feet by four feet, that were bought so that we can talk like this to each other.
SFC Dave
“The most important part of the speech is ‘… the content of their character.’”
Whoa, SFC Dave, what you said. Amen!
>>“The average age at which the onset of puberty occurs has dropped significantly since the 1840s. >>
I did a long post to reply to Zach, but the internet “disappeared” it. Not going to do it again.
Zach…could you get something just a _bit_ more current? _19_ 50s maybe? I suspect there isn’t a lot of difference between then and now, so your info is bogus.
PS SFC Dave: 150 km?? Get outta here! That means the bad boys have to live in Inner Mongolia to escape the U.S. Navy.
@suek: I taught Biology from high school through University for 30+ years, and the lower age of puberty in young females is accepted across the board.
I had done a post with several links, but it went the same place as yours, I guess. Here’s the truly authoritative one: http://edrv.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/24/5/668
I don’t think this endocrinology journal has any particular axe to grind, and the change has been widely attributed to better nutrition for the earlier decline, and to increasing obesity for what came later.
I found one link that states the average age of female puberty has declined to 9 years, due to milk consumption and plastics in the environment, but this is from a “natural” website and I simply don’t trust it.
But, the decline in age of onset of puberty (in females) is well-known and accepted at somewhere between .1 and .3 years per decade in many places. Whether this supports anything else that Z has said is another question, entirely.
I think Earl’s statements make sense. If girls are consistently fed well, their bodies have no reason to delay menarche. And considering that pregnancy is a calories game—a female has to have a sufficient caloric reserve to support the baby in the womb—the obesity factor makes sense, too.
Here’s a pretty cool You-Tube on PGSM: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xdRXVizij4
Yowza!
suek: could you get something just a _bit_ more current? _19_ 50s maybe? I suspect there isn’t a lot of difference between then and now, so your info is bogus.
The effect is most pronounced during industrialization, but may have leveled off somewhat (the data is inconclusive). Not sure why you would say the information is “bogus”. It’s still highly relevant when attempting to understand the problem of teen pregnancy. Sexually mature sixteen-year-olds that have a secure place in the economy could marry and raise a family. Sexually mature thirteen-year-olds are not in a position to marry, much less provide economic security for a family. They should be in school for at least five to ten more years before they can enter the worker economy. That means a decade of sexual maturity before starting a family.
Charles,
I’m giving you the public data available for the PGSM for a 1990s era 16″ gun.
If that makes you smile, consider that the actual capabilities are considerably better. The Missouri, back when she was running, could put munitions on over 60% of the world’s population from outside the 3-nautical mile limit. That’s not counting the Tomahawks, which brought the total of unengagable people to “individuals in high orbit”. I say “high orbit” because the SM2s have been proven able to engage low orbit satelites.
The military has all kinds of cool stuff in our wish list; we just don’t always get to buy it or use it.
Though I might go for the rail gun system on the BBN instead of a traditional 16″ battery of nine. No need for powder magazines or the elevators. Add in a new generation Aegis-type air defense system, vertical-launch tubes, and six to eight Apaches built with laser designation and Penguin anti-ship missiles and you’ve got yourself a fun, fun, fun pack of whoop-on-the-bad-guy.
SFC Dave
“The Navy is a wonderful thing – how else would we get the Marines to where they belong?”
Zach – You continue to miss the point entirely, which I think is probably intentional, but I am not sure. What the OP posted about is our values as a society and the values teens display and the problems that arise from those values (or lack there of). All this crap you are blathering on & on about has nothing to do w/ the conversation that needs to be had. I am not denying the statistics regarding where the majority of pregnancies occur. (Nor where the majority of abortions occur.) It just isn’t the point. As I said to you initially – we have more than our fair share of liberal buffoonery right here in Texas where I am, and I’m sure other red states do as well. We are just enough right-leaning to tip the balance in national elections and for the governor spot in recent elections. But there are plenty of Dems running plenty of cities and plenty of liberal activism and education here as well. I know because I was getting the prized liberal sex-education you are advocating starting in public school starting the 5th grade; right here in a very conservative Houston suburb. Though, by that age, it was hardly necessary as my conservative, Christian parents had already covered most of that ground with me (providing real books and everything) long before they brought it up in school. (Well, my mom covered the education part w/ me & my sisters more than my dad. But as Cable TV came into being when I was about 8 or 9, it was my dad who allowed us to watch The Blue Lagoon for the rest of the details that my mom didn’t really cover.) This was appr. 30 years ago, so I doubt we red-staters returned to some Little House on the Prairie situation that exists only in the pea brains of you liberals. And, if these three sources of info were not available to any of my peers, rest assured that Teen magazine, Seventeen magazine and Glamor, the preferred reading material of tweenagers & teens, covered all of our birth control options and sex-education (in every issue).
So again, your lack of thoughtful analysis on the subject is readily apparent – as liberals frequently cite the lack of this information and/or access as the cause for the higher birth rates among teens, especially in red states. And while you accuse me of trying to deny facts that I don’t like (which I did not do – you are projecting), I am certain of this; even after explaining to you just now absolute facts that disprove your hypothesis, you will continue to cite lack of proper sex-ed as the primary cause of the problem. Because it allows you to continue to blame conservatives in the tired nany-nany-boo-boo fashion that you are right now. To acknowledge these facts would mean you would have to admit that conservatives are not the “anti-education/anti-science” Neanderthals that liberals portray us to be; and as such, would mean you aren’t nearly so much smarter then us as you think you are.
Sex education or lack of it and/or lack of birth control options is NOT the issue; hasn’t been for a very long time. These kids that are walking around not knowing where babies come from only exist in your head. They are not real. So please stop wasting time trying to fix imaginary children w/ imaginary problems.
PS – My apologies to the grammar police/sentence structure sticklers who just subjected themselves to this post…I am not good at either.
Suek – things really fell apart in the 1960s, with LBJ’s “War on Poverty” that subsidized (incentivized) out-of-wedlock births, plus other interlinked social trends that encouraged the destruction of nuclear families, especially those that were economically vulnerable (pornography, no-fault divorce, drugs, crime, etc)
I know that Thomas Sowell has written extensively on this, but it is hard to find his work on the internet. See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/05/preserving_the_liberal_vision.html
Unfortunately, the U.S. Statistical Abstracts do not include data on this prior to 1990 (why not? The data is there somewhere).
Incidentally, you can’t compare out-of-wedlock births in Europe to the United States. Europe is in a state of demographic collapse altogether (as is the rate of marriage), whereas we are still maintaining our population levels. Europe should serve as a warning to all of us -we don’t want to go where they have gone!
To really document what happened, we should have data comparing 1956, 1966 and 1976.
Different cultures deal with out-of-wedlock births in different ways. I did come across this charming piece that spells out how the issue is dealt with according to the Religion of Pieces: http://deskofbrian.com/2011/01/islamic-clerics-order-burning-of-out-of-wedlock-babies-in-pakistan/
Zach says: The effect is most pronounced during industrialization, but may have leveled off somewhat (the data is inconclusive). Not sure why you would say the information is “bogus”. It’s still highly relevant when attempting to understand the problem of teen pregnancy. Sexually mature sixteen-year-olds that have a secure place in the economy could marry and raise a family. Sexually mature thirteen-year-olds are not in a position to marry, much less provide economic security for a family. They should be in school for at least five to ten more years before they can enter the worker economy. That means a decade of sexual maturity before starting a family.
Zach, I commend you all for making a very good point. Not sure what the solution is, however. Get married younger? The Mormons encourage this and it seems to work well for them.
Cheesestik – one of the points that has not been raised and that is to your point is the active encouragement of promiscuity by organizations like Planned Parenthood that reap huge bucks from the abortion industry.
Danny – Yes, but not limited too PP either. It is being encouraged from all directions it seems – which is why many conservatives and Christians oppose the government being put in charge of sex-ed. It is not that we don’t want kids to be educated; we don’t want them indoctrinated w/ the values of organizations that share PP’s agenda. And that is exactly what the left is trying to do. (All while trying to pretend it is just innocuous, scientific data that conservatives are objecting too.)
The other issue that I rarely hear mentioned is the simple fact that most girls/young women actually WANT babies. All this focus on birth control and educating people will not change nature’s calling. The folks on the left seem to come at this issue with the idea that no one really wants to get pregnant. They treat pregnancy the same as a venereal disease. (i.e. If we just tell people what causes pregnancy/AIDS & what they can do to protect themselves from it, they will never get herpes or babies. *smacks forehead*)
I think there is a difference between being sexually mature, that is, able to conceive or having viable sperm, and having the maturity to engage in intercourse. And that’s the crux of the issue between the left and conservatives. Each has a fundamentally different view of what constitutes goods when it comes to sex.
At the risk of overly simplifying what the left believes about sex, I think its main beliefs are:
—Sex is a good thing that every person has a right to indulge in. Exceptions include rape, pederasty and possibly incest, although some of the left are relentless in their efforts to lower the age of consent to as low an age as possible.
—Sex is not good if it brings about its natural end product, a child. However, a child is acceptable if the mother wants it, can support it (including the dole) and if it does not unduly interfere with school or career.
—Sexual urges are so powerful that it is difficult to constrain them. Psychological damage can result, and it is unfair to deny sexually mature citizens the right to pleasure and intimacy.
—Because the age of sexual maturity is now around 12 or 13, and family formation cannot reasonably be expected to begin until years later, it is realistic to expect that middle school and high school children will have sex (see the point above).
—But to prevent the bad consequences of youthful sex—babies—the government has a duty to teach young people how to have “safe” sex (sex that does not end in pregnancy or disease) via condom and birth control use, and, in the unfortunate and revealing phrase by some others on this site, “abortion [as a] last choice.” (Why it shouldn’t be the first since it so decisively solves the problem, nobody is saying.)
In short, the left sees sex as a consumer good that is morally neutral (unless a pregnancy occurs, in which case a potential bad has occurred).
Conservatives believe:
—Sex is a fundamental good, but the power of the instinct and drive is such that it must be bound by certain ethics and rules. Among them:
—Children should not indulge in it because they cannot handle it, no matter how many 8th-grade “health” courses on fitting condoms over a banana they’ve had.
—Children should not be given permission to indulge in sex, especially when advocacy for their sexual freedom is often a way to direct moral scrutiny away from adults’ own sexual proclivities and pecadilloes. You don’t justify your own moral disorders by spreading them to others.
—Children can be taught to control and channel their appetites.
—The government has no right to interfere with children’s bodies by offering them condoms or birth control devices.
—Adults who indulge in it have a moral responsibility to understand that each act of intercourse, no matter how many devices or drugs have been summoned to thwart it, carries the possiblity of impregnation. If that occurs, the adults who have procreated are now responsible for the fate of a human life.
In short, conservatives see sex as both an elemental thing and a moral matter, given that the misuse of sex leads to such great unhappiness, and in the case of abortion, the wholesale destruction of human life.
Charles M – Robin of Berkeley, until recently of the Left, has a pretty powerful piece on the Left’s view of sexuality:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/the_lefts_sexual_terrorism_1.html
Exceptions include rape, pederasty and possibly incest, although some of the left are relentless in their efforts to lower the age of consent to as low an age as possible.
That’s not what Hollywood said when they wanted to free their rapist director from captivity.
To make your description more accurate, it would be “exceptions include the above, except in cases where the individual charged with the crime is a respected and powerful member of the Left”.
Sarah Palin’s daughter had this problem as well.
She was lucky to have a strong family and economically stable support system. Not many are.
The Left did not in fact celebrate her pregnancy as choice. Instead they saw her as a slut or at best, someone who didn’t know better than to abort so that she could have parties and go golfing like Obama does all day long.
to the Left, self pleasure and decadence are the only worthwhile goals in life.
The Left has no qualms about using guerrilla tactics that would be anathema to any moral person.-Robin
A bit of a quibble. The Left has no qualms about using low intensity, low risk, guerilla insurgency actions.
The high risk ones, they leave to others. Mostly because they suck at it. And mostly because incompetence in high intensity unconventional warfare leads to things like exploding bombs in your face due to improper usage of det cord and fuses.
To get to the point, the Left has no qualms about taking low risk actions that give them immense gain. They, however, are not willing to risk their lives for the cause. Nor are they willing or even able to kill lots and lots of people. We, however, are. Not every conservative or even every trained person is a conservative for that matter.
Much like Dave, I’ve already covered the little itty bits on warfare, conventional and unconventional, I am for or against.
There is a clear line between the rule of law and a state of war. The Left toes the line very finely, convincing most people that they are at peace and “working” for a cooperative future, when in fact the Left is at war with America. It doesn’t fool me, but it fooled plenty of others that weren’t paying attention or lacked my training and focus.
A state of war can be very rewarding, but it is also very costly and risky. Thus both the Left and conservatives, for the most part, stick to their turfs, hoping not to go to war. But whereas conservatives just want to be left in peace like Israelis, the Left are the Palestinian blood crazed sadistic serial killers. They can’t get enough of war and horror.
Recently the Left has come out into the open. No longer are they even pretending to be the “sheep” in wolves’ clothing. They have bared their fangs and the poisoned husks of corpses litter the field for miles and miles.
I learned a lot from Target Focus Training when I discovered it some time after 9/11. I wish more people, especially women, would take their training and gain the tools to secure their own liberty and security.
I will say one thing.
The Left thinks they are the most ruthless gang of crooks around. But they don’t understand the meaning of ruthlessness. Should they demand of us war, they will get it. And they will regret it.
>>Sexually mature thirteen-year-olds are not in a position to marry, much less provide economic security for a family. They should be in school for at least five to ten more years before they can enter the worker economy. That means a decade of sexual maturity before starting a family.>>
Are you referring to males or females? If both, does that mean that you expect females _must_ anticipate entering the work force? If _that_ is true, does that mean that you expect that children _must_ of necessity be cared for by non-family members? Does that not increase the likelihood that family values won’t be those of the parents? But if so, then whose values?
If males – the information all have supplied has addressed female menarche only, nothing about males.
It also says nothing about fertility – which requires menarche, but menarche alone does not necessarily guarantee fertility. Males, too, may be apparently sexually mature, but still be infertile.
Z doesn’t get the science behind global warming, evolution, or intelligent design. Now he wants us to think he understands human biology? *chuckles*
That’s a good one.
>>The Left did not in fact celebrate her pregnancy as choice. Instead they saw her as a slut >>
Interesting statement, Y. So what makes her a slut is not illicit sex, but not having an abortion.
She’s “immoral” because she decided to carry her pregnancy to term.
I knew this of course, but never reduced it to simple terms. They are really perverted.
Suek, just as Juan Williams is an uncle tom race traitor to Negroes because JW started speaking things black people should stay silent on.
Suek, and remember, who was it that got fame and acclaim? The no good, lazy, weak “boy” without a spine, that fathered the child, that’s who. You saw him whoring himself away, on the arms of older Hollywood “womyn” did you not. Ever wonder how that happened.
The Left sees our beauty as evil, and we see their beauty as equal to mass murder. It is as simple as that. This IS NOT a difference of ethics or politics. This is a difference of beauty. Which is a lot more serious than just a moral or ethical disagreement.
To clarify, it is not just a difference that can be smoothed over by ignoring it or talking about something else. Individuals can ignore political disagreements. Individuals even have different ethics. Somebody may think killing is nice, while others think not. They can still live together, if they obey laws. But those with a completely incompatible vision of beauty? Those people ultimately end up killing each other because they cannot stand the sight of the other. It brings out the worst xenophobic tribal urges of humanity.
And leads inexorable, if unstopped, to kill or be killed. Now that’s something you really can’t gloss over by ignoring it. Everybody has a vision of beauty, something they admire or aspire to. What they consider the Perfect, the Ideal. Individuals being different, their vision is a bit different as well. Some men may find one woman beautiful, while others consider her plain. Some consider heroism beautiful, others consider it foolish. But the real problem happens when you have not just different visions, but INCOMPATIBLE visions. If you believe a hero is beautiful and excellence, but the Left believes that same hero of yours is despicable, worthy of execution and being tortured, and is ugly as sin, what kind of common ground are you getting again?
>>things really fell apart in the 1960s, with LBJ’s “War on Poverty” that subsidized (incentivized) out-of-wedlock births, plus other interlinked social trends that encouraged the destruction of nuclear families, especially those that were economically vulnerable (pornography, no-fault divorce, drugs, crime, etc)>>
http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2011/03/espn-jalen-black-kids-with-father-in.html
>>I found one link that states the average age of female puberty has declined to 9 years, due to milk consumption and plastics in the environment, but this is from a “natural” website and I simply don’t trust it.>>
This is interesting. I simply don’t know enough to really evaluate it, but it’s my experience that girls complete growth within 1-2 years of menarche. If what you’re saying is correct, then you take that age 9 height (what’s the average height of girls in third grade?) and add a couple of years of growth. Now you’re looking at the average 5th grader…how tall is she? My guess is that she’s going to be closer to 5 ft tall than not. Yet we see the average height of girls getting taller and taller. These two pieces of information simply don’t mesh.
Danny, thanks for the link to Robin of Berkeley’s piece.
It made me recall an encounter I had with a young associate editor when I worked as managing editor at a trade magazine. She was 25, a bright Cornell-educated girl who, like so many of her peers in San Francisco, was single and plying the bar scene. I was 32, married, way past any bar scene, and had an office reputation for keeping confidences and not rubbing in people’s mistakes.
So, she came to me one day to ask my advice. She’d met some guy at a bar and had really fallen for him, then later learned the feeling wasn’t mutual and that he was giving her to the cold shoulder at their regular haunts. She was looking for some key to the male psyche from me. I told her that I had a hard thing for her to hear, but that it would help her avoid future heartache, or at least know why things were not going to work out as she hoped if she continued looking for Mr. Right in a fern bar.
I told her that despite all the feminist nonsense about sex roles being culturally conditioned, she was up against one fact of life that nobody seriously disputed: Guys at bars are happy to get laid. If they score and the girl wants more, they are going to ask why they should give it. For every girl who wants more, there are 10 that will be happy—even if they’re pretending—to bed a guy with no strings attached. No matter what you do, I said, hop in the sack or hold out, the odds are slim that the guy is going to stop messing around so he can take on strings and obligations with you.
She wasn’t pleased to hear that. I said she needed to look elsewhere for a man who just might be attracted to something other than her presence in a bar and her particular set of genitals. I told her that charity work, a political cause, church or some other place where she could work side-by-side with somebody before working crotch-to-crotch with him might help her out. (Of course I said this all in much more polite and circumspect language.)
She thanked me and we never talked about it again. It was the first time in my life that I really felt sorry for the myth of sexual freedom that my generation (Old Boomer) had unleashed on the world.
Charles Martel: That is such a tragic, sad story. I realize that it can be multiplied by (perhaps) millions around the U.S., but that doesn’t make any single case less tragic or sad, Stalin to the contrary notwithstanding.
I hope she heard you and took it to heart…and wish that every young woman (and man) could grow up with a father who teaches that lesson by his example and clear communication to his beloved children.
Our culture is just a cesspool at the moment – and while it’s not entirely the fault of my generation (also early Boomer), we bear lots of responsibility for it, despite the best efforts of a minority, of which it sounds like you’re a part, and in which I proudly claim membership.
Danny Lemieux: Not sure what the solution is, however. Get married younger?
The problem again is that there is a conflict between sexual maturity and economic security. The age of emotional and sexual maturity vary widely. But considering the long period between sexual maturity and economic security, it’s just not reasonable to expect that at least some healthy teens won’t engage in sex. They fall in love. It happens.
Studies have made clear that early parenthood, even if married, lead to lives of limited opportunity. There is no magic bullet. As we mentioned above, solutions involve destigmatizing abstinence for those who aren’t ready, promoting strong role models, while providing primary medical care, and including access to appropriate birth control for the sexually active.
Cheesestick: Though, by that age, it was hardly necessary as my conservative, Christian parents had already covered most of that ground with me (providing real books and everything) long before they brought it up in school.
Use of contraception for first-time sex is lower in states that promote abstinence-only rather than the combination approach of abstinence and safe sex. For instance, those teens who take an abstinence pledge are just as likely to engage in risky sex, but are much less likely to use contraception.
Cheesestick: The other issue that I rarely hear mentioned is the simple fact that most girls/young women actually WANT babies.
Quite so. That’s why education is so important, so that parenthood can be timed with other important life events. Build the nest before laying the eggs.
Cheesestick: The folks on the left seem to come at this issue with the idea that no one really wants to get pregnant.
Oddly enough, this discussion started because ’liberals’ were supposedly doting over young mothers rather than ostracising them.
Charles Martel: Children should not indulge in it because they cannot handle it
That’s right. Children don’t have the emotional maturity. Abuse and other bad results are much more likely in the young.
Ymarsakar: Nor are they willing or even able to kill lots and lots of people. We, however, are.
Sigh.
Zachriel: Sexually mature thirteen-year-olds are not in a position to marry, much less provide economic security for a family. They should be in school for at least five to ten more years before they can enter the worker economy. That means a decade of sexual maturity before starting a family.
suek: Are you referring to males or females?
Yes. Modern boys and girls are taller, heavier and reach sexual maturity earlier. This is due to better nutrition, especially seasonal, and the reduction in childhood diseases that can stunt growth.
Lulu: Whatever happened to shame or pressuring boys to “do the right thing”? Gone are the rumors, the marginalization, the “slut” comments, the judgment of others, the pressure of peers that encourage waiting and responsibility. There simply is no stigma.
suek: So what makes her a slut is not illicit sex, but not having an abortion.
In Lulu’s story, it was the ‘liberals’ who de-stimatized teen motherhood. It was the ‘conservative’ suggestion to isolate pregnant teens “to a pregnant girl school”. To be fair to Lulu, she’s dealing with a very complex situation. But once pregnant, it’s best to make the most of it. However, children need to be taught about proper nest-building. That means a stable family situation, economic security with a future, and the emotional maturity necessary to make that happen.
Charles Martel: It was the first time in my life that I really felt sorry for the myth of sexual freedom that my generation (Old Boomer) had unleashed on the world.
Promiscuity has always been part of the human condition. It’s not new. It just gets rediscovered by every generation.
Zach observes: Promiscuity has always been part of the human condition. It’s not new. It just gets rediscovered by every generation.
So have prostitution, theft, murder, slavery, drug and alcohol abuse. And?
>>Studies have made clear that early parenthood, even if married, lead to lives of limited opportunity.>>
So…how did we get where we are? Prosperity started … when??
>>Zachriel: Sexually mature thirteen-year-olds are not in a position to marry, much less provide economic security for a family. They should be in school for at least five to ten more years before they can enter the worker economy. That means a decade of sexual maturity before starting a family.
suek: Are you referring to males or females?
Yes. Modern boys and girls are taller, heavier and reach sexual maturity earlier. This is due to better nutrition, especially seasonal, and the reduction in childhood diseases that can stunt growth. >>
Non-responsive.
I’ll leave out the easy part:
If both, does that mean that you expect females _must_ anticipate entering the work force? If _that_ is true, does that mean that you expect that children _must_ of necessity be cared for by non-family members? Does that not increase the likelihood that family values won’t be those of the parents? But if so, then whose values?
Danny Lemieux: So have prostitution, theft, murder, slavery, drug and alcohol abuse.
That’s right.
Danny Lemieux: And?
The moral behavior of the “Old Boomers” is not much different than that of previous generations.
Z you don’t even have any quotations to use up to substitute for plagiarism? That’s bad form.
So when are you going to start writing in complete sentences and complete paragraphs? Or do you need permission from your committee of weak kneed dissenters: the peanut gallery.
suek: Non-responsive.
Sorry. We meant to respond, as they are relevant and interesting questions.
suek: If both, does that mean that you expect females _must_ anticipate entering the work force?
Most women have worked throughout history. The difference is that in preindustrial societies, women usually worked communally, with children being watched as a group. Older boys would join their fathers to learn their trade. Even in lone families, such as on frontiers, the woman would work while still watching the children. In modern society, due to specialization, women leave home to work. And that leads to the disconnect between parents and children.
suek: If _that_ is true, does that mean that you expect that children _must_ of necessity be cared for by non-family members?
We need to distinguish between preschool and school-age childen. Older children are in school for much of the work day, as they are preparing for their own entry into the specialist economy.
For preschool children, a variety of models have been tried, such as professional child care, informal child care, somewhat extended family models (dropping the kids at grandma’s), and one parent staying at home during early childhood. None of them are perfect for every family.
suek: Does that not increase the likelihood that family values won’t be those of the parents? But if so, then whose values?
Yes, it can cause a problem. Parents who use professional child care need to make sure their children are in a nurturing environment, but that can be expensive.
So this bring up a related problem. Children are very expensive, even more so if the mother can’t stay at home. That’s why parenting should wait, or it forestalls success in the modern economy. For most people, it means muddling along, and accepting a significant burden. Modern society has many advantages, but a number of intrinsic problems, as well.
I’ve noticed that while Z attributes magical powers to human beings to change and transform the environment and the climate of this world, Z attributes no influential power to politics, culture, or societal standards. To him, it’s about natural biology. Whereas everything in ACC is about human effected problems and situations.
Ever wonder why this dichotomy and contradictory position exists on the part of Z?
Zach concludes: The moral behavior of the “Old Boomers” is not much different than that of previous generations.
That assumes, to Ymar’s point, that moral behavior is a constant. It isn’t. If anything, it is cyclical. It changes greatly as a function of religious, cultural and generational influences. For example, it has been noted that crime levels during the ’20s and the Great Depression were minimal as compared to today (a St. Valentine’s Day Massacre was huge news in 1929 – it would be relatively mundane in the Texas borderlands or in East LA today). As far as the impact of religion and culture: it should be noted that property theft is extremely rare in Saudi Arabia, for example, whereas it is rampant in secular Western Europe. Or, compare the values of secular Russia today to the Confucian value systems of Taiwan and Hong Kong.
If you want to understand the effect of “generations” on behavior, I can highly recommend the following book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generations_(book).
Contrary to “some scholars” referenced in the Wiki article (since we who live outside of the Temple of Orthodoxy are allowed to think for ourselves), I have found it to offer extremely compelling and logical explanations for what I have observed over the course of time with my “own lyin’ eyes”.
Danny Lemieux: If anything, it is cyclical.
Yes, that would be more accurate. And, clearly, there are some trends that can set apart generations overall. For the purposes of this discussion, effective birth control is a major factor. However, promiscuity has a long history.
OK, Zach: you all have defined the issue in a very general way (i.e., “promiscuity has a long history”).
How does that help? What do you recommend doing about it? Insha’allah?
First, however, you must decide whether promiscuity is desirable or not. This requires a value judgment (good, bad, no difference).
It also requires a balanced assessment of the consequences of each value judgment, preferably to society as well as to yourselves.
So, share with us: where do you come down on the issue? Give us a good analysis.
Danny – “Education” – that’s all Zach can offer. I said to him earlier that it was my contention that kids already know what the “education proponents” claim to what to educate them in. And as I predicted in the same post, Zach’s response would still be there needs to be “education”. He can’t give you an analysis because he apparently can’t pull his head out of his, um….stats. Meet the brick wall!
Danny Lemieux: you must decide whether promiscuity is desirable or not.
People can’t separate the emotional from the physical, even if they want to. Most people are happier in the long run when they establish meaningful relationships.
Cheesestick: I said to him earlier that it was my contention that kids already know what the “education proponents” claim to what to educate them in.
We responded.
Cheesestick: Though, by that age, it was hardly necessary as my conservative, Christian parents had already covered most of that ground with me (providing real books and everything) long before they brought it up in school.
Zachriel: Use of contraception for first-time sex is lower in states that promote abstinence-only rather than the combination approach of abstinence and safe sex. For instance, those teens who take an abstinence pledge are just as likely to engage in risky sex, but are much less likely to use contraception.
Keep in mind that what you consider common knowledge isn’t commonly known to children. And being able to integrate intellectual knowledge into real life is something even the wise struggle with.
http://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/
I’m still trying to understand where governments derive the power or right to invade children’s bedrooms and interfere with their sex lives.
Z believes that government and authority are the solution. If humans can control the environment, then humans can fix the environment with Green laws right? It’s a little big more problematical in the case of society. Because Z is trying to claim that government and authority can fix a problem that they didn’t create. Of course, he also says that of Climate Change, except there he at least admitted it was a human problem with a human origin. Here, Z is trying to claim nature’s authority and nature as the origin while also claiming human ability to “fix” the problem.
Hrmmmm
I suppose it is like “fixing” tsunamis before they happen.
We responded.
Don’t misrepresent the views of other people, Z. You don’t speak for yourself.
So, share with us: where do you come down on the issue? Give us a good analysis.
Danny, I think they shortchanged him in public education about that, since there wasn’t a class offered.
Zach – Keep in mind that what you consider common knowledge isn’t commonly known to children.
Do you know any real children??
Charles Martel: I’m still trying to understand where governments derive the power or right to invade children’s bedrooms and interfere with their sex lives.
Education is not invading the bedroom.
Cheesestick: Do you know any real children??
Yes, and children vary considerably in intelligence and maturity. While they may think they know about the world, most children are not emotionally or socially mature enough to be making adult decisions. Children cannot enter contracts, have limited culpability, and can’t consent to sex.
Zach points out that: “Education is not invading the bedroom.”
Education today has become indoctrination, in line with the Progressive ideals enunciated by John Dewey more-than 100 years ago. So, yes, to the extent that education has been /is being used to indoctrinate children on sexual values and practices, it is “invading the bedroom”.
In my view, the rise of “Progressive” education has occurred in tandem with the “failed state of education” in government schools. You don’t see similar declines in private or religious schools (or home schools).
Here’s nice (university) essay that neatly and concisely lays out the damage that John Dewey and his fellow travelers have wrought in turning education into a tool of the evolving fascist State:
http://faculty.fordham.edu/kpking/classes/uege5102-pres-and-newmedia/John-DeweyEd-and-Social-Change-by-Jen-Dainels.pdf
He was a man of his times.
Danny Lemieux: Education today has become indoctrination, in line with the Progressive ideals enunciated by John Dewey more-than 100 years ago.
Is Lulu indoctrinating children when she points out to her students that there is a huge discrepancy between their values and their behavior, or suggesting pregnant teens be shuffled off to pregnant girl school?
Danny Lemieux: You don’t see similar declines in private or religious schools (or home schools).
Private and religious schools involve selected students, not the general population. Public schools have to accept all students. When adjusting for the different populations, public schools score comparably on standardized tests.
Danny Lemieux: Here’s nice (university) essay that neatly and concisely lays out the damage that John Dewey and his fellow travelers have wrought in turning education into a tool of the evolving fascist State:
Dewey said that “democracy is the frame of reference for education.”
Danny Lemieux: … evolving fascist State…
Oh, gee whiz.
Here I define “fascism” in the original Roman sense, as a system of tight centralized government control (symbolized by axe in the fasces) over the different pillars of society, such as education, economy, military etc. (symbolized by the reeds bound to the axe). This was the symbol used by the Italian fascists. This symbol, however, also appears in U.S. symbology, albeit in different contexts.
I accept that “fascism” means different things to conservatives (to whom it means “political movements that emphasize centralized State power”) than it does to Progressives (to whom it means, “conservatives have cooties”).
You don’t deny that the evolution of American society has been one of centralization, do you?
Dewey said many, many things, and they all need to be understood in the context of his life. ”Democracy” can also mean many, many things in a Humpty Dumpty sort of way (think NoKo’s Democratic People’s Republic). Dewey was a founder of the Progressive movement and a great proponent of government centralization, not just in education.
Zach comments: When adjusting for the different populations, public schools score comparably on standardized tests.
Zach, I confess that I have not seen this study. Can you share it with us? Would love to see it. I would be especially interested in learning how “different populations” are defined.
>>Is Lulu indoctrinating children>>
At least to a certain extent, yes. “Raising” children is basically indoctrinating them with the mores and values of their culture. In the past, the US had a culture that was almost universal in holding Judeo-Christian values. Atheists and/or other religions/cultures were virtually nil. While the purpose of “education” is primarily one of teaching certain skills that the society deems necessary, it necessarily works within the framework of the culture and reinforces it.
Since the 1950s (approximately) the efforts of those who denigrate the Judeo-Christian values have used the courts to attempt to strip from the schools the framework of the culture of their families in order to inculcate them with the _lack_ of values of their preferred culture. One of those values is that hedonism is the most desired value to be attained, self-discipline the least.
That’s what we – who are mostly of the Judeo-Christian culture – are objecting to.
So actually, I’d consider that what Lulu is doing is _couonter_ indoctrinating.
She’s also doing that almost unheard of teaching method today – she’s asking them to _think_! Evaluate options, anticipate outcomes…and act accordingly.
“Oh, gee whiz.”
Not an argument. Unresponsive.
I’ll rephrase the question: What gives the government the right to tell children how to have sexual intercourse, and in many cases to intervene in children’s private lives by recommending or making birth control available?
Danny Lemieux: … evolving fascist State…
Zachriel: Oh, gee whiz.
Danny Lemieux: Here I define “fascism” in the original Roman sense, as a system of tight centralized government control (symbolized by axe in the fasces) over the different pillars of society, such as education, economy, military etc. (symbolized by the reeds bound to the axe).
Perhaps you are making a “slippery slope” argument, but the U.S. is not a fascist state.
Danny Lemieux: I accept that “fascism” means different things to conservatives (to whom it means “political movements that emphasize centralized State power”) …
Fascism is totalitarian and nationalist, not merely an emphasis on centralization.
Danny Lemieux: You don’t deny that the evolution of American society has been one of centralization, do you?
John Adams and Alexander Hamilton advocated for a strong central government. That doesn’t make them fascists.
Zachriel: When adjusting for the different populations, public schools score comparably on standardized tests.
Danny Lemieux: I confess that I have not seen this study. Can you share it with us? Would love to see it.
“Comparing Private Schools and Public Schools Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling”, National Center for Education Statistics 2006: For grade 4 reading and grade 8 mathematics, the average difference in adjusted school mean scores was no longer significant. For grade 4 mathematics, the difference was significant, and the adjusted school mean was higher for public schools. Only for grade 8 reading was the difference still significant with a higher school mean for private schools.
Lubienski & Lubienski, “Charter, Private, Public Schools and Academic Achievement”, National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education 2006: Overall, the study demonstrates that demographic differences between students in public and private schools more than account for the relatively high raw scores of private schools. Indeed, after controlling for these differences, the presumably advantageous “private school effect” disappears, and even reverses in most cases.
Danny Lemieux: I would be especially interested in learning how “different populations” are defined.
The criteria were race/ethnicity, gender, disabilities, English language learners, access to a computer at home, eligibility for lunch program, Title I participation, number of books in the home, and number of absences.
suek: In the past, the US had a culture that was almost universal in holding Judeo-Christian values.
Almost universal in holding Christian values, ney, Protestant values. You do realize that minorities, such as Quaker and Catholics, have always had to struggle for equality in America.
suek: Since the 1950s (approximately) the efforts of those who denigrate the Judeo-Christian values have used the courts to attempt to strip from the schools the framework of the culture of their families in order to inculcate them with the _lack_ of values of their preferred culture.
Students should learn about the world’s religion as part of their secular education, but their religious instruction should come from their parents and churches.
suek: One of those values is that hedonism is the most desired value to be attained, self-discipline the least.
Should we look at actual school curriculums to check your claim?
Zachriel: Oh, gee whiz.
Charles Martel: Not an argument. Unresponsive.
It was a colloquialism, an expression of surprise and incredulity. Danny Lemieux understood its meaning and clarified his response.
Charles Martel: What gives the government the right to tell children how to have sexual intercourse, and in many cases to intervene in children’s private lives by recommending or making birth control available?
In democracies, government is by the consent of the governed.
The medical community advises that children should avoid sex. But if they have sex, they should use birth control to avoid premature pregnancy and possible infection. There is a wide range of physical and emotional maturity that impacts what people will do.
http://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/
>>Students should learn about the world’s religion as part of their secular education, but their religious instruction should come from their parents and churches. >>
This is _not_ about the religions themselves – it is about the common values shared by those religions.
Do you not see the difference?
>>Should we look at actual school curriculums to check your claim?>>
We don’t have to. We have Lulu’s post. We see the results.
Besides – it may be a part of the curriculum, or it may not be. Just as you may have a law that says “Do this”, or “Don’t do that”, if there is no enforcement of the law, the law may as well not exist. Lulu says her school has a dress code, but it is not enforced. She says there are rules about intimate interactions between students, but these are not enforced. That isn’t part of the “curriculum”, but it’s definitely part of the “indoctrination”.
Suek, the unions make the school administrators put things on paper that look good, but in reality other things are going on under the surface. After all, schools have ZERO TOLERANCE FOR FIGHTING, right? Yet…
It’s just a way to distract parents and make them immune to lawsuits, which costs unions money.
I realize that Zach has no personal opinions, and is content to parrot whatever government or leftist line he can access on the Internet. So I guess he cannot tell me his philosophical justifications for why it is the government’s frickin’ business what people do with their genitals, and its business to tell them whether they should get pregnant or not.
suek: This is _not_ about the religions themselves – it is about the common values shared by those religions. Do you not see the difference?
Yes, we understand the distinction. Let’s look at your statement again.
suek: In the past, the US had a culture that was almost universal in holding Judeo-Christian values.
Per your statement, we only have to look at U.S. culture to know what those values were. They included keeping slaves, persecuting Catholics, breaking Indian treaties, nativism, Jim Crow, and so on. Those aren’t the only American values, of course, but they certainly do relate to any notion of “universality”.
You should be able to understand the point, but to make it explicit, you seem to believe in an imaginary past where your personal notion of Judeo-Christian values were universally shared.
suek: Lulu says her school has a dress code, but it is not enforced. She says there are rules about intimate interactions between students, but these are not enforced.
Yes, it sounds like her school has a multitude of problems. However, as we have shown, it is not representative.
suek: One of those values is that hedonism is the most desired value to be attained, self-discipline the least.
Please provide some justification for the claim that public schools teach hedonism as the most desired value.
Per your statement, we only have to look at U.S. culture to know what those values were. They included keeping slaves, persecuting Catholics, breaking Indian treaties, nativism, Jim Crow, and so on. Those aren’t the only American values, of course, but they certainly do relate to any notion of “universality”.
This is a perfect example of what happens when somebody abdicates thinking for himself and decides that Howard Zinn’s theory of U.S. history makes any sort of sense.
Notice the blanket indictment of the entirety of U.S. culture, a huge fallacy. By Zach’s warped reckoning (did we seriously expect better?) everybody in the United States kept slaves, hated Catholics, suported Jim Crow, etc. So, soldiers did not die to end slavery, Catholics never thrived in America, Jim Crow was not eventually defeated by the GOP (with some help from renegade Democrats). In Zachworld, the sins of some were the sins of all, and the millions of decent people who never committed those wrongs and actively worked against them are disqualified from consideration when we discuss American exceptionalism.
The irony here is that Zach is unqualified to discuss religion or moral values, given his inability to understand what he Wikis or plagiarizes (for example, his comments on Luther were breathtakingly inept, and his ignorance of Islam is apparent to all here.) The best he can do is lift from Zinn. It would be a hoot to discuss Xianity or Islam with Zach in real time. Without his hive mates and canned memes for support, he’d be lost. So I don’t blame him for pretending he doesn’t see the many calls here for him to man up.
Now. . .
I, Charles the Hammer, having spanked Zacky baaaaad for the umpteenth time, return to the Butler-VCU game.
>>You should be able to understand the point, but to make it explicit, you seem to believe in an imaginary past where your personal notion of Judeo-Christian values were universally shared. Etc.>>
I apparently had the mistaken idea that we were discussing the last half of the twentieth century at least, and the entire twentieth century at most.
Aside from that, all of your “bad” stuff is exaggerated with the exception of slavery, which ended in 1865. We fought a war to establish the principle that slavery was not acceptable. How many died in that war? How many from the Union? That seems like a generally accepted value to me. If not in the borning, then in the maturity.
Zach expostulates: Per your statement, we only have to look at U.S. culture to know what those values were. They included keeping slaves, persecuting Catholics, breaking Indian treaties, nativism, Jim Crow, and so on. Those aren’t the only American values, of course, but they certainly do relate to any notion of “universality”.
The Zach team seems to have trouble separating out the sacred from the profane. They confuse religious values with human nature. A religion provides a template of values an ideals that overlays the cultural and other profane values of societies. It provides a destination for society. It isn’t that Judeo-Christian religion makes people good, it is that it makes people better. For example, one cannot argue that Christianity had anything but a tempering effect on the excesses of Viking or Roman culture.
Let’s use slavery as an example: It was not Judeo-Christian that invented or exclusively practiced slavery in the world. In fact, slavery was practices pretty uniformly (the Jews were one of the first peoples to give it up, drawing from their religious values as the reason). Slavery was widely practiced throughout the Americas by the Amerindians (the Illinois’ tribe’s principle economic activity was slave trading). However, it is Judeo-Christian culture that established the template that turned Western European countries and the United States against slavery. The British and American abolitionists were the first to rebel against slavery in the 1800s, using Judeo-Christian religious precepts as their moral foundation against slavery (although the Vatican had tried unsuccessfully to excommunicate the Conquistadors who enslaved Indians in the New World as of the early 16th Century). Other countries followed after the British and American examples. Today, chattel slavery is rare (except in a few Muslim countries), although sexual slavery remains a huge problem.
It’s funny, though, how the Zach team insists on dwelling on the U.S.’s past misdeeds and failings rather than recognizing the lead the U.S. has taken in moving human values forward. I suspect also that their Jewish heritages (e.g., Christianity’s texts should be measured by the example of Martin Luther’s antisemitism; America is a “Protestant” nation, overlooking that “Protestant” is a very general label that applies to an enormously diverse group) also leaves them with an enormous “nativist” blindspot toward Christianity, which I can understand is very difficult to overcome. For them, it appears, the perfect truly is the enemy of the good and countries and peoples must not be judged by what they are today but rather by all the perceived misdeeds of their ancestors (unless they are Muslim or any other group in conflict with Judeo-Christian culture and values).
Butler, my fave, still narrowly leading.
Danny, it occurs to me how contemptuously Zach treats you. You take a lot of time and give much thought to your replies to him and the best he can volley back is whatever low-hanging fruit he can cop after a quick cruise on the Internet.
A shame.
Zachriel:
You do realize that minorities, such as Quaker and Catholics, have always had to struggle for equality in America.
As I had a Quaker grandmother, I will address the Quaker side. Quakers came to the US for refuge, where they could practice their religion in peace. They could not do so in England. I never heard any word from my grandmother about any maltreatment of her or of any ancestor for being a Quaker.
Quakers were able to freely practice their religion in America. In the 300 plus years since my Quaker ancestors came to Pennsylvania, undoubtedly there were some instances of religious bigotry towards Quakers. But the overall picture says that Quakers have had a very good life in America. Two US Presidents, Richard Nixon and Herbert Hoover, were Quakers, which implies a Quaker influence and success in America out of proportion to their numbers.
I have to laugh when “struggle for equality” is used to describe Quakers. From the beginning of their time in America, Quakers were more prosperous than the average. They were sober and industrious, and reaped the consequences of their behavior.
Yes Zach, the US is an imperfect place composed of imperfect people. One example of an imperfection is your hypocritically getting on your high horse about alleged bigotry in others, when you show bigotry towards adherents of the Tea Party by calling them “Teabaggers”- which refers to licking male genitals- as if you didn’t know already.
Danny (at #91); I agree with the basis of what you are saying; except for the “Dewey bashing.”
John Dewey is often quoted, though seldom read.
Even the PDF that you linked to is not really blaming what you call the “failed state of education” on Dewey. I could see how someone might see that; but the author of that slideshow is really very selective in presenting Dewey’s ideas without really backing up any of the claims; clearly this was written for a class in which the rest of the slideshow is left unsaid. Too many assumptions for the casual reader.
One of the things about Dewey is that he was a very prolific writer (If I recall he published over 80 books and over 150 journal articles; not “light” reading at all). And often his writings were worded in such a way that they could be interpreted in any way the reader so wished; didn’t even have to be taken out of context. That was one of the downsides to his being one of the first thinkers/writers in educational theory in the US; in addition to creating new ideas he was also establishing the language to be used in that field. Later writers took many of his ideas and phrased them much better. (After all, it is easy to interpret than to create)
I do find it interesting that Dewey himself often, even more so later in life, criticized those who “misused” his writings to advance their own political agenda in education. Or he would criticize those who took what he said too far. For example, he believed in changing education from a teacher-centric to a learner-centric system. Seriously, no one in their right mind should disagree with this; shouldn’t the education be for the benefit of the learner? (Teacher’s unions might not agree with that; but I don’t consider them to be “truly educated”). However, some “liberals” (quote marks because they weren’t liberal in the classic sense of that word; just ideologically liberal) took learner-centric to mean that the teacher would have little-to-no say in how the learners were to learn or what to be taught; everything should be turned over to the learner. Dewey called them out on this stupidity (okay, he may not have actually called them “stupid” but I think you get what I mean).
Dewey was also one of the first to advocate using the “scientific method” of education. That is to say; use empirical evidence to support the teaching/learning methods. If the evidence doesn’t support a learning method – change it or drop it. Kind of like No Child Left Behind testing, no? See, I’m using Dewey to support my education theory while some liberals will quote Dewey to criticize No Child Left Behind.
More to my point I will say, Danny, that what you are proposing about the failed state of education is, although not exactly, very much along the lines of what Dewey was talking about when he said that education is an important part of democracy. In your example of public vs. private (or parochial and home) schools; many (not all) public schools are failing because the “public” (i.e. those citizens who should be involved) have abandoned their civic educational duties. Private, parochial, and most certainly, in home schools those who should be involved (i.e. parents and teachers) are working together, as citizens in a democracy should work together, to advance the state of education.
In too many public schools the public has withdrawn from that duty and passed it to others to handle. In many of our public schools, we are now seeing the consequence of this “dereliction of duty.” Parents and some teachers are not involved and as a result those on the “extreme” have picked up the “burden of education” and remade it to fit their ideological agenda. It is also not just those on the left who do this; there are also far too many cases in which school board members around the country are trying to get their political, religious, etc. ideas into the class curriculum.
This also answer Charles M’s question (#95) “What gives the government the right to tell children how to have sexual intercourse, and in many cases to intervene in children’s private lives by recommending or making birth control available?” Schools that do not have active citizens, school whose citizens have given their civic responsibilities over to the “elite” have, in essence, given government this” right.”
I do wonder what Dewey would have to say about all this – publish another book, I’m sure.
Charles Martel: Notice the blanket indictment of the entirety of U.S. culture, a huge fallacy.
Actually, we said just the opposite. Instead of forcing people’s views into simplified preconceptions, try to understand what is actually being communicated.
suek: I apparently had the mistaken idea that we were discussing the last half of the twentieth century at least, and the entire twentieth century at most.
Legal segregation ended just about the time you would probably date the rise of secularism. You might want to specify the values you consider Judeo-Christian and see if you find your original statement is still supportable.
suek: all of your “bad” stuff is exaggerated with the exception of slavery, which ended in 1865.
Jim Crow is not exaggerated. It really happened, as did nativist movements, the persecution of religious minorities, the breaking Indian treaties.
Danny Lemieux: The Zach{riel} team seems to have trouble separating out the sacred from the profane.
No problem whatsoever, but suek’s formulation indicated that the values were almost universally held. It only requires noting prominent aspects of the culture to determine the values.
Danny Lemieux: Christianity’s texts should be measured by the example of Martin Luther’s antisemitism;
Not at all. That discussion concerned how religious texts can and are variously interpreted to support hated. We shouldn’t judge an entire faith by its lowest common denominator.
Danny Lemieux: America is a “Protestant” nation, overlooking that “Protestant” is a very general label that applies to an enormously diverse group
Yes. However, Protestants comprised the predominent culture for a large part of America’s history, and during that time Catholic values were considered alien by many. Indeed, as late as 1960, there was a serious question as to whether a Catholic could be elected President. So were Judeo-Christian values almost universally held in 1960.
Danny Lemieux: For them, it appears, the perfect truly is the enemy of the good and countries and peoples must not be judged by what they are today but rather by all the perceived misdeeds of their ancestors (unless they are Muslim or any other group in conflict with Judeo-Christian culture and values).
Just to reiterate, it was suek who made the historical claim.
Zach lecturing us about forcing our views into simplified preconceptions (as opposed to complex preconceptions, like AGW?) is like a tuxedo-wearing chimp telling a dinner party waiter which side to serve from.
It may be useful to take another look at the suek-zachriel exchange:
suek: In the past, the US had a culture that was almost universal in holding Judeo-Christian values.
zach: Per your statement, we only have to look at U.S. culture to know what those values were. They included keeping slaves, persecuting Catholics, breaking Indian treaties, nativism, Jim Crow, and so on. Those aren’t the only American values, of course, but they certainly do relate to any notion of “universality”. You should be able to understand the point, but to make it explicit, you seem to believe in an imaginary past where your personal notion of Judeo-Christian values were universally shared.
Zachriel did in fact issue a blanket indictment of U.S. culture by saying “to know what those values are”. It is an all-encompassing statement. Actually, if you read carrefully, it is more exactly an explicit indictment of Judeo-Christian values. The correct answer by Zach would have been that those Judeo-Christian values were *not* in fact universally held. E.g., The great Catholic immigration of the late 19th Century certainly inflamed tensions in the Boston area to the point of murderous bigotry. Those who would claim themselves the most pious in the country attended the lynchings of Negroes in public parks, followed by the burning of the hanging bodies; pictures were taken of the people gathered for the camera, the charred corpses behind them in the background; the people grinning as though they were at a Sunday picnic. Had high-fives been in fashion at the time, they’d have been high-fiving between sips of iced tea. That’s hardly moral behavior when applied to *any* religious standard (with the exception of today’s Islamofascist fanatics in the Salafist branch of Islam).
It does no one any good to whitewash history. But it must be understood: For those like Zach, the fact that we *aspire* to greatness and yet have failed in the past, is enough to label us UNIQUELY evil. A standard is applied to the USA (and to Israel) that does not apply to any other country, anywhere in the world. No country, no people anywhere, can meet that standard.
We have come so far, so fast, and yet ZERO credit is given. Slavery is described as a uniquely American evil, when in fact America was part of the ending of slavery (at least its ending in the Western world; it continues in the rest of the world under the covers, under various guises). These days bigots of most stripes must skulk in the shadows, hide in anonymity on the Internet. Yet no credit is given. Not by Zach nor others of Zach’s ilk.
I will claim (as I think suek would) that it is precisely those Judeo-Christian values that have *allowed* us to make progress against the darkness.
But Zach prefers the sneering blanket indictment instead.
I agree with suek’s statement: the US had a culture that was almost universal in holding Judeo-Christian values.
Zach parses it a bit differently: you seem to believe in an imaginary past where your personal notion of Judeo-Christian values were universally shared.
Notice the communitarian, socialist blanket phrasing: “universally shared” – which is something every single person across the country must “share in”. Suek said no such thing. Suek was speaking of the cultural *meme* that permeated nearly every corner and niche of the nation. *IT* was everywhere, even though never, of course, universally “shared” by all living, breathing individuals walking that plot of earth. Given human nature and our individual autonomy, that would be utterly impossible. Judeo-Christian culture itself did hold sway, however. Was it perfect? Hell no, not even close. We are not angels, and civilization is a thin veneer over barbarism (and barbarism still rules most of the world). The supports that prop up that thin veneer of civilization are being knocked away with ruthless enthusiasm by the Left, and that’s what’s got a lot of us mighty upset. For civilization is precious, and to see it declining and fading in the Western world is enraging.
I suspect that at the heart of what you are saying is that Dewey’s views equate to a Rorschach blot.
You say, “In your example of public vs. private (or parochial and home) schools; many (not all) public schools are failing because the “public” (i.e. those citizens who should be involved) have abandoned their civic educational duties.”
I really can’t disagree with you there. One of the questions that I find difficult to answer is whether centralized government control exacerbates or helps failed school districts (as we have here in Chicago). From everything we have evidenced, government control does not help but instead makes things far worse. It is not so much that government supports the education as much as all the nonsense (teacher union rules, nepotism, corruption, disciplinary rules, etc.) that goes with it.
What would happen to failed school districts if all was surrendered to local control – would local citizens then start taking responsibility for their schools? And, if not, should it be up to the other citizens of a country to bail them out and try to direct the state of their education?
My own experience having been involved on the board of an inner-city Chicago parochial school, financially supported by other parishes, is that the inner city has many, many parents (and grandparents) that want their kids to have a good education. However, they are virtually powerless to affect what happens at the government schools. Too often, their kids go there to be corrupted by the gangs. As an aside, the cost of educating a child (and no, Zach: there is no discrimination that enters in admitting kids to this parochial school) at this parochial school is about half of that at a government school…with much, much better outcomes.
With my own involvement in private education and my spouse’s involvement in public education (she’s a teacher), my bottom-line conclusion is be shut down the Dept. of Education entirely and decentralize funding and control to state and local authorities. It would be hard to do worse than we are doing now.
MikeD, the clash of religions and cultures you describe as various groups entered the melting pot is to our credit, actually: there was no other country of the period where so m any different groups could mesh together into a society. Zach’s objection seems that to be that, because there was great friction as this process occurred, the entire process is invalidated. The credit should be given that that process occurred at all.
That is a very big part of what makes us unique (exceptional). If we see that cultural meshing occurring today in other Anglosphere countries like Canada and Australia, it is in large part because we led the way.
Zachriel: Those aren’t the only American values, of course, but they certainly do relate to any notion of “universality”. You should be able to understand the point, but to make it explicit, you seem to believe in an imaginary past where your personal notion of Judeo-Christian values were universally shared.
Mike Devx: Zachriel did in fact issue a blanket indictment of U.S. culture by saying “to know what those values are”. It is an all-encompassing statement.
As anyone with eyes to see, we explicitely stated the opposite: “Those aren’t the only American values, of course …”
Mike Devx: Actually, if you read carrefully, it is more exactly an explicit indictment of Judeo-Christian values.
Furthermore, we also explicitly stated it wasn’t an indictment of Judeo-Christian values, but of suek’s statement “In the past, the US had a culture that was almost universal in holding Judeo-Christian values.” As he claims it was universal, that means we can look to American culture to determine what is meant by the term Judeo-Christian values. It’s the claim that is faulty, probably with regards to the assertion of universality, or perhaps equivocation on Judeo-Christian values. That’s why we asked for a definition.
Mike Devx: The correct answer by Zach would have been that those Judeo-Christian values were *not* in fact universally held.
Again, that’s what we stated: Suek “seems to believe in an imaginary past where his personal notion of Judeo-Christian values were universally shared.”
Where you become confused is that we showed that suek’s statement leads to a contradiction. In this case, the notion of values being universally shared. Suek then restricted his statement to what is apparently the four-year period between the Civil Rights Act and Woodstock.
Mike Devx: For those like Zach{riel}, the fact that we *aspire* to greatness and yet have failed in the past, is enough to label us UNIQUELY evil.
We never made such a claim, and reject it emphatically.
Danny Lemieux: Zach{riel}’s objection seems that to be that, because there was great friction as this process occurred, the entire process is invalidated.
The objection is to using a post hoc notion of Judeo-Christian values when clearly, for much of U.S. history, Catholic and Judaic contributions were explictly rejected as a valid source of values. As this was prevalent, you can’t then say Judeo-Christian values were “almost universally held”, at least not without substantial qualification. For many Americans, for much of American history, it was the Protestant ethic, not the Judeo-Christian ethic. It took generations before Jews and Catholics were included.
The present use of the term Judeo-Christian dates to Progressives of the early twentieth-century, and has gained currency in the American Right over the last few decades, but you may want to make explicit what you mean.
The Left likes to pretend that reality and evidence can be obscured or even transformed by words. Take this as an example.
Furthermore, we also explicitly stated it wasn’t an indictment of Judeo-Christian values, but of suek’s statement “In the past, the US had a culture that was almost universal in holding Judeo-Christian values.E
Z believes because he said something, that now it is true. That by saying he isn’t, that this erases the evidence of what he did. Z does not understand culture. Thus he never says what other cultural values there were. To Z, slavery is a “cultural value”. Which would mean the Indians and the Southern plantations owners had the same culture. In reality, that is false.
Culture is not such a simple thing uneducated and intellectual lax people like Z can grasp simply because he mouths some words to the effect.
In this case, the notion of values being universally shared.
As Martel have said before, Z has a problem with reading comprehension. Universal values for a single culture is neither a culture that accompases everybody nor a universal value system that applies to everybody. It is simply that, one culture.
Catholic and Judaic contributions were explictly rejected as a valid source of values.
This is inherently contradictory and full of ignorance. Protestants and Quakers are Christians. Anyone versed in even some theology would know that. Trying to butter wipe Judeo-Christian values becomes the same as saying the Romans had Judeo-Christian values when their Emperor converted to Christianity. It does not mean their culture was the same as ours, nor that they had the same values as us. The presence of slavery, Lutherans, Quakers, or anybody/anything else, does nothing to nullify it.
Mike and Danny, I believe you two have noticed by now that Z likes to lengthen his name. Even going to the point of writing in his own name when quoting you two. This is why I started calling Z, Z. If he wants to write in his name, all X characters, I might as well save on 3 of em. Right?
And on a psychological basis, it shows a serious case of rampant and on going narcissism for Z to be incapable of accepting shortened versions of his chosen moniker. Even going to the point of writing in his own name on purpose all the time.
That and the use of “we”, Martel, are signs of dangerous unstable elements to me. What say you Charles Martel?
We say that you might be on the right track, Ymar{sakar}.
Ymarsakar: To Z, slavery is a “cultural value”. Which would mean the Indians and the Southern plantations owners had the same culture. In reality, that is false.
The claim was that Judeo-Christian values were “almost universally held”. That probably wouldn’t include Indian culture, but certainly would include Southern culture. Indeed, it is implicit in our position that culture is not monolithic or unchanging.
Sorry, but the rest of your comment is incomprehensible.
Ymarsakar: Wow, look at those Ivory Coast boy soldiers slaughtering the inhabitants of that village!
Zach{riel}: Slaughter is defined as the systematic killing of a subjugated human or animal group, often with the aim of total annihilation. Some observers say that it is an inhumane. Others say that it is inefficient.
suek: That mixed-fiber dress sure would be great to wear to Bookworm’s dinner party!
Zach{riot}: Many cultures disdain the mixing of different fibers, possibly because of ritual considerations. Some say the ancient Jews did so for that reason. Others say the Jews are the reason why the Palestinians are a failed people.
Danny Lemieux: Teaching children how to have sex is not a proper function of the goverment.
Zach{hive}: The government is a result of democratic processes. We think that perhaps the best way to determine the role of goverment in child sex is to lower the voting age to 12. Others say that perhaps the rate of illegitimacy among U.S. schoolchildren would drop if the Israelis would recognize the right of Palestinians to robustly practice their culture, which sometimes includes celebrating with bombs.
Charles Martel: Hey, Zacky, debate me in real time!
Zach{wuss}: Some in my hive say I should, especially the Perfesser, who’s our fastest Wiki-ist/plagiarizer. On the other hand, some say I shouldn’t. In any case, I am going to pretend, as always, that I can’t hear you!
As Gandalf said of Gollum, “ Even the very wise can not see all ends. My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play yet, for good or ill…”
Z’s team is young. What is clear is that they neither know nor understand Judeo-Christian religion and culture. Nor do they grasp the complexities of science and history. They may know something about the Torah, but they know nothing of the new Testament. They misunderstand both. They are still too young to understand (and forgive) human nature.
Their youth is evident in how they, bereft of knowledge and experience, feel qualified to sit in the comfort of armchairs and sling arrows at the people and culture that nurtured them, sneering at their values while simultaneously contorting themselves in unnatural positions to conform unpleasant realities (Islamic culture and religion) to their idealized world visions.
It is hardly by accident that they presume upon themselves the identity of an angel. They can pass judgments against their own peoples, history, cultures and traditions because there are not (they mistakenly believe) any costs to doing so. They can forgive the excesses of others (Palestinians) because for them, unlike the Israelis, it costs nothing. In their view, our nation and we the people simply do not pass muster to their idealized standards – but then, their own ability to live up to those selfsame standards has never been put to the test of life. They have not had to expend the blood, sweat and tears of our forebears, nor of those today who toil and suffer to render their bubble safe, comfortable and affordable. Any acknowledgment of the greatness and successes of their own civilization can easily be trumped with a “but 400 years ago, Martin Luther was an anti-semite”. It’s a youthful indiscretion, to believe that one elevates oneself by tearing down those around them. The young and foolish confuse this with “intellectualism” (as in, “if I can denigrate those around me, it must mean others will see me sitting on an elevated perch”).
That’s OK. With time, life’s realities will work mud into their eyes until, one day, they too will understand.
This being said, they provide a very useful role on this blog.
“…he was born blind so that God’ works may be revealed in him.”
Re Zach 114:
I will agree that there have been, and are, other American cultural values that are not Judeo Christian values, and that you did call out that fact. I will also state that we are not writing treatises here, so we can’t hold each other to precise syntactical meaning. I can therefore allow that your opening line was NOT meant to be a blanket indictment of Judeo-Christian values, but rather perhaps of SOME American values not related to Judeo-Christian values. It’s unclear.
But suek’s statement still stands and I still agree with it. Judeo-Christian values did hold sway over nearly all of American culture. The fact that individuals and even some communities existed that did not themselves hold to those values indicates that they were outliers, is all.
If perhaps I was quibbling over your choice of word, you too are quibbling over suek’s choice of words. I understand what she meant, and she’s right. There’s no contradiction. And she’s not constructing any imaginary past.
The claim was that Judeo-Christian values were “almost universally held”.
Well, let’s look at the actual quote rather than re-interpret it via Monday quarterbacking.
At least to a certain extent, yes. “Raising” children is basically indoctrinating them with the mores and values of their culture. In the past, the US had a culture that was almost universal in holding Judeo-Christian values. Atheists and/or other religions/cultures were virtually nil. While the purpose of “education” is primarily one of teaching certain skills that the society deems necessary, it necessarily works within the framework of the culture and reinforces it.-Suek
The “thesis” of this paragraph is very clear. It’s about the transmutation of values through culture: not about values being universally held. That would be a misinterpretation and misquotation of what was written.
Here’s a sample of an actual disagreement that is on topic.
“The US had many cultures due to the various wars, conflicts, and migration of different people over the years. Thus I don’t think US culture can be spoken of in the singular concerning only a Judeo-Christian derived culture. In so far as education is based off of one’s culture in transmitting values and ideals to the next generation, I…”
You get the picture.
It’s unclear.
I guess they stopped teaching kids how to write complete sentences, with clear and concise thesis sentences.
Danny, heh kudos to you for taking some lord of the rings quotes and using em to cook something good up. Very poetic in the epic tradition.
Btw, Charles of Mart, have you noticed recently how Leftists like Barbara Boxer cannot stand being called things like ma’am? They demand to be called Senator or some such, like they are aristocratic barons being talked to by uppity peasants.
What is their entire issue with names anyway? First it was negroes, then it was blacks, then it was African-Americans.
They keep shedding their skin thinking something new will appear from underneath in the new spring. Something beautiful, but only the ugly comes out.
Many people say that because some people in the military risk their safety bubble, that this means that know what is going on.
But let’s go back to fundamental roots. People are still people. They are foolish and retarded, civilian or military. It’s just how it is. Experiences can help, but only a slim percentage of people will actually benefit from it. That is what I would say to those who would take the line that their favorite military Leftists (like the ones that work for Obama and agree with his policies) are the contradiction to our story. It is no contradiction, only a counter-point leading up to the grand finale.
Danny; ” . . . Dewey’s views equate to a Rorschach blot”
he he, that is funny, but not far off the mark. While Dewey was consider to have been “progressive” he started as being called pragmatic. A much closer key word; but I think he really does defy categorization.
Yes, I agree that “government take-over” of schools tends to cause more problems than it solves mainly for the reasons that you state.
” . . . my bottom-line conclusion is be shut down the Dept. of Education entirely and decentralize funding and control to state and local authorities.”
You get NO disagreement from me on that one; You’re right in that it couldn’t do any worse than what’s going on now. Too many of the basics are being dropped because there is no money to pay for the basic stuff; yet the state government (and now the feds) dictate too much of what’s required without funding to support it.
On the other hand, I’m writing this with the TV news on in the background and they are talking about Charlie Shitwit, er, I mean Charlie Sheen’s one-man show. Now there is something wrong with the public when Charlie Sheen, with all his problems, etc. has sold-out shows across the country. Who the heck are these people buying tickets to go see him? I do hope that they are not the only ones showing up at school board meetings.
On that same other hand, Rutgers University just paid Snooki (from the gawd-awful The Jersey Shore show) $32,000 to speak at their school – “study hard; But party harder kids!” Now, that’s wisdom for the ages. (PS – don’t bash us folks from New Jersey – we can’t stand folks like her either; in fact we here in NJ call folks like them New Yorkers!)
Lulu; with stunt’s like what Rutgers did with Snooki – you do have a tough uphill battle – good luck!
Zachriel
The objection is to using a post hoc notion of Judeo-Christian values when clearly, for much of U.S. history, Catholic and Judaic contributions were explictly rejected as a valid source of values.
The Bible was the most widely used and consulted book from the beginning of the American experience. Perhaps it is not so today, but it certainly was from 1600 to 1900. If a house on the frontier had only one book, it was nearly always the Bible. While the Christian New Testament was important, by no means was the Old Testament ignored. The Old Testament was a “Judaic contribution,” if I am not mistaken. Ever heard of the Twenty Third Psalm? Another “Judaic contribution.”
The Puritans saw themselves as constructing the “New Israel” in the New World. Sounds like a “Judaic contribution” to me.
While most of those immigrating to America in its first two centuries of European settlement were Protestant, there were definite Catholic contributions. Have you ever heard of the Calverts and Maryland, Zach?
Here’s a question that will stop the Zachs cold in their tracks, because they will not know how to answer: What are Judeo-Christian “values?’ What are the things that the Zachs are so zealously claiming were never universals in American culture?
Charles Martel: What are Judeo-Christian “values?’
Zachriel: The present use of the term Judeo-Christian dates to Progressives of the early twentieth-century, and has gained currency in the American Right over the last few decades, but you may want to make explicit what you mean.
Zachriel: It’s the claim that is faulty, probably with regards to the assertion of universality, or perhaps equivocation on Judeo-Christian values. That’s why we asked for a definition.
Answering a question with a question. Thanks. Gringo will attempt an answer.
Gringo: The Bible was the most widely used and consulted book from the beginning of the American experience. Perhaps it is not so today, but it certainly was from 1600 to 1900.
Absolutely. Anyone studying American or European history must learn about the Bible. It influences everything from language to politics. The problem is that suek is using the term differently.
suek: I apparently had the mistaken idea that we were discussing the last half of the twentieth century at least, and the entire twentieth century at most.
Perhaps suek hadn’t thought it through, and modified the concept accordingly, but may have missed the mark. Because the term Judeo-Christian values is not always clearly defined, we asked for how it was being used. Your formulation seems more defensible. Except…
Gringo: The Old Testament was a “Judaic contribution,” if I am not mistaken. Ever heard of the Twenty Third Psalm? Another “Judaic contribution.”
There’s still a number of problems. As the Bible was used to persecute Jews and Catholics, it calls into question whether it is appropriate to call that very prevalent aspect Judeo-Christian values. But leaving that aside, there is a problem in the use of the term ”value”. Biblical interpretation has varied so dramatically, from defending slavery and anti-semitism to pacifism and virtually ignoring the Old Testament, that it is hard to pin down exactly what you mean by “value”. It seems to be largely undefined. Indeed, we asked for a definition, and no one can seem to pin it down.
Gringo: While most of those immigrating to America in its first two centuries of European settlement were Protestant, there were definite Catholic contributions. Have you ever heard of the Calverts and Maryland?
Yes, and for many years, it was one of many *distinct* cultures. Indeed, the Protestants overthrew the government there, and passed anti-Catholic laws. So what values constitute Judeo-Christian values, ones that were almost universally held?
suek, we’re not just quibbling. Perhaps your original statement has merit, but it isn’t precise enough to know exactly what you meant. American culture has always had significant disparity in beliefs and values, so your statement has to be consistent with this fact.
The use of “Judeo-Christian values” on this thread was first used in the context of teenage sex. It would be safe to say that there was a universal ethic in the country at one time regarding sex: It was licit only between a man and a woman married to each other; pre-marital sex and adultery were considered morally wrong; bastardy was considered shameful; sodomy was a perversion; and so on.
That set of “values” was nigh universal. The Jews, the Protestants, the Catholics all held to them. That doesn’t mean that people didn’t often fell below those standards or pervert them in some way (“bundling” led to a very high rate of illegitimacy in Colonial America), and pre-marital or extra-marital sex have always been with us. But even people who stepped outside those bounds knew they were taking a risk in terms of social approbation or, for true believers, even endangering their souls.
That universal is long gone. Except among the religious and some secularists, sex outside of marriage is an accepted, even encouraged (people f*** like bunnies on TV and in the movies, and, apparently, at LuLu’s school), commonplace. Sodomy, especially its homosexual forms, is trendy and no longer carries an ick factor. Bastardy is not directly encouraged, but the welfare state pretty much insures that high rates of it are with us as long as there are no stigmas attached to it or incentives for single moms to conduct themselves otherwise.
Once again I started a reply, once again there was a flash of computer action and once again my reply disappeared!
That’s ok…I’ll settle for Charles’ answer.
But I must say – it really was a good question for a Sunday!
Zachriel: Sunday is almost universally considered the “day of rest” except where it is not. The “sun” in the name comes from the bright disk in the sky that people universally call the “sun.” Not all languages use the term “sun” in the day’s name. For example, Spanish speaking peoples say “Domingo.” Some experts think this creates confusion, but others say it doesn’t. Saturday, named after Saturn, is the traditional sabbath of the Jews. Some say the Jews, who are oppressing the Palestinians, are natural-born oppressors. Other say that they are conditioned to be that way.
Charles Martel: It would be safe to say that there was a universal ethic in the country at one time regarding sex: It was licit only between a man and a woman married to each other; pre-marital sex and adultery were considered morally wrong; bastardy was considered shameful; sodomy was a perversion; and so on.
Marriage certainly isn’t unique to the Judeo-Christian traditions, but thank you for the clarification.
Z still thinks Protestants and Quakers aren’t Christians. When will the ignorance end eh?
Ymarsakar: Z still thinks Protestants and Quakers aren’t Christians.
No, Ymarsakar. It was many Protestants who thought that Catholics weren’t Christians.
Zach, you really need to try reading what I say more closely. I wasn’t aware that I claimed marriage is unique to Judeo-Christian traditions. That is your gloss on my text, and I assume it comes from your insatiable need to show us your command of every issue under discussion.
>>It was many Protestants who thought that Catholics weren’t Christians.>>
Just because they think it doesn’t make it so.
Nevertheless, I’d like an explanation of the thought process that has brought them to that conclusion. I don’t think I’ve ever heard one.
>>For example, Spanish speaking peoples say “Domingo.”>>
As in “The Lord’s Day”.
Which also was honored in most of the nation as a day of rest. In fact, many states had “blue laws” (don’t understand the color reference, myself) which meant that no stores were allowed to be open for sales. Except gas stations and restaurants? Not sure about that. Seems to me that 7-11 began to break into that ban.
Definitely a Christian thing. It existed primarily in the Bible belt, along with “dry” counties. Which still exist, I think.
suek, those Protestants that disdain Catholicism as authentic Christianity refer to such practices or doctrines as infant baptism, papal infallibility, prayers to Mary and the saints, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, transubstantiation, indulgences, and confession as extra-biblical, even pagan, impositions on clear scriptural teachings.
I don’t want to get into the minutiae of the arguments, suffice to say that Protestantism in general relies almost exclusively on scripture while Catholicism’s three legs have always been scripture, Tradition and reason.
There was also the psychological need during the Reformation to justify the break with Rome by asserting that Rome had betrayed Christianity and that the reformers were performing a necessary housecleaning. Once authentic Christianity was restored, Rome had to be seen as an impostor that had been cast off.
suek: Just because they think it doesn’t make it so.
Quite so.
suek: Nevertheless, I’d like an explanation of the thought process that has brought them to that conclusion. I don’t think I’ve ever heard one.
Catholics have been accused of idolatry, with the pope often equated with the anti-Christ. Anti-Catholicism, along with anti-Semitism, was especially common in the American South until recent times.
“Jews, Turks, papists, radicals abound everywhere. All of them claim to be the church and God’s people in accord with their conceit and boast, regardless of the one true faith and the obedience to God’s commandments through which alone people become and remain God’s children.”
— Martin Luther
http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm
Strange, illustrating a point about recent Southern hostility to Catholicism with a quote from a 16th-century German priest. What part of Alabama is Wurtemburg in?
21st Century, 16th Century, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Protestants, Catholics, Quakers, Civil War, Civil Discourse, Civil disobedience , Red, Blue….help, it’s all so confusing. Why can’t we just get along. (note to myself…must stop eating mushrooms just because somebody tells me they are magic).
What part of Alabama is Wurtemburg in?
In the RIng of Fire (Eric Flint’s 1632), obviously.
Just because they think it doesn’t make it so.
Just because Z says it is so, doesn’t make it so too. Magic words and magic mushrooms. That and the Lucky Days unicorn flying over the rainbow defines the Left’s “superficial appearance” that covers up their serpentine inner darkness and malignancy.
Suffice it to say that Z’s conception of different ethnic, cultural, and religious views are not up to par with expected results. Definitely an F in grading.
Z is also, btw, evading the main responsibility of making and supporting his own thesis/point. Talking about what Catholics may or may not think about Protestants and what Protestants may or may not think about Catholicism, is going to do what to prove what point Z thinks he is not making?
Others discussing more or less the same topic. Not exactly the same, but close: (some very good comments as well)
http://floppingaces.net/2011/04/02/an-appeal-to-morality-reader-post/
Funny how these things pop up. Almost as if there are people reading Book’s blog and not commenting – or at least not under their own names…and then go elsewhere and elaborate. (cue Twilight Zone theme…)
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/shhhh_judeochristian_culture_i.html