My reaction to Bill Nye’s recent bit of controversy.
“And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine, but don’t make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can—we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.”
Gonzalo Camacho plays on the wing for Argentina’s national rugby side, the Pumas. He’s pictured here wearing the colors of Exeter Chiefs in England.
Camacho was on the pitch this past weekend for Argentina’s stunning tie with South Africa in the 4 Nations Rugby Championship (a tie South Africa were lucky to walk away with).
Here’s a cool little video about his rugby family. He’s the oldest of five brothers, all of them ruggers. None of them have reached his exalted heights yet, but the youngest has recently played for Argentina’s U18 side. Besides the five sons, the Camachos also have four daughters. Quite a family.
My wife and I were married at a beautiful bed and breakfast in the small and historic town of Micanopy, Florida, just a few miles south of Gainesville, where we met. Micanopy is a charming little town, the sort where you stop in to go antiquing on Saturdays, or where you might brunch before a little visit to Payne’s Prairie.
Alas that no one in Florida knows that Micanopy. Because what Micanopy really is is Cafe Risque. Like a pornographic South of the Border, I-75 for miles in either direction as one approaches Micanopy is dotted with billboards letting truckers and general citizens know that a world of greasy and tawdry delights awaits them at exit 374.
This is not Cafe Risque. This is where we were married…the Herlong Mansion. Are you being serious right now? “Herlong”? As in “I gave herlong pleasure”? Yes.
_____________________________________
Of the several grocery chains in our area, Bi-Lo is the shadiest, and you can see it in the check-out aisles. Few grocery stores in the area exercise what I think would be the common courtesy of covering up the Cosmo magazines at the check-out (it always seems like Cosmo is the worst), but Bi-Lo is the worst about shoving them right in your face.
The thought that my nine-year-old daughter might be consistently exposed to the sort of misogyny embodied in desperate headlines like “25 Orgasm Tricks That Couples Love” displeases me. I would love to see more grocery store chains adopt policies of covering up those magazines. Ideally, of course, they wouldn’t sell that type of sad pornography for women, but I realize that’s asking the moon.
It would only take enacting a policy. Whatever private company decided to be consistent about such a policy would likely become my new favorite grocery store.
And certainly no one would argue with a private business’ right to choose such a policy.
_____________________________________
I detest federal centralization. I’m all about local representation and a small federal government. I mean, come one, I’m Presbyterian. Even my church polity is about decentralization. The South was right on constitutional grounds…it was a War of Northern Aggression. Lincoln was The Great Centralizer, our Constitution is broken, and now the country’s poorer for it.
Have I established my rabid and crazed anti-federal and anti-centralization radical bona fides? I hope so, because I’m about to get all anti-libertarian on you.
I want city and county governments to make pornographic billboards illegal. GASP! Surely you don’t mean that! Those billboards are on private property!
How wonderful to live in a society with a (at least somewhat) representational government. And that government does not solely exist to keep people off each other and allow them go about their private business. A libertarian thinks that building codes are ridiculous; I think that federal building codes are ridiculous. It’s quite wise of a city or county to make sure no one comes in and starts building and selling really crappy houses to their people. At which point some libertarians say caveat emptor and I ask them to go read Rand by themselves in their selfish little corners.
I am not a libertarian because of Cafe Risque. Or, more appropriately for me now, because of Bedtyme Stories near Blacksburg, SC.
Cafe Risque is actually outside the city limits of Micanopy, which is why it can do what it does. Still, I would love to see the county take care of the problem (yes, I know it won’t because of moneymoneymoney).
The goal of our Constitution was to have minimal federal government.Nothing wrong with a more robust and virile government at town, county, and state levels. In fact, I think that would help in dealing with the federal government. Does this mean that I long for a piling on upon a piling on of laws? No. But I would like Christians to consider being less resentful of the only governments God has put over them that are immediately representational: local government. Of course, most never vote in local elections because they’re busy talking about the evils of Democrats and the Fed.
We have to many laws and too many codes at every level of government. That doesn’t mean we reject all government. The solution is not some principle that rejects the whole package. The solution is the hard work of doing it right. The State exists and is (“Alas”, we think to ourselves) ordained by God. If we have anything to say about the State, it is that it must not be the Leviathan it wishes to be, but that it has a place on the earth. We musn’t abstract government into some sub-category of a sacred meta-concept like Private Property or The Right to Trade.
_____________________________________
Am I suggesting that we legislate morality?
Of course. Is there something else a law is?
“We ate well and cheaply and drank well and cheaply and slept well and warm together and loved each other.”
Ernest Hemingway, A Moveable Feast
We ate, we drank, we slept, we loved. If you can keep it that simple, thanks be to God.
The quote makes me think of my wonderful wife and our wonderful marriage. Of course, it sums up what we do so well, but it’s also reminiscent of my wife’s own motto for marriage. I also like that the quote includes the word “cheaply”, which is a key part of our marital glue.
My wife’s motto in marriage also puts it neatly. “Sex, eat, sleep.”
When I first got married a pastor who was mentoring me (a Baptist who made the mistake of introducing me to Calvin) gave me his most important piece of advice. “Keep the pantry full. No matter how hard things get, make sure you keep the pantry full.” And there is immense wisdom in this. When Christians run in to trouble in their marriages they often want a hyper-spiritual meta-solution, instead of humbling themselves and taking care of practical things, like eating well, and drinking well, and sleeping well and warm together.
_________________________________________________
According to John Thrupp in The Anglo-Saxon Home: A History of the Domestic Institutions and Customs of England From the Fifth to the Eleventh Centuries, wives promised to be “bonny and buxom at bed and at board”.
Everything one needs to be bonny and buxom.
I’m going to talk about how awesome that is for husbands. If you don’t like that you can go read my moralizing for husbands while you suck on a lemon.
The bride’s vow, closely related to today’s traditional vows, is “I take thee John to be my wedded husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer and poorer, in sickness and health, to be bonny and buxom in bed and at board till death do us part, and thereto I plight thee my troth.”
A “troth”, by the way, is pledged loyalty and faithfulness, as in “betrothal”.
The groom’s vow was briefer, less beautiful, and less alliterative. “I take thee Alice to be my wedded wife, to have and to hold, at bed and at board, for fairer for fouler, for better or for worse, in sickness or in health, till death us do part.” It’s interesting to note as an aside here that the groom’s vow contains a promise to stay with her even if she gets old and wrinkly and ugly.
Just saying the words of the wife’s vow is a pleasure. They’re so bouncy! Try it, out loud: “Bonny and buxom in bed and at board.” Or maybe “Sassy and sweet in sack and at seat.” Sweet and bouncy…and bouncy goes so well with “buxom.” We all know what we think first when we hear the word “buxom”.
I’ll bet you don’t think “obedient and tractable”. Yep. That’s the first definition at Merriam-Webster, although it’s plainly labeled as obsolete. The word is from Middle English buxsum, from Old English būhsum; akin to Old English būgan to bend, or bow.
1. obsolete a: obedient, tractable b: offering little resistance : flexible <wing silently the buxom air — John Milton>2. archaic: full of gaiety3. vigorously or healthily plump; specifically: full-bosomed
Yes, every man reading this had already thought “full-bosomed”, but that’s the last thing mentioned by dictionary nerds, who are men we should all strive to be more like.
Every young man wants a wife who is flexible.
The oath the bride is giving is one of Christian submission to her husband. The most awesome thing about that is that we’re talking about cheerful obedience. You could even put a hyphen in there and turn that into one word. So we’re talking about cheerful-obedience, a much bally-hooed but seldom seen Christian quality. Buxom meant obedient and flexible, but it must have even then been a word charged with good cheer, since it followed “bonny” so closely, and since it evolved to mean “gaiety” and “bouncing big breasts”.
So Christian wives are called to cheerful obedience in bed and at the table. There are a lot of distractions, and lots of other work, but that’s the core of practical marriage. Thank God for this every day, o you husbands. And pray that you be made worthy.
The discussion began when I said, “There’s a wocket in my pocket.”
So Kimberly shouted throughout the house, “Bedtime for little bears!”
That being taken care of, I said, “Come on over, baby, and hop on pop!”
But she wanted to know, “Where’s walrus?”
So I told her, “Watch me grow, Kitten.”
She responded, “That is a very hungry caterpillar.”
That’s when I showed her the “Sweethearts of Rhythm”.
Kimberly announced she would recite aloud from “Falling Up”.
I said, “And that’s the wonderful way babies are made.”
To which she replied, “We’re having a home birth.”
And that was pretty much all the talking we did.
Most dads are familiar with that classic daddy moment of having baby fall asleep on top of them while they drowsily nap along with him.
May I endorse to you the same moment, but with your toddler instead of your infant? The moment is harder to come by, but the payoff is very satisfying.
This little guy is almost four.
Every day he randomly declares “Snuggle time!”, usually when wifey and I are conferring alone in the bedroom. He’s been trained to yell “Snuggle time!” from the outside, without barging in. Once we allow him in, he jumps between us on the bed and swings one arm around each parent. He considers himself to be in charge of snuggling in this family.
Pastor Toby Sumpter hits the nail on the head by reminding Christian fathers that they ought to praise their sons. So often it seems that fathers are afraid that praise might cause sin, but aren’t afraid that criticism and harshness will.
Strange, that.
Ultimately Jesus is the answer to this problem, but dads play a huge role in communicating the answer to their kids. Sons in particular need dads who are affirming, who regularly, graciously tell their sons that they are proud of them, that they respect them. They need dads who praise them, ask them for advice, get their input and help on projects. This doesn’t mean ignoring sin or pretending that you like the blue mohawk or the nose ring or certain life choices, but wherever there is goodness, you jump up and down and praise it. You talk about your favorite things about your son, about his accomplishments, his goals, his gifts, and perhaps most importantly, the ways he’s different than you that you think are so cool.
God our Father doesn’t come to us with a list of infractions. He doesn’t come to us with his fingers crossed behind His back. He isn’t hiding secret thoughts about us. He isn’t pretending to like us on the outside but secretly deeply disappointed. God comes to us as a Father who is pleased with His Son, who rejoices over His Son, and invites us into that fellowship, that love by the Holy Spirit.
Read the entire post here, Dad-Shaped Holes.
From the magnificent John Barach.
You cannot give your children too much assurance of your love, and you do not need to — in fact, you must not — teach them to question their assurance in order to get them to toe the line and live the way they should.
And so it is with the church.
Presumption is deadly and pastors should preach the covenantal warnings of Scripture. But no one has ever perished because he had too much assurance, because he trusted too much that God loved him, that Jesus died for him, that the Spirit was working to glorify him.
Oh how we love to tell our children that “it’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game.” Last year I wrote a post on the limitations of Mr. Grantland’s dictum, although Mr. Grantland is not at fault for the non-Victorian foibles of succeeding non-Victorian generations. That post focused not so much on playing the game “the right way”, but instead on playing with and behaving toward others with honor. The loss of a general concept of honor has meant that for us, “it’s how you play the game” has degenerated into “be a good loser” and “shake hands”.
Although that post called for a more general ethic to be employed, the call was for that general ethic to be brought into play in a very specific arena in which it is lacking. Today, for funsies, I write to endorse the “it’s how you play the game” ethic, but instead of limiting it to sport specifically, I will propose it as a salutary window into learning how to teach kids stuff. All stuff.
So, then, I entitle this post either “It’s How You Play the Game” or, better yet, “I Will Continue To Praise Your Failure”.
When fathers are teaching skills to their children, it is necessary that they have the long view in mind, and teach accordingly. I have said elsewhere that I am effusive in my praise of good performance on the part of kids placed under my authority, but that I also tell them in no uncertain terms when what they’re doing is just not cutting the mustard.
That being said, fathers should know what doesn’t cut the mustard. Doing things badly never cuts the mustard. Laziness, half-assery, anger, impatience…these do not cut the mustard. Failure, on the other hand, ought to bother no one. There is nothing wrong with failing; in fact, sometimes it’s better to build in a little failure as you’re teaching, not as some sort of sadistic “make ‘em tough” sort of thing, but because teaching things the right way will often involve more failure than teaching things the easy way.
Like your favorite Southern Baptist preacher on a fall Sunday morning, this is the part of the post where I move to a sports example. It’s like when Alabama was facing a fourth-and-goal…
Actually, it’s like teaching a five-year-old kid to shoot a basketball. From the girl who insists on shooting the ball like a Rick Barry underhanded free throw to the boy who cocks the ball behind his ear like a football to the kid whose form looks pretty good but uses too much arm. Those kids have been shooting the basketball their way for a while, and they’re okay at it. The grown-ups can all tell how awful and limiting some of those styles are, but all the kids see is that when you ask them to shoot it properly, they can’t even get the ball to the rim.
One girl I coached took weeks to start hitting the rim the way I showed her how to shoot. And then a couple more weeks to start making shots regularly. But by the end of the season she was doing just that, and in situations where she wouldn’t even have been able to get her old shot off.
The way to do that is to praise failure. Praise doing it the right way. Which I did every practice.
Teach the right way, but don’t do it saying “because I said so.” “Why should I hold the hammer this way, dad?” “Because I said so.” That kind of response comes from frustration, and won’t give the kid the faith to believe what you’re telling him.
The kid needs faith in what you’re telling him, which means he needs two things. First, he needs to trust you. If your “because I said so”s could be substituted for “have I not been trustworthy so far?”, you’re good. If they could be substituted for “just shut up and do what you’re told”, it will be harder to build trust. After trust, the kid needs a promise. “I promise that if you do things my way (body, soul, mind, whole-ass) it will be better. And here’s how.” “I promise the models will be sturdier if you build them this way.” “I promise that your shot will be more accurate.” “I promise that you’ll do better on your next quizzes.” Deliver on your promises. Build trust. Promise more. That is how to teach.
In the gap between the promise and the performance is the place to praise. Once your kid can shoot from all over the court, you should be closing the tap on the praise. It’s when your kid is still struggling, but on the right path, that you must be generous. I will continue to praise your failure, my child. Just keep doing things the right way.
There are, according to Ms. Soraya Chemaly, at least 10 Reasons Feminism is Good For Men and Boys. They include “broader range of work and life options” (you could grow up to be a nurse), “more time with fathers” (because mom is working and dad’s at home), and “greater academic success” (because boys who have an “entitled sense of power” don’t do well academically).
Boys and girls, you know I’m no feminist. If you read Ms. Chemaly’s article you’ll find many points that I think are problematic because they are supported by underlying assumptions that feminize boys, which you know I would rejoice to attack. And although I’m sure that’ll leak out a bit as I write this post, that is not the tack I’m going to take. Most of the gender/feminism debate revolves around “gender roles” and inequality, but they shouldn’t at all.
The real problem with feminism is that it buys into our dehumanizing modern society.
Ms. Chemaly wants boys to think about girls and their roles in society, which is a laudable goal. According to her,
This isn’t about “feminizing” men or about demonizing them as women-haters. It’s about expanding the definition of human to include what is female and about working together to dismantle systematized biases in culture.
Dismantling systematized biases in our culture. Great idea. How about we dismantle the systematized bias toward identifying all human beings as workers? That’s what our society does. It asks how well we fit into the economy. Ms. Chemaly quotes one Michael Kimmel as an enlightened man. The bulk of the quote is focused on the next great step in feminism being the work of men, but the quote starts with this:
In every arena — in politics, the military, the workplace, professions and education — the single greatest obstacle to women’s equality is the behaviors and attitudes of men.
In every arena, politics, military, in the workplace…every arena clearly means the workplace (can there be a more hyper-masculine way of thinking?). That, ladies and gentlemen, is the problem with feminism. It claims that the only things that count are our contributions as workers. Feminism is an economic way of thinking; it is part of a world in which money (capitalism, communism) defines us.
Look at all these workers! I mean, humans, humans! Now get started making them productive members of society!
Ms. Chemaly expresses frustration early in her article with the falling away from orthodox feminism of the recent generations of women. Fewer and fewer women identify themselves as “feminists”. The problem for Ms. Chemaly and most other professed feminists is that they’re not able to see why women are making the choices they are, i.e. having children, putting marriage and children before “career”. They can’t see because career, profession, is how they identify themselves; it is what they are.
Women don’t want to be slaves to men. As Ms. Chemaly herself says, they want to be human. Well, to be human means to have a home. You don’t need a job to be human. Don’t get me wrong, you do need work, but work is not the same thing as a job.
These women want a family. It’s more important than a job. And the way our society is constructed, both men and women need to make difficult choices when they decide to center themselves around their family. The family, not the individual, is the main economic unit for these people. Ms. Chemaly is sorely deceived if she thinks that mom working means more time with dad for the children. If dad is checked into our society’s definitions of work as job, his identity will focus on that. He won’t spend more time with the kids unless his identity focuses on the hearth.
We’re having the wrong argument. Even talking about feminism is a mistake. We should be talking about economic models, humanizing work, and communal life. Instead, we argue about which philosophy makes us better slaves of capitalism. Feminism’s not a bad choice for that.
