Sex, Gender, and Gravity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One afternoon in Ithaca, N.Y., my kids were playing on the swing sets in the park when a little tike wearing a football jersey ran into my daughter’s path. I lunged for the swing — I jerked the chain so abruptly that I feared whiplash — and shared a “wow, that was close” exchange with the kid’s mom.

“How old is he?” I asked. The lady looked at me with no trace of irony as she placed her kid on the swing and said, “His name is Jill, and she’s three.”

As I tried to match the pronouns and antecedents, she explained that she belonged to a group of parents who rebelled against gender stereotypes, allowing their children to decide their genders after they’d been exposed to both options. I’d learned of this in a philosophy class at NYU. My professor argued that children are born with “sex” but taught “gender.” They claimed children unwittingly learn certain gender signifiers that dictate their behavior. Little boys, they claim, don’t naturally want to play with trucks, and little girls aren’t naturally drawn to dolls, if unsullied by eager parents who try to indoctrinate their children with heterosexist ideas about “gender.” According to my professor, gender roles cause people to live according to the very limited ideas of others. The ultimate goal, of course, is androgyny, where no differences between males and females exist.

“I’m going to raise her as gender-neutrally as possible and let him decide which gender she prefers at the age of eight.”  (Oh, eight . . . that’s when my son dug up our yard one square foot at a time, because he was convinced he’d find buried treasure.)

Read the rest here, if you can stomach it.

Keeping Up With the Frenches

All the French news that’s fit to print!

Today in Townhall I ask why there aren’t more veterans in America’s op-ed pages.  It begins:

After almost one full decade of continuous war, the gap between America’s veterans and our cultural elites is wider than ever. With ROTC (until recently) removed from our top-tier campuses, lingering anti-military biases that date from the Vietnam war, and an understandable reticence to risk promising futures on foreign battlefields, our culture-makers have shunned military service – at great cost to our country.

Take a look at the editorial pages of five of America’s largest-circulation and most influential publications, the Los Angeles Times, the New York TimesUSA Today, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. How many columnist-veterans do you see? How many veterans of Iraq or Afghanistan? By my count, I don’t see a single veteran of our current wars.

Yesterday in The Corner, Nancy talked about Alex P. Keaton, the New York Times, and teen sex.  She begins:

Alex P. Keaton, 17, lost his virginity to a college student he wooed over a discussion about his favorite economist, Milton Friedman.

I realized this after we began showing our kids 1980s-era TV shows, after running out of bandwidth for Hannah Montana. Over the past years, the kids have laughed at Murdock’s antics on the A-Team, imitated Arnold’s ”WhatchutalkingaboutWillis” on Diff’rent Strokes, and enjoyed Dr. Huxtable’s rants on The Cosby Show.

And Christianity Today reviewed our book!  The bottom line?  The reviewer liked it . . . except for our politics.  Her core paragraphs:

The Frenches are funny, incisive writers, never straying into overly sentimental territory. The book winsomely recounts their sometimes comical, often touching daily lives: buying a dog for the kids from fancy dog breeders, stumping for a Mormon Yankee governor in Tennessee, being crammed into armored vehicles, seeing World of Warcraft triumph over Rock Band as the base’s game of choice. They let us peek in on their communication, misunderstandings, and deep love for one another.

While the integrity of the authors’ decision to go beyond mere patriotic words toward real and risky action is inspiring, at times the book suffers from an overdose of political commentary. Nancy admits that “politics bound us together in the way some couples play golf or watch movies,” and the Frenches are well known in the conservative political world: David is senior legal counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, and he and Nancy (whose previous books include the memoir A Red State of Mind) campaign for Mitt Romney, run the popular Evangelicals for Mitt blog, and are regular commentators in publications such as National Review.

That’s the news for now.  Stay tuned.  More to come.

Mila Kunis, Marines, Communism, and a Random Thought About Sex

Conservatives are in love with Mila Kunis — and for good reason.  First, she’s standing by her (Marine) man and attending the Marne Corps Ball with Sgt. Scott Moore:

Next, GQ asked her about sex, and she not only hit the answer out of the park, she also threw in a blast at communism:

GQ: Your new movie is called Friends with Benefits. Ever been in one of those relationships?

Mila Kunis: Oy. I haven’t, but I can give you my stance on it: It’s like communism—good in theory, in execution it fails. Friends of mine have done it, and it never ends well. Why do people put themselves through that torture?

Taking shot at casual sex and commies?  What’s not to love?

On a more serious note, I do think we’ll reach a point where the sexual revolution will run its course.  With traditional sexual morality routed from virtually every influential cultural bastion (including large chunks of the church), millions of young people are growing up without any regard for the mores of generations past.  In other words, they’re living in the world the revolutionaries built for them, and it’s a world full of heartache.

History can be cyclical.  Is there room for a sexual counterrevolution?