Susan McWilliams looks at a neglected factor behind the rise of hook-up culture

Our Hookup Culture

Mostly, this new round of cultural criticism echoes arguments that have already been made, perhaps most notably in Kathleen Bogle’s Hooking Up and Thomas Wolfe’s I Am Charlotte Simmons. In addition to a general excoriation of hookup culture, these works tend to “blame” the dominance of hookup culture on one of the following things:

1) the sexual revolution, which legitimized sex outside of dating and marriage;

2) feminism, which told women to embrace their own sexual desires and act on them;

3) medical technology, which makes it easier for women to prevent pregnancy and easier for everyone to treat VD;

4) legalized abortion, which means that pregnancies can be made to disappear; and

5) lenient universities, where lax administrators all but throw students into bed with each other by offering up coed dormitories and keg parties and free condoms.

My immediate response to these explanations is “blah, blah, blah.” It’s not that there’s not some truth to them – there certainly is – but they smack too much of blaming the usual suspects, and they fail to take stock of the cultural whole.

A more holistic response, I think, would see the extent to which hooking up is almost bound to emerge as a norm among young adults in a large-scale society where mobility is highly prized and cultivated.

Alternative Right

Richard Spencer has started a new website, Alternative Right. (via VFR) Jack Donovan of The Spearhead will be a contributor. (See his The War on Oblivion: A Discussion about the Future of Fatherhood in the West.) Looks like it is trying to recover some of the seriousness that has been lost at Taki's Mag?

The Thinking Housewife: In the Company of Plants

Criticism of the 20th ce Liturgical Movement

One participant makes some claims about Dom Beauduin and the 20th ce Liturgical Movement in the combox for the posting of the video of last week's appearance of Fr. Calvin Goodwin and Deacon Rhone Lillard on EWTN Live. Are some of the same claims made in Fr. Didier Bonneterre's Liturgical Movement? Is it really "clericalist" for the laity to understand the prayers of the priest or their own specific parts of the liturgy? Where is the balance to be found between intelligibility of the liturgy and the conveyance of transcendence?

News about the LCs in San Jose? Will CHA be back next school year?

Shamus Cooke, How Obamacare Kills Real Health Care Reform

Stewart J. Lawrence, Is Obama Already a Lame Duck?

Paul Craig Roberts, A Religion Divided Against Itself

Elinor Ostrom Wins Nobel for Common(s) Sense

Fran Korten, Yes! Magazine

Elinor Ostrom was an unusual choice for the 2009 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. For one thing, she is the first woman to receive the prize. Her Ph.D. is in political science, not economics (though she minored in economics, collaborates with many economists, and considers herself a political economist). But what makes this award particularly special is that her work is about cooperation, while standard economics focuses on competition.

(original)

NLM: Preview of the New FSSP Seminary Chapel

"With great power comes great responsibility."

This is the often quoted line spoken by Uncle Ben to Peter Parker in the first Spiderman movie, and inspires the gawky teenager to become a vigilante hero. (Will this line be repeated in the reboot?) Someone quoted it this morning [2/24] on one of the country music stations.

Conservatives may try to save rights language by coupling rights with duties or responsibilities -- "rights entail responsibilities," similar to the joining of liberty to responsibility. (They are identical if right is defined as the [moral] freedom to do x.) If liberty is by definition indeterminate with respect to the good, then it must be "compelled" [from without] to embrace the good or to be used "correctly." (The will is indifferent to good and evil acts in so far as it can choose either, but it is perfected by the former and not by the latter.)

In this post I won't be discussing rights and liberties, but only abilities and powers, and whether we can be required by law to use them for others. Even liberals can give some assent to the claim that we should act, or exercise our abilities responsibly. A superhero is not good because he does great things with his abilities, although children may think that way. Rather, great power requires great virtue for it to be exercised well and not poorly, or for evil purposes. A superhero must overcome not just evil people, but the temptation within to do evil. But Uncle Ben is saying more than this: those who have great power have a responsibility to use that to benefit others. Certainly this is the lesson that Peter Parker learns. Peter corrects his first realization that his failure to stop the robber cost his uncle his life. He comes to see that since he was there had the power to stop the criminal, he should have done something, and this was good for its own sake.

But in a liberal society, how can the linking of power with duty or responsibility be justified, if individual autonomy is the ultimate value? The liberal government may prohibit us from using our powers to harm others, but can it require that we use them for the sake of the good of others or ourselves? If I am better than you in some way, why should that fact alone entail that I should be required to exert a greater effort so that my ability is used to its fullest? And if a government should command me to do so, would that not be a violation of my rights? Even if I am stronger than you, why should a carry something heavier? Why shouldn't everyone be carrying the same or equal weight? That seems like equality to me. (This argument is often made by those who advocate everyone being taxed the same amount?)

A liberal state may be able to compel its members to defend it if it is under attack, because individuals can better attain their good with it than without. (Or, since individuals would have to defend themselves regardless, their chances of survival may be increased if they work together than by themselves. But what if the individual is ordered to sacrifice himself?) This is an emergency situation -- what if the community is not in immediate danger, and its survival is at risk? By what right can the state command me to do more to promote my well-being and that of others, whether it is because I have greater abilities than others or because I am not using all of my rather limited talents?

(If I am a citizen in a "democracy" and I vote or support such a law, then I am merely codifying what I have already chosen for myself. If I oppose such a law... then as a liberal I can argue that the state has no right to create this law.)

We may "intuitively" agree with Uncle Ben's statement, so how do we justify it? It seems to be something that is required, though not necessarily by positive law. If it were required by positive law, the civil government would be the author of the law, and our obedience to its authority would come into play. But we may grasp that this requirement is just, even if there is no human law to lay it out for us. We may understand that it is required for the sake of the common good or because of an even higher authority (Luke 12:48). If it is the former, then it seems we can by the use of our reason understand the demands of distributive justice upon us, just as the natural law commands us to use all of our abilities for the good of the community. It is distributive justice that justifies unequal burdens for unequals.

Because it does not admit that man has a social end or that there is a common good distinct from man's private good, liberalism appears to be unable to give a reason for the state to issue such laws. Rather, liberalism would have to prohibit this sort of legislation.

This gets me thinking -- how does the liberal justify taxation for the purpose of redistribution? As a means of avoiding conflict between the haves and haves-not? For some abstract notion of equality? Do liberals have a notion of distributive justice that can be harmonized with a more traditional notion?



Started on February 24.

When my nephew "flirts" in reaction to the presence of women, is his judgment that a woman is present based mostly on visual cues? Or is there a sensible component to physical/sexual attraction other than the 5 senses with which we are familiar?

From Asia Times, more on the Church in China

Mgr Nugent: Would like to visit each China bishop in communion with the Pope
by Annie Lam
After ten years of China Church work, the representative of the Holy See is set to leave to take up the post of nuncio to Madagascar. He will be consecrated on 18 March, by Card Bertone. In this interview, he looks back at his work and the life of the Church in China. Main moments include the witness of the persecuted Christians, the unity of the Church, diplomatic relations between China and the Vatican, the appeal on behalf of imprisoned bishops and priests, and the openness of some leaders in the Chinese


Underground Priest: we work for the unity of the Church, with Mgr. An and Card. Zen
by Peter Song ZhichunAfter the controversy raised by an Italian magazine, on the division between official and underground communities, AsiaNews gladly received and publishes the testimony of a priest in the underground community in China. Appreciation - even if not shared - for Mgr. An Shuxin, who decided to become vice-chairman of the Patriotic Association, esteem for card. Zen, a champion of freedom of the Church. The most important commitment is the recovery of the reconciliation of the Church, promoting "forgiveness" and "martyrdom”.

Surprise. "The best war movie in recent years" not realistic.

Last night on 60 Minutes, Lesley Stahl interviewed Kathryn Bigelow. The claim that The Hurt Locker is the best war movie in recent years was made by Ms. Stahl. Ms. Bigelow gave a screening of the movie to EOD techs, some of whom were veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq. There were some positive comments, but the question and answer session was heavily edited, and reactions from only 2 EOD techs (out of a room of 10 or so) were aired. What did the others think of the movie?

Something from today: Some Iraq, Afghanistan war veterans criticize movie 'Hurt Locker' as inaccurate (via Drudge).

I wrote a review last year of the movie. Sarge didn't like the movie for the same reasons voiced by other vets. Realism was discarded in favor of artistic creativity and the demands of drama. I still think The Hurt Locker is better than most American movies from last year, and much better than Avatar.

Rob Hopkins interviews Tim Kasser

Tim Kasser on Consumerism, Psychology, Transition and Resilience. Part One
Tim Kasser on Consumerism, Psychology, Transition and Resilience. Part Two



The High Price of Materialism
Knox College

NLM: Solemn Mass Offered by Jesuits at Fordham University

(more photos)

Perils of the Stationary State by Adam K. Webb

Monday's Counterpunch

Whatever Happened to "We the People"? By RALPH NADER
Empire and Oligarchy

The Case Against Bernanke and Greenspan by Mike Whitney

The Fall of Greece by Diana Johnstone

A Refuge for Cowards: the Senate Extends the Patriot Act by Jayne Lyn Stahl

Organizing Against Empire: Where Left and Right Meet ... Amicably by Paul Buhle

(AmCon: The Problem With Progressives By Thomas E. Woods Jr.
Can you count on them to stand against war, regardless of who is in office?)

The importance of envisioning “community” (part 3)
by Gary Clausheide

Rianne Eisler has a different theory that she has written about in The Chalice and the Blade. She says that early societies developed in two different directions. One type became pastoral “dominator” societies, nomadic, patriarchal, and violent. The other type were agrarian, peaceful, sedentary, egalitarian, and goddess worshippers. She calls them “partnership” societies, and they began in middle Europe around 6,000 B.C. At some point the dominator societies began to invade them, supposedly for food, and later taking over their towns and enslaving them. The last partnership society was on the island of Crete and was destroyed around 1500 B.C. The point is that as partnership societies were overtaken by dominator societies, their patterns of equality and peaceful cooperation were overtaken by patterns of aggressive competition and hierarchy. That is what we have inherited today. (Note that once societies become hierarchical, I no longer call them communities. I believe “community” and “hierarchy” are mutually exclusive concepts.)

Another impact of agriculture was that as it improved, it freed up a lot of members of those societies. It allowed these people to focus on other crafts: house building, pottery, metal work, etc. Thus the beginning of “division of labour” and specialization.

A giant leap in the evolution of agriculture would have come when groups moved to higher elevations and tried to farm without the aid of flooding rivers to enrich the soil and smother existing plant growth. People would then have to figure out “tillage” (creating seedbeds) and how to maintain fertility.

By the end of the last partnership society, most societies are hierarchical, violent, patriarchal, have a ruling elite, and run on the energy of slaves. They are, in effect, dominator societies. These are the societies that historians dwell on. So let’s skip ahead over the thousand or so years of Conquest. The names of Kings and Queens, presidents and prime ministers, dukes and princes, popes and generals, who defeated whom, etc. is quite irrelevant to the history of community. We’ll pick up the story at around 1,000 A.D., after the Romans had cleared out of northern Europe.

Riane Eisler and David Loye — Center for Partnership Studies

The use of myth to present norms for communal life... how is this different from academic sociology? When will this particular tired myth die out? Better histories of Europe, that also take a critical look at the accumulation of economic power among the few, have probably been written.

Quodcumque

Whatever this is that I am, it is a little flesh and breath, and the ruling part. Throw away thy books; no longer distract thyself: it is not allowed; but as if thou wast now dying, despise the flesh; it is blood and bones and a network, a contexture of nerves, veins, and arteries. See the breath also, what kind of a thing it is, air, and not always the same, but every moment sent out and again sucked in. The third then is the ruling part: consider thus: Thou art an old man; no longer let this be a slave, no longer be pulled by the strings like a puppet to unsocial movements, no longer either be dissatisfied with thy present lot, or shrink from the future.

All that is from the gods is full of Providence. That which is from fortune is not separated from nature or without an interweaving and involution with the things which are ordered by Providence. From thence all things flow; and there is besides necessity, and that which is for the advantage of the whole universe, of which thou art a part. But that is good for every part of nature which the nature of the whole brings, and what serves to maintain this nature. Now the universe is preserved, as by the changes of the elements so by the changes of things compounded of the elements. Let these principles be enough for thee, let them always be fixed opinions. But cast away the thirst after books, that thou mayest not die murmuring, but cheerfully, truly, and from thy heart thankful to the gods.

Remember how long thou hast been putting off these things, and how often thou hast received an opportunity from the gods, and yet dost not use it. Thou must now at last perceive of what universe thou art a part, and of what administrator of the universe thy existence is an efflux, and that a limit of time is fixed for thee, which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind, it will go and thou wilt go, and it will never return.

Every moment think steadily as a Roman and a man to do what thou hast in hand with perfect and simple dignity, and feeling of affection, and freedom, and justice; and to give thyself relief from all other thoughts. And thou wilt give thyself relief, if thou doest every act of thy life as if it were the last, laying aside all carelessness and passionate aversion from the commands of reason, and all hypocrisy, and self-love, and discontent with the portion which has been given to thee. Thou seest how few the things are, the which if a man lays hold of, he is able to live a life which flows in quiet, and is like the existence of the gods; for the gods on their part will require nothing more from him who observes these things.

Meditations, Book 2

Zenit: On the Transfiguration
"The Joys Sown by God in Our Life Are Not the Destination"

Peter Hitchens, More sex education means more teenage pregnancies...always

수상한 삼형제

The KBS family drama Three Brothers (수상한 삼형제) makes me think of Dr. Fleming's piece, "Three Weddings and a Funeral."
Isang, the youngest son, is rather beta in his relationship with his gf/fiancée. His subordinate (Isang is a police captain) is dating the fiancée's sister, and is much more alpha in how he handles her. The mother of the Kim family is very bossy? Is she very traditional in her expectations of her daughters-in-law or in how she manages the household?

Isang's father was originally opposed to his son's marrying Eoyeong because her father, who had been a gangster in the past, had framed him for a crime which led to the father being put in prison for a while. After Isang was seriously injured in a police operation, his father yielded and consented to the marriage, even reconciling the Eoyeong's father. Isang's mother doesn't like Eoyeong because she's older (but acts rather immaturely for her age) and isn't as traditional as she would like. She remains opposed to the marriage.

I think Isang is too beta in his relationship with his girlfriend, but that's not a sufficient reason within the story of the drama to keep them apart. If we looked at it from a pagan point of view, as it is elaborated by Dr. Fleming in his piece, would we think that his parents' objections were sufficient for the marriage to not take place?

Related links:
Soompi
HanCinema
DramaWiki
My Soju
DramaBeans

Eoyeong is played by Oh Ji Eun. She's quite cute; I think she has one of the typical Korean pretty woman looks.

Pioneer? Or a feminist out to conquer men?

From First Things: The Greatest Moment in Women’s Sports That You Never Heard About

So will male professional bowlers step up to the challenge? Or will they just drop out of competing?

Kelly Kulick becomes first woman to win PBA Tour title - ESPN
Women's rights finds a kingpin in Kelly Kulick, first woman to capture a PBA title

"As she was rolling her final ball, Kulick actually spoke into an attached mic, telling the world this was a landmark victory for women in sports."

Does Ms. Kulick know what an outlier is? She used to work in her father's auto body shop? A daughter who became a tomboy because her father wanted a son? What of her "love life"? Has she been as successful in that?

What will MRA bloggers write in response to this? I think professional sports in general should be abolished -- how can wasting that much money be justified in an world with social injustice? Amateurs can compete for prizes, but should men permit a woman to compete against them? Those who support her will cry that males with fragile egos should not play the game if they are being sore losers. But is a society that permits women to show men up misandrist? I have no doubt that she could beat me in bowling. But does her ability justify the feminist agenda? No. (See the comments of Billy Jean King.)

Only men can police the bad behavior of other men. Even if a single woman can beat other men in a sport that depends less on the physical attributes that characterize male superiority, this does not mean that most women can. (How heavy is Ms. Kulick's ball? Probably lighter than males of comparable size.) And it does not entail anything with respect to the functioning of the polity.

That a blogger at First Things would celebrate this shows how infected its staff is with radical egalitarianism?

Kelly Kulick Strikes Against Pro Bowling's Image Crisis

A one-word adjective for grad programs?

The description can be summed up simply as neutering.

How many of the men in academia could be called emasculated sheep? (Especially the radicals who seek to overturn traditional culture and Christianity?) They may rely on the power of numbers to bully, but if they had no support, what honor and courage could they show in confronting those they take to be their enemies?

If society were to become fragmented, traditional culture may not prevail in most places -- I suspect that barbarism would, but liberalism would be stomped to death in the chaos and savagery, because it promotes a degraded society and does not have the resources to ensure its survival in the face of grave threats. (Historically, liberalism may have had good fortune by being attached to the rise of the nation-state and the centralization of power, but because it destroys the character of the people it cannot survive long without a strong state.)

I have to say that recently I've been thinking about starting up writing again, once I finish taking care of some things here. I have nothing positive to say about academia, but the topic is worthy of being written, especially as a response to liberalism and false Christianity.

This morning the former pastor of the local church gave a homily about how we need to correct how we perceive Christ -- he is not just the savior of all mankind, but our personal savior, and our friend. A bit too Protestant-sounding? Personal "acceptance" of Christ is not enough -- we need to be established in a right relationship through grace, and we can destroy our friendship with him through mortal sin. Also, because our notion of friendship is rather limited, the following caveat should be given: while Christ is our friend, the friendship is nonetheless between unequals. This friendship does not remove the need for the gift of the fear of the Lord, or for the infused virtues of religion and latria to be exercised.

As I walked out of the church I couldn't help but think that local churches deserve to shrink in membership, if they continue to offer a watered-down version of the Gospel that does not make any demands on us, especially those of us who live in more affluent areas.

*I don't think numbers should be the only measure of whether a church is flourishing, but if a diocese has few vocations to the priesthood and its churches are aging (that is to say, young people fall away from church), then the bishop should assume responsibility, instead of thinking that it has nothing to do with his leadership. I think our Lord gives His workers in the vineyard clear signs that they are not living up to His calling; they should not need visions or some sensible manifestation to warn them that they are failing.