The weekly “little of this, little of that” feature here at Like Mother, Like Daughter!
Today I'm still undecorating, but also enjoying my new thrift-store pillow (it's from Pier One, in new condition, and goes really nicely with the other ones in the den — lucky me for $5!).
I'm continuing my reading of this excellent book (available here), planning my day, and doing a little knitting for Rosie's baby. It's this little “vintage baby cap” that I've made two of before — in theory it knits up very quickly, and also in theory I have enough of this sweet white yarn left to do it. But you know me.
I hope you are having a lovely weekend!
Here are our links:
- I truly enjoyed this post from dear Mary Ellen at Tales from The Bonny Blue House, on how she makes her husband lunches every day. Of course I enjoy all the ins and outs of which container and how to get it all prepared — but I also commend the object lesson of her loving care for her husband, even though — and I can really relate to this — making lunches is, shall we say, not her favorite thing: Packing Lunches Makes Me Want to Weep.
- Every sacrifice counts. The little and the big. Here is the last page of a speech given by Marine Lt. John Kelly — it's a long speech (you can watch the whole thing here), but it's the end that will make you realize that our true home is not here on earth — the point is especially driven home when you realize that Kelly's own son died in combat four days — four days — before he gave this incredibly moving speech. Please pray for the safety and sanctification of those defending our country!
- Is there such a thing as “authentic” or “renewed” or “Christian” or even “Catholic” feminism? This essay by Dawn Eden takes on many assumptions, including putative support from St. Pope John Paul II, and is well worth reading. I am definitely using the quote from Chesterton that “Feminism will always oppose chivalry, but chivalry is rather in favor of feminism.” This means that feminists won the cultural battle in large part because good men hesitate to fight against women (of course, there are many bad men who were wholly opportunistic in their support of so-called “equality”, especially in sexual matters).
- Speaking of equality, this readable essay by Samual Gregg shows how Tocqueville, writing in the 19th century, predicted the corrosive effect of the pursuit of equality on society, as it trumps every other consideration, including virtue and most of all, the reality of complementarity.
- What happens is that, in order to attain the impossible goal of equality, its adherents find that facts get in their way. George Weigel reminds us that Fake History needs to be exposed.
From the archives:
- I have lots of posts on discipline. This one, Don't Wear Your Child's Name Out, has a link in it to a (newly revised) worksheet that can really help you and your husband adjust your overall parenting approach.
- I call it “Spanking” and maybe that gets your attention, but it's really about figuring out, in your own unique way, how to bring your parenthood in line with God's. Print it out and read it together, answering the questions at the end, together, with what I call “free and frank” discussion.
~We’d like to be clear that, when we direct you to a site via one of our links, we’re not necessarily endorsing the whole site, but rather just referring you to the individual post in question (unless we state otherwise).~
Mary Ellen Barrett says
Thank you so much for your kind words and support!
Kathy H says
Where is the link for that updated parenting worksheet? That post hits too close to home 🙂
Leila says
Kathy, this is the link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jg3jlsguDdDLARMMe9BxAkB_f_LIzLNjmjpZ3RsbHQ0/preview
Helen says
I liked your husband’s comment on the spanking thing! It really is just being rebuked that makes kids obedient…. When I was a kid, we had a family friend who babysat for us sometimes, an old lady we called Granny. When we wouldn’t listen, she would send us outside to cut a switch for her and then she’d “switch” us. When I got older, I watched her do this to my younger siblings and realized that she never actually hit us with the thing! hahaha. We’d just go through the ritual of cutting it down for her and then she’d sort of wave it in the air above our legs and occasionally barely touch them. But it was effective and not traumatizing…
Elaine says
Enjoyed most of the links this week, but this statement in Gregg’s article brought me up short:
Equality turns out to be very antagonistic to difference per se, even when differences are genetic (such as between men and women) or merited (some are wealthier because they freely assume more risks).
Sorry to differ Gregg, but the difference between the sexes predates the fall; details of economic distribution do not. To say that people who take risks deserve to be wealthy (conversely implying that people of modest means deserve less because they lack the courage to take risks)ignores the differnces in initial station: If a risk that does not pay off means a family loses its home and a mother is forced to get a job and put the children in day care, can we say that taking the risk shows “merit” if it pays off? Risky business ventures are for those who have enough financial balast to make the risk prudent.
The “meritocracy”-the idea that people deserve whatever they get, is very far from the older idea of “noblesse oblige”, the idea that the wealthy should give to the less fortunate (i.e., the less lucky) precisely bcause chance has a lot to do with ones station in life. Even if I become wealthy by working hard, I need to recognize that others work very hard and yet remain poor, and yet others cannot work as hard as I do because their health is less robust-they need to sleep more, take more sick days, etc. If I become wealthy because I am smart, I need to recognize that I chose neither my genes nor my home environment, and that others may study as hard, spend as much time reading, respect teachers as much, but not be as successful.
I know that you were primarily interested in gender differences in this link, not economic justice, so sorry if this is off topic, or a bit incoherent–it’s late. Very sad that in our times protectors of a sacramental understanding of marriage and family so often find that politics makes strange bedfellows indeed.
Leila says
Elaine, thanks for your comment. It’s not off-topic — I love when people comment on our links!
I think that Gregg, who, as you say, isn’t spending a lot of time on economics distribution in this essay, is making a distinction between democracy’s tendency to lessen inequalities of opportunity (a good thing) and its tendency, according to Tocqueville, to begin to become fixated on equality *of condition* to the detriment of virtue.
It seems to me that you impute something to him that he doesn’t say. He merely states that those who take risks will gain wealth (on average) — hardly a contentious position. He doesn’t say that those who experience failure *deserve* it or even less that they should be left without aid, and he says nothing about noblesse oblige — except precisely to comment that the growth of virtue suffers along with this fixation.
When equality is conflated with justice and income redistribution is the only working definition of virtue, then we are in the state that Tocqueville is predicting. Perhaps you take issue with his statement that “The truth that many forms of inequality are just, including in the economic realm, is thus rendered incomprehensible.”
But surely there are economic inequalities other than those of the very rich and the very poor. It seems that we have to apply some imagination to the case. The world is a big place — “the poor you will always have with you” is a reality-check from the Lord. We have to help those in need, but we will never eradicate poverty. Insofar as we do, it’s simple fact that encouraging the risk-takers to pursue wealth is the very best way to go about it. Nothing — nothing! — has lessened poverty as much as the entrepreneurial spirit encouraged by democracy — not because of taxes but because of growing economies.
In any case, the only remedy for the poor is the goodness of the people. If they are increasingly obsessed by equality, everyone loses.