"So as we talk about "marriage equality" between gays and straights, give a little thought to the problem of marriage inequality between rich and poor. It matters, too."

So says Glenn Reynolds in USA Today.

It probably matters far more than whether gays can marry or not.  After all, there are also rich gay people and poor gay people.

__________________________________

Check out my soccer blog at Nutmegs and Stepovers

NOW Hates Hooters

I don't get it, seriously I don't get it.

I don't understand the National Organization for Women.  What is their mission?  NOW describes their mission as this:

Since its founding in 1966, NOW's goal has been to take action to bring about equality for all women. NOW works to eliminate discrimination and harassment in the workplace, schools, the justice system, and all other sectors of society; secure abortion, birth control and reproductive rights for all women; end all forms of violence against women; eradicate racism, sexism and homophobia; and promote equality and justice in our society.

Okay.  I am not sure about all of that, but that is what they say.  Now I looked through that mission statement several time after reading a story on the Daily Caller titled: NOW says Hooters is inappropriate for kids.  According to the Daily Caller:

The National Organization for Women has filed a complaint against Hooters for being an improper dining venue for minors.

A California chapter of NOW argues that Hooters is unsuitable for kids and violates sexual entertainment law regulations, and therefore no one under 18 should be allowed inside select California venues.

“They also display and sell products of prurient nature, including T-shirts in child sizes with statements such as ‘Future Hooters Girl,’” the NOW complaint reads.

What's wrong with that?  Seriously, I want to know.  If Radio City Music Hall sold t-shirts that said "Future Rockette," would that by appropriate?  What if Cosmopolitan magazine or Elle sold t-shirts with the slogan "Future Fashion Model," is that appropriate?  What if NOW sold t-shirts that said "Future Abortion Activist?"  I might find the latter offensive.

Okay, NOW has a problem with Hooters, probably because they think that the short orange shorts and tight T-shirts somehow demean the servers at Hooters, but without actually asking if the Hooters servers are actually demeaned.  In theory, NOW's mission would encompass these "oppressed" Hooter's Girls and try and get them better treatment.

But read through that mission statement again--I don't see the word children, kids or child welfare anywhere in there.  Not once.  So why is this complaint being lodged?  Because NOW thinks they know better than you what is good for your kids.  the last time I checked, that was my job as a parent.

The worst part about Hooters for my kids is not the wait staff or their modest (I have seen more skin displayed in local shopping malls by girls younger than the wait staff at Hooter's--all of whom are at least 18) outfits--but their decidedly unhealthy kids menu.  I don't think we would patronize Hooters as a family, but if we did, I am pretty sure that a complaint by NOW would not change my mind.

I don't know what my reaction would be if my daughters decided to work at Hooters.  But I would not be worried about my daughters moral upbringing if we did go to Hooters.  If I am not worried, why should NOW be worried for me?

  

Red Maryland: Thoughts on Prop 8

Proposition 8 in California and other similar measures in other states, have garnered a fair amount of attention to the issue of same sex marriage. Whilst the debate continues over the rights of gays in the context of marriage various efforts to demonstrate the role gays play in our society are taking place today. I can't say that I have any objection to these protests and really, I don't think anyone in America is doubting the fact that gays make a significant contribution to our society and the "calling in gay" protest is fair, if likely to be ineffectual. But other reactions to the victory of Prop 8 supporters has been, well interesting. It is that reaction, with ludicrous videos, threats of not paying state taxes and other dumb reactions that goes to highlight a group that is more wont to throw a temper tantrum rather than knuckling down and trying to overcome the loss by educating people as to their viewpoint.

But that is not to say that the Prop 8 supporters were right. I have been spending a fair amount thinking about this issue. In a conversation with my father, a very smart and thoughtful man, he stated that gay marriage is contrary to natural law. He rightfully noted that if you put 100 gay men on an island and come back in 100 years, they would all be dead. Ditto for 100 lesbians. I don't know about natural law, but I will readily admit that gay men in particular are incapable of procreating the species. Gay women can procreate, but not with other gay women, they need the intervention of a man to provide the second half of genetic material for a child. So in terms of the natural procreation of the species, yes, gay marriage would counteract natural law.

But let's think about the implications of that a little further. Is marriage a natural law, a supernatural (i.e. God driven law) or simply a man-made law? Marriage has traditionally been viewed as a religious ceremony, with the union blessed and santified by God through a minister of some church or another. There is little doubt that marriage has traditionally had a very faith based foundation. However, is that still the case, particularly in America? Do we as a nation still view marriage as a matter of faith before a matter of civil law?

I am not sure that a very large segment of American society (even outside the gay community) still view marriage as anything more than a civil contract, to be cast aside when it is not convenient to one or more of the parties. There is sufficient evidence for this notion, if viewed through the viewpoint of the ease of no-fault divorce, even in those marriages that are performed by a church. There is also the growing prevelance of single parenthood, i.e. women having children without being married--by choice. Additionally, there is a decline in the "religiousosity" of America as evidence by the constant crusade to rid our public sphere of anything with the taint of religious faith. Finally, there is the question of the role of churches in America shifting, losing influence, which, according to one writer, is the reason why there is such a church based opposition to gay marriage. I don't mean to say that each of this issues is, in and of itself, a necessarily negative thing to be condemned outright. Nor are any of these factors to be considered the sole cause of the decline of marriage as a religious institution. Rather they simply highlight that in America, I think we have come to see marriage not necessarily as a religious institution of an enduring nature, but a civil contract that can be easily dispensed with upon a whim.

But if we as a society no longer consider marriage as a religious rite and view it simply as a civil contract with allows for a certain amount of legal, societal and ownership "shortcuts" then it seems to me that not allow gay "marriage" is somewhat hypocritical. After all, gay marriage opponents routinely cite that gay couples can achieve through contract what heterosexual couples achieve through marriage. But if society looks at marriage as a civil contract only, then why disallow a segment of the population the ability to enter into that civil contract that serves as a shortcut for so many other "marital" related rights.

However, if marriage is supposed to mean something more, that it is supposed to retain its religious foundation, then we must look at the opposite side of the issue and wonder what has happened to the religious foundation. This may be a situation where we have to ask about the impact of easy, no fault divorces, the declining stigma associated with single-parenthood and bastardy, and the fight to rid our public square of any hint of religion. Have we become so intolerant of the highs and lows of a marriage, the work and sacrifice that a marrige requires that many people simply lack the fortitude to stick it out? I am not suggesting that every marriage consecrated in a church should not be dissolved upon good reason, but I think their needs to be a reason, not simply a matter of convenience. For many couples, when it becomes "too hard" there is simply a desire to give up rather than fight for the marriage. But a large part of the opposition to gay marriage is being made by churches and religious groups, in part because they believe that gay marriage will desecrate the institution of marriage, thus eroding the fabric of civilized society.

Which leads us back to the gay marriage advocates. Are they being treated a second class citizens? They certainly have a strong case when it comes to the issue of marriage. But are they really looking to upset the foundation of civilized society? Given that heterosexual America has been doing a pretty fine job of undermining marriage, I think it unfair in the extreme to blame gay America for such a notion. But does the idea of gay marriage itself constitute an attack on civilized society. On one hand gays looking to get marries are looking to redefine the traditional definition of marriage, which has been between a man and a woman (but not always a one to one relationship). On the other hand, gays are looking to participate in a foundational institution of society. It begs the question, if they are looking to participate, aren't they further contributing to the foundation of a civilized society?

If one considers the multitude of ways in which people of marriage age live, you would be hard pressed to say that a gay marriage undermines civilized society. If you leave aside extended families and college dormitory living, there are multiple living arrangements that undermine the notion of marriage as a foundation for American society.

Both sides of this debate are guilty of not managing their position in a logical fashion. The hyperventilating by gays looking to marry and being denied the right through the Democratic process end up looking like whiners when some of the community react as we have seen, with bigoted attacks, silly and pointless protestations about taxes (why not simply move, Melissa Etheridge certainly has the means to) or musicals designed to inflame passions on the opposing side, rather sitting down and trying to explain their case in a civilized manner. On the gay marriage opponents side, claiming that marriage is a sacred rite and gay marriage is an abomination before God is both undermined by the facts of a crumbling belief in marriage in America and by silly notion that a gay person (who by your own definition is created by God) is somehow an abomination before that God. Like many debates involving values, there will have to be an evolution, but that evolution is not without possibility and both sides need to take a breather and examine their actions and cases.

Abortion Foes' Dilemma: Confront or Cooperate?

Ever since Roe v. Wade, the Republican party has been, hijacked is too strong a word influenced is too weak a word so somewhere in between is appropriate, by the pro-life movement. At the same time, every time we see a pro-choice candidate, there is automatic assumption that such a candidate supports abortion on demand without limitations. Every presidential election, the GOP and the Democrats, and various subsets of each approach the issue of abortion like it is the grand battle of our lifetime with cries of extremism beling leveled at both camps by both camps.

Barack Obama's electoral win, and the defeat of a few abortion related referenda in the states, the pro-life camp is left with the question: Confront or Cooperate? It is a real question for the pro-life movement and one that they will struggle with mightily. However, what the GOP needs to do is not get bogged down into the debate any more.

Since Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence has been little more than tinkering around the edges. Despite the panicked fears of the pro-choice crowd, there simply is little reason for the Supreme Court to take up an abortion case; the nine justices, even the five most conservative justices are not fools and they won't touch a case with a ten-foot pole. Similarly, depsite whatever their personal preferences might be, it seems extremely unlikely that the Court will simply overturn Roe v. Wade and there is a valid reason for it.

The fact of the matter is, outside a few groups, the issue of abortion does not inform voters choices all that much. In the list of issues upon which voters decided whom to support, abortion is well down on the list, behind things that demand attention, the economy, terrorism, education, tax policy, and the like. It is a small, and yes vocal, group that determines their vote simply on a candidates position on abortion.

The problem for the GOP is that the pro-life group that makes that decision on a single issue holds far too much sway in the party. Why must a candidate declare a stance that is strictly pro-life in order to be the party's standard bearer? No candidate meets every single criteria. (Conversely, why must the "feminist" branch of the Democrats insist on pro-choice?) Really, a president has almost zero impact on abortion policy in this country. To this extent, the GOP has been "less than hijacked, more than appropriately influenced" by the pro-life movement.

I think that most Americans of a middle mind on the issue. They are loath to outlaw abortion completely and at the same time are not willing to allow abortion on demand at any time under any circumstances. I tend to believe that most Americans would agree with the notion that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. For example, I think many people like me would never counsel a woman to get an abortion, but neither would I stand in the way of a woman, in full control of her faculties, and competent enough to choose, from seeking an abortion (just don't ask me to endorse the idea). Is this the influence of the Court, setting out this road of "trimester" analysis that strikes a balance between the two camps? Perhaps, but I tend to think of it as America doing what America does best, finding a pragmatic and principale manner of dealing with an issue that really has no resolution.

For too long abortion politics has dominated the political landscape, the result of smart politicking, smart P.R. and the never quit attitude of the two opposing camps. I am not saying that these groups need to go away, as they have just as much right to speak about issues important to them as anyone else. What I am suggesting is that the political parties, Republicans and Democrats alike, need to deny center stage, veto power over candidates for national office on this issue; the parties need to be bigger than that.

Sex on TV and Teenage Pregnancy

There appears to be a link.

Teenagers who watch a lot of television featuring flirting, necking, discussion of sex and sex scenes are much more likely than their peers to get pregnant or get a partner pregnant, according to the first study to directly link steamy programming to teen pregnancy.

The study, which tracked more than 700 12-to-17-year-olds for three years, found that those who viewed the most sexual content on TV were about twice as likely to be involved in a pregnancy as those who saw the least.

"Watching this kind of sexual content on television is a powerful factor in increasing the likelihood of a teen pregnancy," said lead researcher Anita Chandra. "We found a strong association." The study is being published today in Pediatrics, the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

There is rising concern about teen pregnancy rates, which after decades of decline may have started inching up again, fueling an intense debate about what factors are to blame. Although TV viewing is unlikely to entirely explain the possible uptick in teen pregnancies, Chandra and others said, the study provides the first direct evidence that it could be playing a significant role.

"Sexual content on television has doubled in the last few years, especially during the period of our research," said Chandra, a researcher at the nonpartisan Rand Corp.

Is there a link--probably. But let's be careful, it is not likely to be causal link (I haven't read the entire study yet).

I find it very troubling as a parent that the incidences of sexual behavior is on the rise in programming aimed a teenagers.

A quick person story. My wife and my mother-in-law took my two young daughters to see High School Musical 3 at teh local theaters. My wife said that my mother-in-law that it was odd that the were was almost no hint of the hormones that would raging between the two teenage lead characters or their peers dealing with the high school prom or even a scene taking place in a treehouse (yes a treehouse). While I can see it, I have to say that I appreciate Disney going to great lengths to present a healthy teenage romance that does not depend on overt sexual behavior. The most we see is hugging and very little kissing. And there is nothing wrong with that kind of depiction.

Now, as for this link between TV sex and teenage pregnancy, I will admit that link probably exists, but there are also huge other factors involved.

1). I can almost say with certainty that today's teenagers have their own TV and their own computer in their room with cable service, meaning they can watch such shows in the privacy of their own rooms--no parental controls.

2). There is very little parental oversight on what these kids are watching and certainly no discussions of what is seen on TV.

3). There is almost certainly no discussion as to the importance and impact of some of the choices that TV characters make.

I don't completely blame TV for the state of affairs, they are in a market driven world and the market wants these kinds of depictions. However, to my limited knowledge (I spend a lot of time watching soccer) there is probably no discussions of the downside of sex, i.e. the potential for pregnancy, STDs, or even the psychological/emotional damage of engaging in sex too early, too often or too indiscriminantly.

BlackBerrys are Homewreckers

From the ABA Journal, 35% of Professionals Would Choose BlackBerry Over Spouse. Two possible scenarios: they don't like their spouse or they have real issues with communication.

Professionals have a love-hate relationship with their BlackBerrys, and in some cases it’s interfering with their marriages.

Thirty-five percent of 6,500 professionals surveyed said they would pick their personal digital assistants over their spouses, if they had to choose, and 87 percent said they take their PDAs into their bedrooms, the Chicago Sun-Times reports.

Eighty-four percent of the respondents check their BlackBerrys before they go to bed and when they wake up, while 85 percent check them in the middle of the night, according to the survey by Sheraton Hotels & Resorts.

Eight-five percent said modern technology makes them feel compelled to be connected to work 24/7. On the other hand, 84 percent said PDAs give them more quality time and flexibility with family and friends.

I have a work issued BlackBerry and I have to tell you that while I take it with me when we go out, I am not obsessivly checking it.

The problem with BlackBerry toting lawyers is that if you use them to respond to clients at odd times, the clients will begin to believe they can contact you at odd times and expect an answer. While I work very hard for my clients there are boundaries to my efforts and clients have to understand that very little work they think they need acutally has to be done right now.

Instapundit on Obama's "Digital Brownshirts"

Instapundint links to this story from the Chicago Tribune. I love this line:

Obama's campaign describes the system as a grass-roots truth squad that arms supporters with information. But others see an attempt to stifle free speech.

"If Barack Obama demonstrates this little regard for free speech from his opponents during the campaign, what could the American people expect from him as a president?" Ed Martin, president of American Issues Project, said in a statement.

Blasting campaign ads as false has a rich tradition in our polity, but flooding radio call in shows with emails and telephone calls to denounce a guest with a point of view the host considers important is just little more than jackboot tactics.

With the Democrats support of the Fairness Doctrine because of the conservative dominance of talk radio, it seems odd that the Democrats use of the internet is not being denounced by Republicans.

Now who is the party for free speech?

Sarah Palin and Feminism

Seriously, go read this essay by Harvard's Harvey Mansfield.

Sarah Palin was appealing and accomplished, with the force of a man and the grace of a woman. But while reaching another, higher first for women, she expressed no gratitude to the women's movement. She has had good words for women politicians like Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton, but she showed none of the features that betray the feminist in action. On the contrary: She spoke proudly of "my guy," grateful to the man who was hers--implying that she needed him, and that any woman needs a guy of her own. She introduced her children, especially little Trig, the one with Down's syndrome. She was displaying a mother's unconditional love, as opposed to the conditional love that insists on a "wanted" child. She did these things unapologetically, quite unafraid of seeming to be a normal, healthy sexist female: one who knows what it is to be a woman and enjoys it.

All Sarah Palin did was to claim her equal opportunity to a job once held exclusively by men. This sort of equality--the opportunity to take on public careers outside the home--is something liberals and conservatives agree on. That conservatives accept it is proven by the rapturous reception she received from Republicans, who greeted her as a political savior.

This she may or may not be, but she seems to have had the effect of enthusing the base, in part because of her sex.

Now, why could the women's movement not have taken advantage of this bipartisan agreement from the beginning? What impelled it to adopt a radical feminism hostile to both liberals and conservatives? Was this feminism necessary to attack male domination and to stir up the status quo?

An obvious difference between the women's movement and the civil rights movement is the ease with which the former triumphed. Of course there was male chauvinism at the start, but it was complacent, passive and ineffective. No man could look a woman in the eye and say "you are not equal to me" once the issue was put. There was nothing like the "massive resistance" to racial desegregation in the South; instead, there was a massive movement of women into jobs and careers.

Here is the interesting thing, while Palin may have benefited from the women's movement of the 50's and 60's I see her rise as simply the latest step in a society in which women are both the social and political equals of men. No Palin does not thank the women's movement, but she is a result of their efforts, their bipartisan efforts, rather than a result of the radical brand of feminism we as a society think of when we hear the term "feminist."

Sarah Palin is a woman, of that there is no doubt. She is a smart, successful, attractive woman. Thirty years ago that was an acceptable description of someone who most likely would never have risen to the heights Palin now has achieved.

Feminists want very much to be considered the equal of men in all things (as if there were possible). But the radical feminist movement has corrupted that notion. The women's movement of the 50's and 60's would have embraced the success of Sarah Palin--a woman who had succeeded on her own terms, in her own way, indeed in a manner that suggests feminity while at the same time displaying a strenght that is to be admired, not pilloried.

But Radical Feminism is more about rejecting the femine in favor of something more masculine. Radical feminism reminds of the seen in Working Girl, where at a bar, Harrison Ford's charachter remarks to Melanie Girffiths's femme appearence, "you are the first woman I have seen at these things that actually dresses like a woman rather than like a woman things a man would dress if he were a woman" or something to that effect.

Feminist success has been built upon the notion that women can do anything a man can do, a notion which is not only ludicrous for its biological impossibility (right now a woman cannot get another woman pregnant, for example) but also for the ludirous belief that there are no differences between men and women (and what a boring world that would be).

Yes, in terms of intellectual and business pursuits there are no differences. Any dolt who thinks so is a relic of the past. However, just because a woman deserves to be treated equally in the eyes of employers or the law does not mean that there are not differences between the two sexes.

Interestingly, radical feminism is premised on the notion as well, that a woman can be as tough as a man, a truism in every sense of the word and probably more so. But oddly enough, when Sarah Palin acts tough and feminine, that is somehow an affront to feminism.

So far in our history only two women have been nominated to be Vice President. Democrat Geraldine Ferraro and Republican Sarah Palin. Ferraro had the misfortune to be paired with Walter Mondale against Ronald Reagan, a match up doomed to failure for the Democrats. Now in a open seat, the woman with the possibility of being the first woman elected to the executive branch is a woman who is every bit the result of the women's movement, but not the heir to feminism.

Sex and Pregnancy Cannot Be Separated So Easily

Sheri Colb presents an interesting article on sex, abortion and risk as it applies to these issues and Sarah Palin's youngest son. Colb writes that under traditional notions of risk-taking and consent, we can be held liable for the consequences of our action even if the risk of consequences is minimal. For example, if we drive in a reckless manner, the law will hold us responsible for potential injury to others. Similarly, if we engage in say skiing, we accept that risk that injury may occur and that we cannot hold the ski resort operator liable. Conversely, there are some risks that are taken and the consequences that we don't "consent" to, namely that a sedentary lifestyle might lead to medical problems (i.e. stroke, or other blood clots) that we don't "consent" to.

Colb then argues

Returning to the question of whether consensual intercourse represents "consent" to pregnancy, consider the factors identified above. Is an act of consensual sexual intercourse extremely risky with respect to pregnancy? The answer depends in part on the woman's age, on where she is in her menstrual cycle, and on whether she or her partner is using contraception.

Even if a woman has unprotected sex, however, her odds of conceiving are quite low (some estimates are of a 2% or 3% chance), and we do not ordinarily treat as "consent" the taking of such a low risk. Furthermore, the "odds" are complicated by the fact that many women - especially sexually active minors who have not received accurate and complete sex education - operate under misapprehensions about how likely they are to become pregnant, including the false beliefs that (a) pregnancy is impossible the first time, (b) withdrawal before ejaculation precludes conception, and (c) sex in positions other than the missionary protect against conception.

If one can be said to "consent" only by knowingly taking risks, it would seem in many cases to be inaccurate to say that a woman who has had consensual sex has thereby consented to nine months of pregnancy and labor.

A second factor we identified in considering the equation between risk and consent was the legitimacy and importance of the activity giving rise to the risk. If we believed, for example, that having sex is not an especially important part of life, then it might be acceptable to demand of women that if they do not want to endure the burdens of pregnancy, they should simply remain celibate. For the most part, however, people do not view celibacy as a feasible life alternative.

Though some individuals take vows of celibacy, most view sex as an integral and even essential part of life. Accordingly, it would seem draconian to treat intercourse as consent to pregnancy, to tell women - in essence - that they must forego any and all sexual intercourse unless they are prepared to undergo a pregnancy. As a morally legitimate, low-risk (vis-à-vis pregnancy) activity, intercourse is a poor candidate for the equation of risk with consent.

Let's leave aside pregnancies that result from an act of rape as those are clearly outside of any notion of consent.

Colb seems to argue that even those who are voluntarily sedentary don't consent to the health risks of such a lifestyle. Fine, but there is a more apt discriminator at work here in the context of sex and pregnancy, and that is active versus passive risk-taking.

I will agree that a sedentary person does not consent to the risks of his choice, but that doesn't mean he is free from consequence. Yes, as Colb points out, our medical system will treat his sedentary related conditions, and in some circumstances we the taxpayers foot the bill (thanks to emergency rooms). However, that does not mean a person who has health insurance does not avoid the consequences of his choices, his payment is generally in funds and in other behaviors he generally abhors, i.e. going to the doctor or taking medications indefinitely.

Clearly the risks are passive for the health risks of a sedentary lifestyle. But when dealing with consensual sex, we are dealing with an active risk taking. Despite crude jokes by so-called comedians, sex is not a passive enterprise for any man or woman. And it is this active engagement, rather than some meager medical data or blanket assertion that sex is "a poor candidate for the equation of risk with consent."

On the contrary, it is equivalent or far more a candidate than other active risk/consent activities like skiing or driving. One could ski for years or drive recklessly for years and yet sustain no injury or injure someone else even though the risks are significant. Similarly, every time a man and a woman engage in intercourse, there is a non-zero chance of a pregnancy. A skiier or a driver can take precautions just as a sexually active woman can, but such precautions do not fully reduce the risk to zero. The only way to avoid the risks of sex, skiing or driving are to not engage in the actitivies. In this way, sex is an active risk activity and no matter how Colb tries to paint the activity in any other way, there are consequences that cannot be avoided simply because they are inconvenient.

The pseudo-scientific camoflage offered by Colb to justify that because in engaging in sex a woman is not actually consenting to the risks inherent in sex is bogus. All of the examples of risk-taking as consent are active pursuits, meaning a person takes an affirmative act to further those pursuits. Sex is a pursuit with a high degree of active invovlement and full of affirmative steps. Justifying the aborting of a pregnancy as a burden to which a woman did not consent even in the presence of consensual sex divorces an act from its reasonable consequences. Sex invites pregnancy and to attempt to divorce the two is ludicrous.

The Big Sort

Robert Samuelson talks about how much we Americans have sorted ourselves out into relatively homogeneous enclaves. It is not just about race and income as it used to be, but now it is about politics, interests and other matters.

Go read it, maybe it is a cause of our political gridlock.

Interesting Comments on Abortion

At Althouse:

The nonreligious conclusion I came to as the result of lasting (lifelong) regret of an abortion is that if an embryo or fetus is regarded as disposable, then you are, too. I guess it's a version of what Mother Theresa was saying. An individual either is unique and uniquely valuable or isn't. All are or none are. If your existence had happened at the wrong time (I won't use the demeaning word "inconvenient" because sometimes it's little more than that, but sometimes it's a lot worse), you could have been disposed of. Your existence is accidental and contingent.

That certainly puts things in perspective.

However, given that the vast majority of pregnancies happen result in births, it does seem a little harsh. I would also suspect that the vast majority of pregnancies are either a) done on purpose, i.e. intended, or b) a delightful accident when two people are either willing to have a child but have not made definite plans or simply happy that the event happened without conscious decision to get pregnant.

However, this point is also hugely important:

But is that inevitable? If people choose, for a time or for all time, to use sex to "make self" -- to make their own lives and relationships richer, which I do believe is one of its lifegiving uses -- then they should use birth control religiously. One of the big pro-choice arguments is that "birth control fails." Certainly some percentage of that failure rate is due to wrong or careless use of it. The rest -- the true failures -- might be seen as successes of someone who is just hellbent on being here. And the unwitting invitation of such a person should be viewed at all times as one of the ineradicable risks of sex.

That humans enjoy sex for both its recreative and procreative purposes means that like any other recreational, phsycial activity there are certain risks inherent in that activity. If for example, you love soccer (like I do) a risk is injury. If you enjoy sex (which I do), then pregnancy is a risk of that activity and you have to be willing to face up to teh consequences of your chosen activity. If you want to avoid pregnancy, practice birth control (most chemical/hormonal/mechanical means are better than 99% effective, but there is still risk). The only sure fire way to avoid pregnancy is not to have sex.

Title IX and Science Education

New York Times' John Tierney takes a look at what might be the next frontier for Title IX--Science. More specifically, science education at universities.

Before proceeding, I think Title IX did wonders for the higher education of women in this country. Schools accepting federal aid and grants could not discriminate against women and had to make the same accomodations as were made available for men. The purpose of Title IX was holistic, meaning the entire university community was affected. However, when I or other say "Title IX" almost immediately we think of intercollegiate sports. Like just about every other law out there designed to address discrimination of all sorts, racial or gender, Title IX rather quickly became short hand for quotas.

In Title IX's universe, the quota was "how many athletic scholarships" or "athletic programs" were given to women versus men. The fallout quickly became the dismantling of men's teams for wrestling or other generally male sports in favor of women's sports. Schools came to make sure that the number of female athletic scholarships were distributed in proportion to the male/female population on campus. Men's athletic programs were dismantled or radically altered in order to make sure some magic number of parity was attained and maintained, never mind what it did to some male athletes for whom that athletic scholarship represented the only means by which they could go to college. An heaven forbid a single football or basketball scholarship was cut. Instead of adding teams for women, schools looked at Title IX as a zero-sum game, i.e. "We have X number of scholarships to give out and in order for a woman to get one, a man cannot."

Tierney's article says that some Title IX absolutists are looking to do the same thing in science departments. But here is the problem, unlike scholarships, you cannot ensure equal representation in matters like faculty appointments without jeopardizing the quality of the school's academic and teaching reputations. (of course of the two reputations, the former is vastly more important than the latter among many professors). But the female representation of college faculties is far more difficult to rectify that the number of athletic scholarships that a school gives out:

In this debate, neither side doubts that women can excel in all fields of science. In fact, their growing presence in former male bastions of science is a chief argument against the need for federal intervention.

Despite supposed obstacles like “unconscious bias” and a shortage of role models and mentors, women now constitute about half of medical students, 60 percent of biology majors and 70 percent of psychology Ph.D.’s. They earn the majority of doctorates in both the life sciences and the social sciences. They remain a minority in the physical sciences and engineering. Even though their annual share of doctorates in physics has tripled in recent decades, it’s less than 20 percent. Only 10 percent of physics faculty members are women, a ratio that helped prompt an investigation in 2005 by the American Institute of Physics into the possibility of bias.

But the institute found that women with physics degrees go on to doctorates, teaching jobs and tenure at the same rate that men do. The gender gap is a result of earlier decisions. While girls make up nearly half of high school physics students, they’re less likely than boys to take Advanced Placement courses or go on to a college degree in physics.

So how is a college or university supposed to rectify a situation that is the result of hundreds of individual decisions by millions of women made years before they even consider attempting to get an academic position? The short answer, of course, is that they can't.

So what about teh notion that girls are "discouraged" from following careers in science and engineering.

But if you read “The Sexual Paradox,” Susan Pinker’s book about gender differences, you’ll find just the opposite problem.

Ms. Pinker, a clinical psychologist and columnist for The Globe and Mail in Canada (and sister of Steven Pinker, the Harvard psychologist), argues that the campaign for gender parity infantilizes women by assuming they don’t know what they want. She interviewed women who abandoned successful careers in science and engineering to work in fields like architecture, law and education — and not because they had faced discrimination in science.

Instead, they complained of being pushed so hard to be scientists and engineers that they ended up in jobs they didn’t enjoy. “The irony was that talent in a male-typical pursuit limited their choices,” Ms. Pinker says. “Once they showed aptitude for math or physical science, there was an assumption that they’d pursue it as a career even if they had other interests or aspirations. And because these women went along with the program and were perceived by parents and teachers as torch bearers, it was so much more difficult for them to come to terms with the fact that the work made them unhappy.”

“Creating equal opportunities for women does not mean that they’ll choose what men choose in equal numbers,” Ms. Pinker says. “The freedom to act on one’s preferences can create a more exaggerated gender split in some fields.”

Applying Title IX to science was proposed eight years ago by Debra Rolison, a chemist at the Naval Research Laboratory. She argued that withholding federal money from “poorly diversified departments” was essential to “transform the academic culture.” The proposal was initially greeted, in her words, with “near-universal horror.”

Some female scientists protested that they themselves would be marginalized if a quota system revived the old stereotype that women couldn’t compete on even terms in science. But the idea had strong advocates, too, and Congress quietly ordered agencies to begin the Title IX compliance reviews in 2006.

I wonder why such a task was undertaken. The words "political correctness" come to mind rather quickly. The fact is that so long as women are not prohibited from following the path they choose, then Title IX will have accomplished its goal. You cannot erase a discrimination that is simply not there. If colleges and universities were not hiring otherwise competent female engineering professors or physicists because they were women, then we would have a different problem. But if the number of such women candidates is much smaller than their male counterparts, is it something that a law can address.

No, and we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking it can.

Fatherlessness As Child Abuse?

La Shawn Barber makes the case for the statement.

That’s not a popular position to hold. What’s doubly sad is that criticizing people who deprive children this way is worse than actually depriving the children. Why? Please explain.

Losing a father through death is awful, but it’s not the same as losing him through divorce or being born into a fatherless home. In whichever case, a child will feel abandoned, but losing a father through divorce and being deprived of one from birth are deliberate acts of abandonment, worse than death in a sense. When a family loses a father through death, they keep his memory alive. His authority lingers. The children grow up knowing he loved them and their mother, made sacrifices for their well being, and did not walk out on them to pursue his own interests.

Three out of four black babies are born in the United States to women who aren’t married to the fathers. Fatherlessness leads to a multitude of problems, the worst of which is the repeated cycle of fatherlessness. You’ve read the studies. Even if you haven’t, you’ve seen firsthand the effects of fatherlessness on children, especially boys.

Despite what selfish and shameless adults think, children want fathers. They need fathers. They need masculine men in their lives who love them and would do anything to protect them, men who live with them, raise them, and sacrifice for them. Millions of children grow up without being loved or care for by the men who sired them. It makes me angry, bitterly so.

I believe that La Shawn has a point, however, I have to treat the case of divorce a little differently. (Note: later in her post La Shawn notes that divorce due to domestic violence or sexual/physical is the right thing to do).

Raising a child in a fatherless household from the start may not meet the legal definition of child abuse, but I can see La Shawn's case, not that from a legal standpoint it is likely to happen. But "fatherlessness" due to divorce is a little tricky though. Are some divorces based on the "selfishness" of the parents? I am positive of that. But by the same token, some divorces actually create better parents because the parents themselves are happier with their lives and thus better able to provide loving care and guidance without the drama infused by bickering parents. If the parents, whether married or divorced, put the welfare of their child first, and put the requisite time and energy into raising that child, then does it really matter if the parents are married? Can a father not provide adequate guidance for a child even if he lives in another home? Does not a child feel the love of a devoted father, whether that father is there or not?

Building on La Shawn's dead father memory, what about fathers who are absent for extended periods of time, whether due to military service or other jobs that require travel? The military dad or traveling dad is not only alive and more or less guaranteed to return, but provides a role model of sacrifice for the family/country that is a model of selflessness.

Now that should be contrasted with the divorced family where one parent, usually the father, suddenly does not become a regular part of the child's life. That produces the fatherlessness that I think La Shawn has a right to properly criticize. That our society has deemed this an acceptable model somewhat decries the unofficial motto of family courts, i.e. "what is best for the child."

I think La Shawn unfairly conflates the fatherlessness issue with the homosexual marriage issue. I do believe that kids raised in homosexual relationships can be well loved. I do think that children of homosexual couples need both mother and father figures and I think such parents should make an effort to ensure that such figures are available on a regular basis. But again, La Shawn makes a good point about the selfishness of some parents. Just because a parent has a particular sexual orientation does not mean they abdicate their role as parent. The Rosie O'Donnell example is too easy to criticize as selfish.

It is easy to become a biological father and harder to become a societal father. But the courts, if they become involved, tend to take the easy way out, allowing absentee parents (usually fathers) to "fulfill their parental obligations" by simply making a monthly child support payment. In return, the father gets a few days a month to be a parent. But this is too easy, it is like the child visiting a favority aunt or uncle, a family figure that can "spoil the child" for a few days and then the child goes back home. The absentee father is given a free pass from the hard part of parenting. They get to be the "cool" parent that does fun things for a few days, but does not have to make the hard decisions, does not have to say no or deal with real parenting.

To a certain extent I blame the family courts for this. I think family courts should do a better job of not just requiring financial child support but also fatherly support. Ordering a father to pay money to a mother for support of the child has become the legal substitute for actually requiring a father to parent a child and our society may be better off if more family courts started ordering more time of an absent parent in addition to the money.

But society as a whole, mothers who permit the slacking of fathers and grandparents who do so also, need to shoulder a fair amount of the blame. I am not sold on the idea that fatherlessness is akin to child abuse, but fatherlessness does abuse society and we are a whole lot worse off because of it.

The Criminal Justice System and Racism

Heather MacDonald asks: Is the Criminal-Justice System Racist? It is a fair question, and MacDonald answers no, stating that the high percentage of blacks behind bars reflects crime rates, not racism.

If a listener didn’t know anything about crime, such charges of disparate treatment might seem plausible. After all, in 2006, blacks were 37.5 percent of all state and federal prisoners, though they’re under 13 percent of the national population. About one in 33 black men was in prison in 2006, compared with one in 205 white men and one in 79 Hispanic men. Eleven percent of all black males between the ages of 20 and 34 are in prison or jail. The dramatic rise in the prison and jail population over the last three decades—to 2.3 million people at the end of 2007 (see box)—has only amplified the racial accusations against the criminal-justice system.

The favorite culprits for high black prison rates include a biased legal system, draconian drug enforcement, and even prison itself. None of these explanations stands up to scrutiny. The black incarceration rate is overwhelmingly a function of black crime. Insisting otherwise only worsens black alienation and further defers a real solution to the black crime problem.

After examining, at length many of hte common charges, that police over-arrest blacks (they don't), that prosecutors and judges over-prosecute and over-sentence black offenders (in fact the opposite is true, in that blacks tend to get more lenient sentences in most crimes including murder), and that the drug wars make more blacks criminals (wrong again), MacDonald concludes:

The evidence is clear: black prison rates result from crime, not racism. America’s comparatively high rates of incarceration are nothing to celebrate, of course, but the alternative is far worse. The dramatic drop in crime in the 1990s, to which stricter sentencing policies unquestionably contributed, has freed thousands of law-abiding inner-city residents from the bondage of fear. Commerce and street life have revived in those urban neighborhoods where crime has fallen most.

The pressure to divert even more offenders from prison, however, will undoubtedly grow. If a probation system can finally be crafted that provides as much public safety as prison, we should welcome it. But the continuing search for the chimera of criminal-justice bigotry is a useless distraction that diverts energy and attention from the crucial imperative of helping more inner-city boys stay in school—and out of trouble.

Often critics of the American criminal justice system will point out that other Western nations have far lower incarceration rates that America. That may be true, but what is their crime rates as well?

How about this question, which MacDonald did not explore, what is the percentage of the black prison population that a). come from single parent households and b). are unwed fathers (or mothers) themselves? Could cultural and socio-economic factors play a greater role than police or prosecutorial conspriacies? Perhaps if those social conditions were addressed then maybe, just maybe, the story would be different?

Political Lessons in an Adam Sandler Movie?

Micheal Totten notes that there are, and they are refreshingly Pro-Israel.

This, then, is no Mel Gibson movie. Gibson’s politics, in fact, are swiped at in this movie. No cultural conservative could possibly have written You Don’t Mess with the Zohan. Sandler’s character becomes the most sought-after hairdresser in New York City because he joyfully includes sexual favors for senior citizens as part of his salon service package. At no point in the film is there even the slightest suggestion that there’s anything wrong with promiscuous sex or brazen prostitution.

There’s a seriousness, though, beneath the surface of what is otherwise a ridiculous and crude cartoon with live actors. Israelis are portrayed as the good guys, which is not exactly what might be expected from Hollywood these days. Jokes are made at their expense, but the humor is not politically charged. Zohan brushes his teeth with hummus, for instance. His dad stirs it in his coffee.

American mall rats who buy theater tickets just for the laughs get a brief lesson on the Six Day War in 1967 and on Israel’s rules of engagement designed to shield innocent civilians from collateral damage. Zohan may be a raunchy comic book type of character, but he accurately represents most Israeli soldiers I’ve met in at least one way – he would much rather hang out with beautiful women on the beaches of Tel Aviv than fight Arabs. He’s easy to get along with as long as you are not trying to kill him. And if you are trying to kill him – watch out. The United States is correctly portrayed as a place where tension still exists between Israeli and Palestinian immigrants, but where that tension is also significantly muted and where some members of each community have pitched the old world hatreds over the side.

The second half of the movie gets even more silly and less believable when it begins to push a can’t-we-all-just-get-along message. Zohan’s boss, love interest, and the film’s heroine is Palestinian. The message is arguably appropriate, though, for a slap-stick American comedy. No one should expect a gritty, realistic treatment of tragic Middle East politics from a film like You Don’t Mess with the Zohan. The message, while a bit unrealistic, does manage to prevent a pro-Israel movie from becoming an anti-Arab movie, which is at it should be.

You Don’t Mess with the Zohan is not anti-Arab, nor is it really right-wing. It is far too juvenile and bawdy for that. But it’s refreshingly not leftist either. Those who love to hate Israel will hate Sandler’s new movie as much as Hezbollah and Hamas undoubtedly will.

Given the limited movie time my wife and I have, Don't Mess with the Zohan probably won't make our viewing list until pay-per-view or HBO, but still, is there a change in Hollywood a comin'?

What? Group of Teenage Girls Make Pact to Get Pregnant Together

Gloucester High School in Gloucester, MA has had a spike in pregnancies this year and according to Time Magazine, the reason is that some of the girls (none older than 16) made a pact to get pregnant together. I can remember when kids made a pact to sneak into an R-Rated movie or something similarly benign--this just boggles the mind.

Some adults dismissed the statistic as a blip. Others blamed hit movies like Juno and Knocked Up for glamorizing young unwed mothers. But principal Joseph Sullivan knows at least part of the reason there's been such a spike in teen pregnancies in this Massachusetts fishing town. School officials started looking into the matter as early as October after an unusual number of girls began filing into the school clinic to find out if they were pregnant. By May, several students had returned multiple times to get pregnancy tests, and on hearing the results, "some girls seemed more upset when they weren't pregnant than when they were," Sullivan says. All it took was a few simple questions before nearly half the expecting students, none older than 16, confessed to making a pact to get pregnant and raise their babies together. Then the story got worse. "We found out one of the fathers is a 24-year-old homeless guy," the principal says, shaking his head.

Now there are lots of problems with the scenario and the reprecussions are many. This was particularly problematic for me:

The girls who made the pregnancy pact—some of whom, according to Sullivan, reacted to the news that they were expecting with high fives and plans for baby showers—declined to be interviewed. So did their parents. But Amanda Ireland, who graduated from Gloucester High on June 8, thinks she knows why these girls wanted to get pregnant. Ireland, 18, gave birth her freshman year and says some of her now pregnant schoolmates regularly approached her in the hall, remarking how lucky she was to have a baby. "They're so excited to finally have someone to love them unconditionally," Ireland says. "I try to explain it's hard to feel loved when an infant is screaming to be fed at 3 a.m."

So may question is, what in these girls lives made them think that there were not people who loved them unconditioally. The choice these girls made have made it much more difficult for them to make it in life. Statistics shows that unwed, single mother without a high school diploma are far more likely to live in poverty than any other group of women in the country. Sure, the school appears to have made efforts to keep the young mothers in school ("Sex-ed classes end freshman year at Gloucester, where teen parents are encouraged to take their children to a free on-site day-care center. Strollers mingle seamlessly in school hallways among cheerleaders and junior ROTC. "We're proud to help the mothers stay in school," says Sue Todd, CEO of Pathways for Children, which runs the day-care center."), but really, this is a troubling sign. Apparently, the sex-ed classes need to spend a little more time on contraception and the consequences of unprotected sex--not just STDs but pregnancy, and the financial impact of being pregnant. Motherhood is not cheap, even when you are married.

Simply put, there was no one watching out for these girls until it was too late. Now this community will have a baby boom based on a silly pact.

Cell Phone Porn

MSNBC carried this story about teenagers sending naked pictures of themselves to boyfriends and girlfriends, only to find them on the internet, complicating authorities' efforts to find truly exploited children.

The story is interesting from that standpoint, that it makes the identification of those who are truly spreading child pornography around by exploiting kids. But this segment of the story worried me:

Many of these pictures are falling into the wrong hands — or worse, everyone's hands, via the Internet — and leading to criminal charges.

Some parents are aghast.

I just don't understand why kids would do a stupid thing like that," said Rochelle Hoins of Castle Rock, Colo., where 18 students in her twin sons' middle school sent around nude pictures of themselves last year. "We did dumb things when we were kids, but not like that," said Hoins, whose sons were not involved.

Similar cases have been reported in New Jersey, New York, Alabama, Utah, Pennsylvania, Texas and Connecticut.

"It used to be that kids would make mistakes, and it was local and singular and everyone knew it was part of growing up," said Catherine Davis, a PTA co-president in Westport, Conn., who had a frank talk with her two sons after several students' nude self-portraits recently spread through the wealthy New York City bedroom community. "Now a stupid adolescent mistake can take on major implications and go on their record for the rest of their lives."

At the outset, I am sure that when self-developing Polaroid cameras first came out, teenagers were taking nude photos of themselves and sending them to boyfriends/girlfriends. Today's teenager is not the first to come up with the idea of sending risque photos of themselves to others, so let's stop with the faux shock of the matter.

Admittedly, what is actually an adolescent mistake should not result in criminal charges, necessarily. The prosecutor who is pursuing charges against some 17 year old boy who, in a fit of anger, posts naked photos of his ex-girlfriend needs to be handled very differently than a boy who takes photos of multiple girls and then attempts to sell them. Should both be punished? Most definitely, but parents and adults in the criminal justice system need to think about proportionality.

Finally, we need to be asking ourselves, what is feeding this trend? Some social conservatives will say that it is the degradation of morals in society, the promiscuity and the prevelance of sex in our "entertainment." Well that could be part of it and it is not without its appeal. But that is looking at the problem for a particular bias.

The "problem's" source is much simpler and very easy to correct.

Stop giving teenagers camera phones.

If you want to stop teenagers from sending nude pictures of themselves around using their cell phones don't give them camera phones. It really is that simple.

While I am not convinced that every teenager needs a cell phone of their own, I am willing to concede that they may need a phone and certainly will want a phone. However, that phone does not need all the fancy gadgets like a camera attached to it. A simple cell phone, with a limited calling plan and no photo/video/MP3 player combination is needed. The increase in these types of pictures being distributed is a direct consequence of camera phones. Generally, most teenagers will not have someone else take pictures of them, to the photos are self-shot and easily distributed and redistributed. Take away the capability and you take away this aspect of the problem.

This is not to say that digital cameras and email won't be used, but that is another matter.

Entrepreneurs Create Wealth--Not Governments

It is true here and it is true elsewhere.

Dennis Prager Laments: When I Was a Boy, America Was a Better Place

Dennis Prager feels bad and has a laundry list of issues about how the culture of America has "declined."

Only two things really stand out as being truly of concern to me, the first is the lack of men in specific and adults in general:

When I was boy, I was surrounded by adult men. Today, most American boys (and girls, of course) come into contact with no adult man all day every school day. Their teachers and school principals are all likely to be women. And if, as is often the case, there is no father at home (not solely because of divorce but because "family" courts have allowed many divorced mothers to remove fathers from their children's lives), boys almost never come into contact with the most important group of people in a boy's life -- adult men. The contemporary absence of men in boys' lives is not only unprecedented in American history; it is probably unprecedented in recorded history.

When I was a boy, we had in our lives adults who took pride in being adults. To distinguish them from our peers, we called these adults "Mr.," "Mrs." and "Miss," or by their titles, "Doctor," "Pastor," "Rabbi," "Father." It was good for us, and we liked it. Having adults proud of their adulthood, and not acting like they were still kids, gave us security (as well as something to look forward to in growing up). Today, kids are surrounded by peers twice, three, four times their age.

This is sort of the same lament. I don't know about men in our schools (I do know my daughter's principal is male and there is a chance, based on random factors of her first grade teacher being a male, but I suspect that is an outlier rather than the norm), but statistically, Prager is right, a fair significant portion of our young boys do not have a regular male role model and that is a problem, not only for the boy, but for society.

There is also the lack of respect for adults in society. I have to admit, I have found myself referring to our friends as Miss Heather or Miss Lori when talking to my daughters and I wonder when that started? What is wrong with addressing adults by Mr., Miss, Ms. or Mrs. and their last name? I can't recall if I ever referred to my friends' parents by their first name, ever. I certainly never addressed them by their first name--probably even now I wouldn't. I don't know if the trend is because we adults are afraid of our adulthood or lack pride in it. But I do think that we adults should be asking kids to refer to us using adult honorifics.

Then Prager points this out:

When I was a boy, Time and Newsweek were well written and relied little on pictures and illustrations. Today, those magazines often look like adult comic books by comparison. They are filled with large illustrations and photos, and they dumb down the news with features like "Winners and Losers" and "Who's Up and Who's Down." And when I was a boy, it would have been inconceivable for Time to substitute anything, let alone a tree, for the flag planted by the marines on Iwo Jima.

I do think the media has made things a little too simple, a little too easily digested and lack the depth necessary to really explore a subject. TV news and daily newspapers may lack the time and space to deal with a subject in depth, but a weekly news magazine really should do better.

Prager closes:

One might argue that these are the same laments that every previous older generation has expressed -- "Ah, when I was young..." But in America, that has not been the case. In America, the older generations tended to say the opposite -- "When I was a kid, things were worse."

Can we return to the America of my youth? No. Can we return to the best values of that time? Yes. But not if both houses of Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court move the country even further leftward. If that happens, many of the above noted changes will simply be accelerated: More laws restricting "offensive" speech will be enacted; litigation will increase and trial lawyers will gain more power; the American military will be less valued; trees will gradually replace the flag as our most venerated symbol; schools will teach even less as they concentrate even more on diversity, sexuality and the environment; teenage sex will be increasingly accepted; American identity will continue to be replaced by ethnic, racial, gender or "world citizen" identity; and the power of the state will expand further as the power of the individual inevitably contracts. It's hard to believe most Americans really want that.

There needs to be a correction, but I am not sure that the correction can necessarily come just from a rightward correction of government, there has to be more personal interaction.

Yeah, I Heard That Before

Didn't Alec Baldwin threaten to move to Europoe if George W. Bush was elected president? Yeah--that worked well. Now Susan Sarandon has threatened to do the same.

Don't the the door hit you on the way out sister.