April 28, 2012 | Author: Jennie Chancey

Hard to believe this guy is still making “predictions” and claiming he has been accurate in the past when all of his dire prophecies about worldwide starvation failed to come true:

What do you know about Paul Ehrlich? If you’re anything like me, probably not a lot more than the following: in 1968 he published a book called the Population Bomb.  It was kind of big deal. A big, alarmist, deal. Now, he’s back in the media (read Guardian) and has obviously re-invented himself as a stand-up comedian.  Some of his funniest jokes were leaked to the Guardian:

“The world’s most renowned population analyst has called for a massive reduction in the number of humans and for natural resources to be redistributed from the rich to the poor.”

Hmmm, of course the easiest way to cut this Gordian knot is to eliminate the poor – thus you kill two birds with one stone.  Further on in the article:

“The optimum population of Earth – enough to guarantee the minimal physical ingredients of a decent life to everyone – was 1.5 to 2 billion people rather than the 7 billion who are alive today or the 9 billion expected in 2050, said Ehrlich in an interview with the Guardian.

“How many you support depends on lifestyles. We came up with 1.5 to 2 billion because you can have big active cities and wilderness. If you want a battery chicken world where everyone has minimum space and food and everyone is kept just about alive you might be able to support in the long term about 4 or 5 billion people. But you already have 7 billion. So we have to humanely and as rapidly as possible move to population shrinkage.”

How does one rapidly (and yet humanely) move to population shrinkage?  No, seriously, how do you do that? It’s oxymoronic as far as I can tell.

Read the full piece at THIS LINK.

Category: Eugenics/Demography | No Comments »
Tags: birth control, birth rate, demography, population

April 28, 2012 | Author: Jennie Chancey

I realize we’re well past the Rosen “stay-at-home moms-don’t-work” kerfuffle (rainy season in Kenya means lots of power and Internet outages!), but there are several good commentaries I wanted to share. I’m still working on a long article about the whole false “work vs. family” debate. As anybody grounded in reality knows, all moms work. What Rosen’s remarks illustrated was the fact that feminists have co-opted the word “work” to mean “any career for any institution other than one’s own family.” Work done in and from the home doesn’t count in this worldview, so we shouldn’t be surprised when it is dismissed out of hand. Here are some of the better commentaries that came through my newsfeed over the past ten days:

• Feminists Are Waging War On Family Finances ~ As tax burdens escalate, it becomes increasingly challenging to cope on one income. Why discourage stay-at-home mothers by raising taxes to finance social engineering? Why dilute the economic benefits from tending the hearth through subsidizing daycare? Government deliberately skews the scale.

• The Real War Against Women Is Being Waged By Feminists ~ Rosen’s gaffe was no mistake; it is what the feminists really think about any mother who would say, as Ann Romney said, “My career choice was to be a mother.” The big mama of feminism who is revered in college women’s studies courses, Simone de Beauvoir, famously said: “No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” That’s what feminists think. The strident voices that demand “choice” do not believe women should have the choice to be a homemaker rather than work a paid job in the labor force.

• Dirty Little Secret: More Women Want to Stay Home to Raise Kids ~ For decades now, feminists have argued that stay-at-home moms were the equivalent of plantation slaves. Or they were sellouts – Betty Crockers who drank The Stepford Wives’ Kool Aid. A “real” woman wanted a professional career, just like a man.

• About feminism and moms: It’s worse than you think ~ It should surprise no one that a self-appointed advocate for women (as if their opinions and interests were monolithic) should dismiss stay-at-home moms so casually and even coldly. It has been a major tenet of the feminist movement that women who raise their children rather than enter the workplace are precisely the problem.

Category: Feminism & Related Issues, Mothering | No Comments »
Tags: children, family, feminism, motherhood

April 19, 2012 | Author: Anna Sofia & Elizabeth Botkin

Dear Rapunzel,

Thank you for your email. We happen to already be familiar with your story as presented in “Tangled,” and even know a little more about your backstory than you do, and so we do have some thoughts for you.
(more…)

Category: Uncategorized | 4 Comments »
Tags:

April 17, 2012 | Author: Jennifer McBride

Join the Moore family in this timely documentary as they briefly expose the evil history of the birth control movement on the 50th anniversary of “the pill.”  Listen as they transparently share their testimony of how God, in His grace and mercy, opened their eyes in spite of their own sinful beginning. Be encouraged as they casually answer questions often posed to large families. Then, experience the joy of Biblical family life as they welcome their tenth child into their home. Most of all, be inspired to look to the Word of God for answers to everything in life, but specifically to see that Children are a Blessing.

During the month of April you can watch this entire film (a semi-finalist in the San Antonio Christian Film Festival) online for free at Moore Family Films!

Category: Family | 1 Comment »
Tags: birth control, children, family, parenting

April 14, 2012 | Author: Jennie Chancey

From Mariette Ulrich at Mercatornet:

Raising kids is not a Sunday stroll in the park, but if you never get there, whose fault is it?

Very few families of my acquaintance do not occasionally lament that they are too busy, over-involved, stressed to the max. It was partly for this reason that my husband and I opted, many years ago, to home-educate our children. It’s not a cure-all for what ails the modern family, but it has allowed us an extra degree of flexibility and control over our time. We have also had to limit the number of extra-curricular activities in which our children are involved. Some of these choices were made by default: like most parents, our discretional income is limited, and because we live in a sparsely populated rural area, some activities are simply not on offer.

Incidentally, I am not sure what is meant by the “lack of an adult life”. You generally should not become a parent until you reach adulthood, and the years spent in active parenting do, by definition, mostly revolve around the kids. In order to raise children well (to be secure, healthy, confident, well-trained, ultimately decent and productive human beings) you need to put in some time and effort. With a little more effort, spouses can make time for each other. The key is balance, and for most families this is the challenging part.

As a parent, you have to make a lot of choices. One of them is how much time you will spend together as a family, and how much time you will be involved in various other activities. This should include, by the way, not just sport, culture and recreation, but also things like community volunteering, which teaches children that life is also about making it better for those less fortunate.

I wonder if it occurs to Western middleclass parents that many of the activities we feel we cannot do without are unaffordable luxuries to parents in many other parts of the globe, or even in other parts of the city, and yet every nation on earth is capable of producing well-rounded, creative, and civilized human beings.

Read the entire piece HERE.

Category: Family, Mothering, Training Children | No Comments »
Tags: children, family, fatherhood, motherhood

April 12, 2012 | Author: Kelly Crawford

” ‘What if your daughter wanted to be an interior designer? Go to school and become a professional? I’m only asking what if. Would you push her to stay at home or to follow her dreams?’…

I can not find anything in Scripture that encourages us to “follow our dreams”. In fact, quite the contrary. My Bible says to “deny yourself and follow Me”. Oprah Winfrey says to “follow your dreams”.”

Read the rest HERE.

Category: Family, Feminism & Related Issues | 1 Comment »
Tags:

April 9, 2012 | Author: robinphillips

Douglas Wilson has some good things to say here about some of the issues upstream of the modesty debate, which echoes the concerns I raised in my article ‘Slutwalk and the Negation of Feminine Sexuality.‘

Wilson also helpfully reminds us that when a woman reveals too much flesh, it is often not because she has too much sexual security but too little. Wilson writes,

One of the most striking things about these flesh parades is how unattractive it all is. As in, gekkk. … There are clearly numerous young ladies who have no one in their lives willing to speak to them truthfully. And when women don’t have someone who loves them like they ought to, they become susceptible to any number of fads, so long as someone — most likely a peer with the same emotional problems — is willing to tell them it is “cute.” Well, it isn’t. Sorry to break it to you. There also appears to be an inverse relationship between the class of the person and how many square feet are covered by the tattoo.

The problem here, at least within the church, is that hints don’t get you anywhere, no effect at all, and if you state the problem plainly, it flattens the poor girl for months, like somebody took a pastoral mallet to her. By “hints,” I mean general references in sermons to modesty and decorum, and by “stating plainly” I mean suggesting that she come to church next week with the mammalian pride dialed back just a skosh. The problem is not that she is secure in her sexuality — it is just the reverse. You can tell this because women who want to be “secure” in their sexuality in this way at the same time do not want men around them who are secure in their sexuality in a comparable way.

Click “more” to read the rest (not for young readers). (more…)

Category: Biblical Womanhood, Femininity & Modesty, Feminism & Related Issues | 9 Comments »
Tags: dress, femininity, feminism, modesty

April 9, 2012 | Author: Jennie Chancey

From an excellent piece in The Atlantic:

If you look at scientific literature, you find over and over again that many interventions increase risk to mother and child instead of decreasing it.

When I ask my medical students to describe their image of a woman who elects to birth with a midwife rather than with an obstetrician, they generally describe a woman who wears long cotton skirts, braids her hair, eats only organic vegan food, does yoga, and maybe drives a VW microbus. What they don’t envision is the omnivorous, pants-wearing science geek standing before them.

Indeed, they become downright confused when I go on to explain that there was really only one reason why my mate — an academic internist — and I decided to ditch our obstetrician and move to a midwife: Our midwife could be trusted to be scientific, whereas our obstetrician could not.

Many medical students, like most American patients, confuse science and technology. They think that what it means to be a scientific doctor is to bring to bear the maximum amount of technology on any given patient. And this makes them dangerous. In fact, if you look at scientific studies of birth, you find over and over again that many technological interventions increase risk to the mother and child rather than decreasing it.

Read the entire piece HERE.

Category: Mothering | No Comments »
Tags: health, motherhood

April 9, 2012 | Author: Jennie Chancey

These stats continue to pile up:

[R]esearch has gone and found another lovely side effect of the birth control shot: A 50 percent higher risk of breast cancer.

Women who used the shot of synthetic hormones for at least a year had double the risk of getting breast cancer, according to the study published in the journal Cancer Research. Family history, obesity, age, and pregnancy history didn’t seem to make a difference. Creepy, no?

There is some silver lining: Users’ risk dropped to that of non-users after several months of being injection-free. Plus, risk is low to begin with in younger women — like those in their 30s (1 in 233, according to the National Cancer Institute) — who tend to be the ones on Depo.

But here’s my Q … Have they studied the long-term effects that do linger? There are plenty from certain types of birth control pills (vaginal dryness, gallstones, low libido), so I wouldn’t put the same past the shot. Especially because the fake progesterone in the shot is the same used in the postmenopausal hormone therapy pill, Prempro, which was shown to boost women’s risk of breast cancer by 24 percent.

Read the full piece at THIS LINK.

Category: Feminism & Related Issues, Hot-Button Issues | No Comments »
Tags: birth control, health

April 9, 2012 | Author: Jennie Chancey

From Carolyn Moynihan at Mercatornet:

Is puberty before the age of 10 a “new normal” for girls? asks a long article in the New York Times magazine….

Girls who from an early age grow up in homes without their biological fathers are twice as likely to go into puberty younger as girls who grow up with both parents. Some studies show that the presence of a stepfather in the house also correlates with early puberty. Evidence links maternal depression with developing early. Children adopted from poorer countries who have experienced significant early-childhood stress are also at greater risk for early puberty once they’re ensconced in Western families.

Read the full piece HERE. Not many people talk about the significant role a healthy father-daughter relationship plays in a girl’s maturity. Growing up in a warm, stress-free environment with both parents helps girls avoid a lot of problems down the road–especially in the key area of sexual maturity.

Category: Fatherhood, Sexuality | 1 Comment »
Tags: children, fatherhood

April 9, 2012 | Author: Jennie Chancey

From American Vision News:

The Aquila Report reports,

“Christians divorce at roughly the same rate as the world.” It’s one of the most quoted stats by Christian leaders today. And it’s perhaps one of the most inaccurate. . . .

Many people who seriously practice a traditional religious faith — be it Christian or other — have a divorce rate markedly lower than the general population.

The factor making the most difference is religious commitment and practice. Couples who regularly practice any combination of serious religious behaviors and attitudes — attend church nearly every week, read their Bibles and spiritual materials regularly; pray privately and together; generally take their faith seriously, living not as perfect disciples, but serious disciples — enjoy significantly lower divorce rates than mere church members, the general public and unbelievers.

Read the rest HERE.

Category: Family, Marriage | No Comments »
Tags: divorce, family, marriage, myths

April 9, 2012 | Author: Jennie Chancey

From Suzanne Venker:

There it was in the grocery store checkout line, in all its glory — a Time magazine headline: “The Richer Sex.” The article is a reprint from Liza Mundy’s new book of the same name. What does it mean? That women “are overtaking men as America’s breadwinners.” Ms. Mundy wants you to know why that’s a great thing.

As women have gained more economic clout, she writes, the ways in which women and men “work, play, shop, share, court and even love each other” have dramatically changed. True enough, and the last two on this list should be of particular concern. The so-called rise of women didn’t just change courtship and love. It upended them. Today, a mere 51 percent of U.S adults are married, compared with 72 percent in 1960 — before the feminist movement took off….

Mundy says breadwinning wives go to “great lengths” to avoid emasculating their husbands — particularly if they stay home with the kids. These wives assure their husbands that taking care of the house and children, including planning, shopping, and cooking for the family, is a task equally worthy to theirs. Then Mundy adds this: “The ability to generate income is not the only measure of value.”

Really? You don’t say? That’s an excellent observation, Ms. Mundy — but also an ironic one considering feminists have been chomping at the bit to get out of performing such equally worthy tasks for decades. As a matter of fact, Betty Friedan began this whole mess by stating outright that housewives live in “comfortable concentration camps.” Yet when men do it, childrearing and homemaking become indispensable.

Read the full piece at THIS LINK.

Category: Feminism & Related Issues | No Comments »
Tags: feminism, marriage, womanly arts, work

April 9, 2012 | Author: Anna Sofia & Elizabeth Botkin

Dear Botkin sisters,

I just turned 18 years old and I have a question for you. My name is Rapunzel and I’m in the middle of a very challenging situation. I’ll give you some backstory.
(more…)

Category: For the Unmarried, Uncategorized | 5 Comments »
Tags: daughters at home

April 4, 2012 | Author: Carmon Friedrich

Puff, puff, puff … just one more step, just one more house! I think I can, I think I can, I think I can.

I felt like the Little Engine that Could as I trudged up and down my neighborhood streets with five children in tow, pushing the baby in the stroller. It was 1992, and George Bush, Sr. was running for re-election against Democrat Bill Clinton and his vice presidential candidate Al Gore.

I was armed with campaign literature and my intrepid little army of helpers, and we were going to do our best to make sure the GOP held on to the White House as we distributed our flyers to our California Bay Area neighbors. This was the “most important election ever”!

(Read the rest at Visionary Womanhood.)

Category: Foundations of Truth, Hot-Button Issues | 2 Comments »
Tags: elections, politics

March 29, 2012 | Author: Jennie Chancey

The hue and cry from the feminist corner during the debate over the Obamacare contraception mandate has painted religious conservatives as backwards, uneducated rubes who are out to prevent women from receiving quality health care. Never mind that the debate is not and never has been over women’s health care. The debate is squarely centered over who is obligated to pay for health care and what constitutes said health care. According to feminists and other pro-taxpayer-funded “health” activists, hormonal contraceptives absolutely fall under the “health care” heading, so anyone opposed to state-funded birth control is simply out to get women and deny them their right to good health.

This is patent nonsense, as two excellent articles this week aptly illustrate: (more…)

Category: Feminism & Related Issues, Hot-Button Issues | 12 Comments »
Tags: abortion, birth control, feminism, women's health