Friday Focus: The Overpopulation Myth

There is a TED talk floating around which was given by Sheryl WuDunn (see here and here), the co-author of Half the Sky.  She speaks about the work of the Half the Sky Foundation and says that something called, "gender inequity" is the central moral challenge of the 21st century.  This is her first major tenet.  WuDunn illustrates this inequity by talking about the phenomenon of missing girls, putting the number at, "between 60 million and 100 million missing females in the current population."  WuDunn, even though this is her issue, seems to underplay the numbers (more on why this might be in a moment) because Steven Mosher/PRI puts the number at 100 million, which is also the U.N.s number, while author Mara Hvistendahl puts it at 163 million in Asia, the region with the starkest demographic divide.

Whether or not WuDunn is underplaying the numbers, her solution given in the second major tenet is bound to perpetuate the problem:

The second tenet of "Half the Sky" is that, let's put aside the morality of all the right and wrong of it all. And just on a purely practical level, we think that one of the best ways to fight poverty and to fight terrorism is to educate girls and to bring women into the formal labor force. Poverty, for instance. There are three reasons why this is the case. For one, overpopulation is one of the persistent causes of poverty. And you know, when you educate a boy, his family tends to have fewer kids, but only slightly. When you educate a girl, she tends to have significantly fewer kids.

I believe WuDunn may be deliberately underplaying the number of missing girls because it would affect public perception of the above agenda.  That agenda, as a practical matter, requires the widespread availability and practice of abortion.  The case for the link between regular use of artificial birth control and abortion has been made elsewhere so I will not rehearse it here. In order to bring women into the formal labor force and keep them there, you have to depend upon abortion when contraception fails.  Abortion is the birth control back-up plan, so to speak. So, yes, let's put aside the morality of it all, shall we?

[As an interesting aside, I have been criticized elsewhere for linking WuDunn with Mao and calling her a fan of Mao which is odd when you consider that only when the communists were moving women into the formal labor force did Mao coin his now famous phrase, "Women hold up half the sky." And what is a major focus of her agenda?  Moving women into the formal workforce!]

I  believe there are tell-tale signs all the way through this talk that WuDunn doesn't really love these people, she just thinks they need her.  One sign was the way she depersonalizes people in references like this,  "the breast shows no son preference."  Another was that obvious instance where she urged us to put aside morality in favor of her agenda because she knows how to help these people.  But the most egregious instance is her parroting of the overpopulation myth which brings me to the reason for this extended introduction.

Steven Mosher is a widely recognized authority on population issues, particularly in China.  The first American social scientist allowed in China, he witnessed the coercive methods of enforcing the "One Child" policy from the first days of its existence.  Mosher heads up the non profit, Population Research Institute which, "works to end coercive population control, and fight the myth of overpopulation which fuels it." 

Of their special projects, Overpopulation is a Myth is just chock full of catchy videos and the science to back them up.  Other projects aim to Stop Sex-Selective Abortion and Project Real Need which aims at stopping the flow of tax dollars to funding abortion and put that money where it is needed, such as in Malaria prevention measures.

So tour around PRI, get to know their work and check out some of the videos.  You will come away understanding that overpopulation is far from being a "persistent" cause of poverty, it is a myth.  And forget WuDunn's amoral prescription. 

*please also read some additional information in the first comment.

The MD-inspred "cone of silence"

I'm done.  It's not my job, it should be done by the men who are defending and promoting the celebrity preacher who is (to paraphrase a friend) the Reformed world's Benny Hinn.  And I am tired of feeling like a pornographer every time I pass on the relevant links, only doing so because I have a tough time saying "no" to my friends (and that is my problem, not theirs).  So here are the relevant keywords. Beyond this, anyone who is curious about the brouhaha will have to do their own research:

Mark Driscoll
Blog and Mablog
Peasant Princess
Cessationism
Pyromaniacs

Monday Merriment

This week, courtesy of Dr. Boli:

Sure sign of the Apocalypse #962: The Marriage Ref

The Marriage Ref is a newish show on broadcast television in which couples come on television to get marriage advice from, among others, Bill Maher.

If I need to explain or defend my assertion that this is a sure sign, then I can't help you.  I could put together the argument, but it wouldn't help.

THE QUESTION: In which Byron York learns the old rule still stands

Boys don't hit girls.  They just don't.  Byron York learned that the rule still holds, even when the girl is putting herself up for the biggest game in town - Presidential politics.  Even before he finished asking THE QUESTION, a chorus of "Boo!"s rose up from the audience.  Bachmann seemed gratified by the audience response, but she should not have been.  It was one more indication of the American public's love-hate relationship with feminism and feminists.  We want our women to be able to rough it up with the big boys, but when someone treats them like they actually are just one of the boys, the old instincts rise up.  Welling up from a deep place within us that we try to ignore, the reaction is undeniable.  You can try to ignore it, but that won't work for very long.  As J Budziszewski has reminded us, there are some things which you "can't not know".

Against many commentators, I will say unapologetically that it was a perfectly legitimate question.  A journalist should ask questions relevant to each candidate's own individual beliefs and positions.  You wouldn't ask Herman Cain if he submits to his wife because he's never indicated he thinks this might be a biblical mandate (as far as I know).  Nor would you care if Mrs. Romney submits to her husband because no one cares, she is not the one wanting our vote, not the one who will be making the decisions.  And assertive though Mrs. Gingrich is said to be, it's Mr. Gingrich that is running for the nomination.  But Mrs Bachmann is a "Mrs".  And she has publicly said she submits to her husband because Scripture teaches her to do so.  So, yes, it is a relevant and legitimate question for her and her alone.

But the American public can breath easy. If we are to believe Bachmann's response to York, submission doesn't really mean submission.  It means respect.  It even means mutual respect.  Goodness, Mrs. Bachmann is sounding more and more like she's been reading CBEs materials rather than CBMWs, doesn't she?  But I'll let Mrs. Bachmann speak for herself:

Both he and I, what submission means to us, if that's what your question is, it means respect.  I respect my husband. . .And he respects me as his wife.  That's how we operate our marriage.  We respect each other, we love each other, and I've been so grateful that we've been able to build a home together . . .

Bachmann, in her interview today, doesn't seem to have elaborated on that answer, instead she has reiterated and affirmed it.  So all you folks who were holding your breath can let it out now.  Marcus Bachmann will not be directing foreign or domestic policy for his submissive wife.  She doesn't really mean submission in the biblical sense,where wives are called to submit to their husbands in a way that husbands, who do not receive a reciprocal commandment to submit to their wives, are not.  She means a sort of mutual admiration society that does sound remarkably like the doctrine of the Egalitarians.

We should all learn the lesson Byron York learned.  It's a lesson the feminists have been trying to teach us for more than a generation.  They WILL play with the big boys whether you like it or not.  But if you dare treat one of them as if she actually WAS a big boy - your name will be reviled throughout the land.

It's a boy's game, but they want to play by the girl's rules.  Fail to learn that lesson at your own risk.

The ahistorical nature of religious feminism and the myth of the naked public square

This should be a short post as I just aim to share something of a light-bulb moment. 

First, in what I quote below, you will find a popular formation of the myth of the naked public square.  I am not going to analyze it as many minds, finer than mine, have already dealt the myth a death-blow.  Start with the work of First Things and founder Fr. Richard John Neuhaus to see what I mean.

It has been said that one who goes deep into history ceases to be Protestant.  There are times when I fear that is true (I say fear because I still am a Protestant, you see).  As a contemporary corollary to that I would offer the maxim that (using the generic masculine, take note): He who is steeped in reality ceases to be feminist. The feminist, not least the religious feminists, exists in a sort of culturally illiterate vacuum never before seen in public discourse.

Here, then, is part of a blog exchange which took place elsewhere this morning.  My words are in plain text, my respondents words are italicized:

My work focuses on women’s equality and I have found that almost every conversation can be brought to that subject.

Michelle Bachmann should not have been asked that question. Plain and simple. You would not ask Romney whether or not he believes that his wife should submit to him. Most Mormons do believe that, just as SBCers believe it, but it wouldn’t be asked.

It is time we took religion out of politics. Whether you are egalitarian, as I am, or whether you are complementarian, we should keep church and state separated. If not, one day we will wake up and find that we have a church-run country.

No man will ever be asked if his wife submits to him because no one cares – it does not affect his political decision-making whereas Bachman (who is a wife and not a husband) will be very much affected in her decision-making by her husband if she truly submits. Now that may be for political good or ill, but it is a legitimate question because it is a legitimate difference.

As for your longed-for naked public square – it is a myth.

“my longed-for naked public square” Whoa, where did that come from? And what does it mean?

Friday Focus: Simple Actions

All too often when we run across injustices, particularly big ones, we freeze up with the enormity of it all.  We become convinced that there is nothing we can do so we end up doing nothing but stewing about it.  The first and foremost course of action for any Christian is: prayer.  Simple and simply world-changing.  Whether God answers your prayer by nudging someone else into action or showing you the way to take one step forward, one little kick at the darkness -- prayer is the most powerful weapon in our arsenal.  It calls up armies of angels, gathers the saints militant and triumphant for battle.  In the end, it is not simply our preparation for battle, it is the one field of battle into which every single Christian, no exceptions, is called.
But prayer often feels so nebulous to us, so ineffectual because we often do not see that answers come.  Particularly so when we are concerned about BIG issues like sex trafficking and abortion.  We want to DO SOMETHING, anything.  So often we comfort ourselves, in this age, with typing our names in a little box on a computer screen and think that signing a petition is doing something, because doing more seems so overwhelming and might call us to get our hands dirty.  In fact, I recently wrote a "note" on this for my FB page. 

There aren't many of us who could or should pick up sticks and go to work volunteering for IJM or World Vision or go to work at a Hamlin Fistula Hospital.  When we do this without the proper preparation we can end up hurting more than helping.  When this happens we can see that perhaps prayer really is our best weapon, prayer for guidance and direction.

So I think you already know today's assignment.  But for extra credit you can do something positive, a simple action to support a good piece of legislation.  Here is a link to an explanation about the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act.  Here is the Senate website from which you can find the contact information for your two Senators.  Read the information on the IJM page and poke around a bit, checking some of the links which include a link to the full text of the bill.  Use their letter as a model for your own letter to your two Senators.  Then get in touch with your Senators, both of them.  Whether by phone call, personal email, postal letter or a face-to-face meeting the next time they are home.  Meeting with local staffers and leaving a letter for the Senator works as well.

It's a simple thing to make it personal. In the words of Bruce Cockburn, gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight. Sometimes it takes an awful lot of kicking, but it starts with one kick at the darkness and one knock on the doors of Heaven.

Riding in on a shiny new pony

A couple of weeks ago there was a big shindig here in Denver, The Western Conservative Summit.  And while I am quite sure there was a pair or two of genuine cowboy boots (with honestly gained smelly brown stuff barely scraped off) present in the swanky downtown hotel, I think Jay Ambrose might be a bit too messianic in his assessment of the event:


The People Who May Save America


You'll forgive me for being a bit skeptical.

Steinem's sour grapes

Ms. Gloria Steinem, who found rather late in life that sometimes, yes fish do need bicycles, is being feted in events surrounding publicity for the HBO documentary, Gloria: In her own words. New York Magazine interviewed her at one of those luncheons and asked her about Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Proving, for the 567th time, that the "women's movement" was only ever an "upper middle class women's movement", Steinem responded, "They’re there to oppose the women's movement. That's their job." It's not about a mythic glass ceiling or women who can make it in a "man's world". Never was. If it was truly a movement of women who believe that "women are people, too!", Steinem would be applauding the fact that a woman had been on the presidential ticket for the second time in a generation and that two women (Hillary Clinton in 2008 and Michele Bachmann in 2012) are given serious consideration for a presidential nomination.

The truth is that Steinem sounds frustrated. It also sounds as if it is Evangelical Christianity which she really despises and not merely politically conservative women. Read the rest of the article here.

Steinem is wrong and rather than moaning, she should be celebrating. Her movement has gone so mainstream/underground that, while certain pundits and media darlings use their sex to attack Palin and Bachmann, no one really thinks their place is, well, out of place. Steinem makes my point for me when she lumps Palin and Bachmann in with Rick Perry (you know, that guy who organized a really dangerous gathering of people to . . . pray, right?). You know a movement has done its work in permeating society when the bulk of Evangelicalism has embraced it. So, chin up, Gloria! Your moment has passed and your work is done. Were all feminists now.

Sarah Palin and those around her embraced the feminist label and created a new species, the Frontier Feminist with a mama grizzly as their mascot. Michele Bachmann is more soft-pedal in her feminism. In fact, I don't think I've seen her mention the word in any of the speeches I've heard or articles about her I've read. While Todd Palin publicly appears to be an absent husband-father, Marcus Bachmann is very much presented as the servant-leader a good complementarian husband should be. Palin also has a young and troubled family with a teen daughter known to be pregnant out-of-wedlock when she accepted the offer from McCain. Bachmann has raised her children and is staging the next act of her life.

So there are stark differences between the families and life stages of Palin and Bachmann, are they really that different? Is Palin the cheerleader more of a feminist than Bachmann the class president? Well, yes. Bachmann's candidacy is much less of a concern than Palin's was, because of all those reasons I just listed. But the question remains whether or not public office, especially national office, is an appropriate goal for a woman. If, as Complementarian Evangelicals believe, a wife is to submit to her husband's headship in the home and that she is not, by virtue of her sex, eligible for ordination or presiding office in the church and because St. Paul ties these conditions to creation (as indeed the big picture of Scripture does from beginning to end), then:

How can a woman submit to her husband at home and the rule of the elders in church but then, when she sits at the desk in the oval office, become her husband's, her pastor's, her elder's Commander-in-Chief? Who are we? Who has God created us to be as male and female? And how can what holds in the Church and the home not hold in the workplace? Are we not the same person, male or female, no matter where we are, how we relate to or how we engage the world?

Yes, we are. And before the advent of religious feminism we would have known that. In consequence, I must conclude that Michele Bachmann still presents us with feminism, even if it is the sort of compromised feminism Steinem decries.

More waah waah from the religious feminists

Culled from a religious feminist blog discussing the Barna survey:

All the women I know who are not in church are amazing followers of Christ who are tired of church yuckiness destroying their faith walk.

OK, right.  Now let's try the same scenario in a related biblical context:

All the women I know who are not living with their husbands are amazing wives who are tired of husbandly yuckiness destroying their marriage.

Wait for it. 

Nope.  It just doesn't work, does it?

It didn't for St. Cyprian either, who wrote in De Unitate Eccslesiae:

 "He can no longer have God for his Father who has not the Church for his mother; . . . he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church scatters the Church of Christ" (vi.); "nor is there any other home to believers but the one Church" (ix.).

It wasn't just St. Cyprian who thought that.  The maxim has been repeated down through the Church Age by Catholic and Reformed.