We have no sons, but we have daughters… and the counterpart to training sons to be men is training daughters to be women.
I am the most fortunate woman in the world for having the husband that I do. Don is the ultimate head of our household, and as such he takes seriously his duty to train our girls to value their purity and treasure their virtue.
It’s funny. When our oldest daughter was a baby and I was facing the Great Unknown of raising children in a decadent society, I remember commenting to a friend, “If I can just get her through high school without her getting pregnant, I’ll consider that a success.” Oh the naïveté of that comment! Little did I realize just how much influence we could have on our daughters. As parents, we can do so much more than “merely” get our daughters through high school without getting pregnant. Instead, we can raise them to be virtuous and decent young women, someone any man would be proud to call “wife” some day.
There are many ways to guard the virtue of our daughters – not only guard it, but instill the values in our girls so they learn to guard their own virtue.
• Dads. The presence of a father is the Number One way to raise girls with virtue. Girls raised with an involved father are far more likely to develop the (cough) self-esteem (I hate that phrase) necessary to see themselves as more than the sum of their body parts. Girls raised without a father are forever seeking male attention… and sadly, the easiest way to garner attention is by acting and dressing seductively.
• Homeschooling. Deprived (ahem) of the example of skankily-dressed peers, girls (and boys) who are homeschooled are far more likely to retain the values of their parents. I find it amusing that this fact – homeschooled children are more like to retain the values of their parents – is somehow construed among some progressives as evil (go figure).
• Feminism. I don’t know how it happened, but feminism has been changed from its original lofty intent (equality for women) into something dark and sinister. The old argument feminists used was that women should be valued for their brains, not their bodies. Okay, fine, that’s not such a bad goal. Our culture has embraced feminism with an almost rabid devotion – and what has happened as a result? Young women are dressing more abysmally than ever before, advertising their bodies and (presumably) hiding their brains.
I find it interesting how hostile feminists are to femininity. Last year I spoke to one of the founders of the Ladies Against Feminism site, and let me tell you, she had some stories to tell about the nasty-grams they get from feminists! The women who run this site had to go “undercover” to escape the threats – yes, threats – against their safety from rabid feminists who apparently want to eradicate the voice of anyone expressing a non-feminist viewpoint.
• Pop culture. I don’t know about you, but I don’t see a lot of value in pop culture. It seems very few women can develop their talent for singing, acting, or other performance arts without descending into skankiness. What good is a pretty face and beautiful voice and attractive body if you act like a slut? I greatly admired Audrey Hepburn because she managed to combine gracious femininity and talent without the need to strip naked to prove her point. She was a true Lady.
One of the major “unintended consequences” of feminism in our society is its effect on men. Men no longer feel the biological need to defend and protect women. When women routinely dress like sluts, men want to bed them, not protect them. But when women dress modestly, even the most hardened male tends to show a little more respect.
Maybe that’s why I’m such a Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronte fan. These women railed against the suppression of women in their day – but their characters did not lose their femininity despite that.
Anyway, all this was sparked by an interesting essay sent by a reader entitled The Death of Pretty by Pat Archbold. It distinguishes between the traditional views of “pretty” women vs. “hot” women. The original source, National Catholic Register, kindly gave me permission to reprint the essay here.
______________________________
The Death of Pretty by Pat Archbold
This post is intended as a lament of sorts, a lament for something in the culture that is dying and may never been seen again.
Pretty, pretty is dying.
People will define pretty differently. For the purposes of this piece, I define pretty as a mutually enriching balanced combination of beauty and projected innocence.
Once upon a time, women wanted to project an innocence. I am not idealizing another age and I have no illusions about the virtues of our grandparents, concupiscence being what it is. But some things were different in the back then. First and foremost, many beautiful women, whatever the state of their souls, still wished to project a public innocence and virtue. And that combination of beauty and innocence is what I define as pretty.
By nature, generally when men see this combination in women it brings out their better qualities, their best in fact. That special combination of beauty and innocence, the pretty inspires men to protect and defend it.
Young women today do not seem to aspire to pretty, they prefer to be regarded as hot. Hotness is something altogether different. When women want to be hot instead of pretty, they must view themselves in a certain way and consequently men view them differently as well.
As I said, pretty inspires men’s nobler instincts to protect and defend. Pretty is cherished. Hotness, on the other hand, is a commodity. Its value is temporary and must be used. It is a consumable.
Nowhere is this pretty deficit more obvious than in our “stars,” the people we elevate as the “ideal.” The stars of the fifties surely suffered from the same sin as do stars of today. Stars of the fifties weren’t ideal but they pursued a public ideal different from today.
The merits of hotness over pretty is easy enough to understand, they made an entire musical about it. Who can forget how pretty Olivia Newton John was at the beginning of Grease. Beautiful and innocent. But her desire to be desired leads her to throw away all that is valuable in herself in the vain hopes of getting the attention of a boy. In the process, she destroys her innocence and thus destroys the pretty. What we are left with is hotness.
Hotness is a consumable. A consumable that consumes as it is consumed but brings no warmth.
Most girls don’t want to be pretty anymore even if they understand what it is. It is ironic that 40 years of women’s liberation has succeeded only in turning women into a commodity. Something to be used up and thrown out.
Of course men play a role in this as well, but women should know better and they once did. Once upon a time you would hear girls talk about kind of women men date and the kind they marry. You don’t hear things like that anymore.
But here is the real truth. Most men prefer pretty over hot. Even back in 6th grade I hated the “hot” Olivia Newton John and felt sorry for her that she had to debase herself in such a way. Still do.
Our problem is that society doesn’t value innocence anymore, real or imagined. Nobody aspires to innocence anymore. Nobody wants to be thought of as innocent, the good girl. They want to be hot, not pretty.
I still hope that pretty comes back, although I think it not likely any time soon. For every Taylor Swift, there are a hundred Megan Foxs, or Lindsay Lohans, or Miley Cyruses etc.
Girls, please, bring back the pretty.
I have a three-year-old son. And a one-year-old daughter. They are not stepping foot into the public school system until they need taught something I can't teach: algebra. Maybe by then I will be able to teach it, but I'm not holding out a lot of hope.
ReplyDeleteI do plan to block out as much of the slut culture as I can--for both of their sakes.
When it comes down to it, I believe most men would rather marry pretty than hot. Excellent blog.
ReplyDeleteHomeschooling vs. Public Schooling. I'm a liberal in most ways, and if I had young children I would homeschool. Our society (people from across the political spectrum) has screwed up public education so much that in most areas, it has become hopelessly inefficient at everything except teaching children poor behavior. The schools here are dismal, and a responsible parent would not consider allowing her child to attend.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there are as many terrible homeschools as good ones. I know two homeschooling families here that do no schooling at all. The teenage daughter of one (high school age) when asked to subtract four from eighteen, needs to draw eighteen marks on a paper, cross out four, and count the answer. Counting change? Forget it. The sixth grade son can't write his last name. There are seven or eight kids all together, and they all fit the pattern. There don't seem to be disabilities, just a lack of exposure to the three Rs. The other family is better, but the children are still several years "below" what we assume is grade level in writing and mathematics. Then again, how many times do we hear that the National Spelling Bee Champion is homeschooled? Often. And look at the good job Patrice is doing with her girls. I would have loved to have such well-behaved, motivated, smart girls in my class! ("When in the course of human events...")
Back when I was teaching, when I was told a homeschooled kid would be entering my (overcrowded) classroom, I was always on edge. Would I be getting a student who was on grade level? Above? Or a second grader who still did not know the alphabet letters and sounds, and wasn't able to recognize the numerals above three?
And while I do not wish to start a long discussion, it IS my belief that the public schools have the responsibility to teach evolution, along with the "theory" of gravity, the "theory" that germs cause disease, the "theories" of matter and sub-atomic particles, and so on. Creationism and intelligent design should be taught in church and/or at home by parents who wish their children to learn it. It has no place in the public education system. Nobody is insisting (nor should they) that churches give evolution equal time. But a public education should deliver the best science has to offer.
Of course nowadays, we have overcrowded classrooms teeming with students who are rude and disruptive. We have so many parents who don't insist their children do homework or show up at school on time, or refrain from cussing in the classroom. Sometimes we have teachers who are unprepared (and they should be fired). So probably not much Evolution is getting taught anyway.
Great post, so wish more Mom's and Dads would understand that they still have the obligation to their Daughters to teach them what pretty really is. Too many parents are in fear their children won't like them, they won't be cool or hip. Children who are not taught at home will learn what pretty is by the garbage society tells them
ReplyDeleteI am glad to find I am not the only person who dislikes Grease. I know a number of Christians who say its a great movie and then get embarrassed when I point out what the movie is really about - a girl giving up her values for a guy.
ReplyDeleteJ A H
Heroditus Huxley,
ReplyDeleteDo not sacrifice your poor children on the altar of public schools just because you are not good at algebra. There are tons of math programs and helps that will get you through it and even on to calculus (yuk!). There are even homeschool co-ops where they have classes for subjects such as science and math or English. But you have plenty of time to research this all. In the meantime, enjoy your little ones and they will be "homeschooled" every day just by being with you and watching and learning from you.
Paintedmoose
Thank you! I have 2 daughters also and want the same for them. I never hear the phrase " Be a lady" anymore. I heard it plenty growing up. This reminded me how I need to teach my girls to be ladies not the other derogatory titles that are presented to them in our society.
ReplyDeleteI was struck recently reading the scriptures where it says that women left their estate before men did, ie sexual behaviors are addressed in this passage...
ReplyDeleteAnd I realized that I wanted to represent femininity to my generation. I know a lot of women who will only wear dresses or skirts as part of their Christian beliefs, but they will wear them with camouflage sweatshirts! To me that defeats the purpose of dressing differently from men. And so many who only wear skirts, do not look pretty at all.
I decided to try wearing only skirts (they are all maxi length) for a bit and see how long I could go; I have not worn pants since! I love wearing dresses and skirts. But I will add a scarf or something pretty also as my goal to be feminine.
I have also noticed that I am treated differently, especially by men. They will go out of their way to open doors for me, etc, and I sense a feeling of appreciation from them, as though seeing someone they are inspired to protect and help is appreciated.
Beautifully stated! The world's imitation of God's beautiful creation is to reduce it down to it's lowest common denominator: lust. Sink down below intellect and spirit and appeal to the basest desires. Why not, since they are convinced they aren't worth anything anyway. WTG, pop culture!
ReplyDelete@Anonymous - that was probably as close as I've ever heard anyone come to admitting that public school is a religious institution. Well said.
Dear Anonymous, please don't home school. Gravity is not a theory but evolution is a theory. Hence, the search for the missing link. And please don't confuse adaptation with evolution. The Darwin finches adapted to their environment, they did not evolve.
ReplyDeleteI'm in my 60's and have been searching for 'pretty' a few years. Mention the words 'provide for and protect' and most gals run! It's a great way to save valuable time in my search for 'pretty'. Montana Guy
ReplyDeleteAnonymous at 11:51 says: "...there are as many terrible homeschools as good ones." Is that so? I'm curious where you got that information. No doubt from some anti-homeschooling liberal group. They love to quote "facts and figures" which are anything BUT "factual." It's like going to the James Brady anti-gun group for honest facts and figures about gun ownership. They are a liberal-progressive organization, and if there's one thing you can be certain of, it's that you'll never get the truth from them!
ReplyDeleteFact is, sure, there are some terrible folks who homeschool and shouldn't. But those situations are few and far between. I have a close friend who worked for the CA Child Protective Services. From what he told me and what I've seen first hand, the vast majority of homeschoolers are doing an excellent job. Their children do far better in their age groups than children taught in public schools. I have no doubt that Patrice and Don have researched this. Why not ask them what the REAL facts and figures show concerning home-schooling? That is, if honesty is what you are truly seeking. --Fred in AZ
This is simple. If you want to be treated like a nice girl then act like a nice girl, if you act otherwise you will probably be treated otherwise.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion this whole problem comes back to the feminist movement wanting to have it's cake and eat it too. It is fine and dandy to say girls (used intentionally since we are mostly talking teens and early 20 somethings who lets be honest are girls) can do they want and dress provocatively, do whatever with whoever, etc all.They should be able to as it is their bodies and their lives. However everything in life has consequences.
The issue is that for some reason girls (often) expect guys to still treat them respectfully which is just not going to happen. A girl who dresses slutty and parties too much, maybe fooling around with semi random guys or whatever but thinks that guys are going to value her and consider her for a serious long term relationship is kidding herself.
I remember a conversation I was a bystandard for way back in college. A girl told a buddy of mine that she could probably set him up to go on a date with another female acquaintance. My buddy replied with something to the effect of "A date with her, are you kidding. I am interested in 'hooking up with her' but not dating." My acquaintance treated her like she asked, as a girl who lived a bit wildly and sometimes fooled around with semi random guys.
I don't have a daughter. However we are planning to have another child there is about a 50% chance it will be a girl. If that is the case I hope we can teach her to value herself. I know how I hope she behaves but at a minimum I would like her to ask (through her behavior) for what she is looking for from guys. Also I would like her to not be a stripper. Keeping boys out of jail and girls off the pole (stripping) is our minimum goal for parenting.
I am a seventy three old gentleman who some years back, happened to open the door for a woman in her early thirties. She proceeded to dress me down royally for supposing that she needed the assistance of any man. When her tirade was finished, I told her that I had noticed that she was wearing a dress and in my upbringing, ladies wore dresses. I told her that I had been trained by my mother years ago to regard all females who had the appearance of being ladies as such until they proved otherwise. I said I am sorry I had made such a mistake and my mother was one hundred percent right. Harold
ReplyDeleteHa ha, Harold!! Good for you. I don't care what feminism has taught; to rail against a gentleman for an act of courtesy is rude bordering on cruel.
DeleteMy compliments to you. At least you were the bigger person.
- Patrice