Out-of-wedlock pregnancies: It takes two, baby
The trouble I have with [Mike] Huckabee’s assertions isn’t so much his attack on [actress Natalie] Portman… but that he (and so many others) blame out-of-wedlock pregnancies solely on the women.
What about the men? Surely the onus is on the man not to flee once he’s impregnated a woman, but instead to do something about committing to the woman who is about to bear his child? …
[Rabbi Shmuley Boteach] said that, today, there is a broken code of male honour whereby men have no qualms about treating women casually and hedging their bets.
“And why not?” he asked. “If you can have a woman commit to you without having to reciprocate, the whole marriage thing seems a bit gratuitous.” …
In some cases, he might be right. In fact I hear it all the time; women in relationships distraught over the fact their men won’t propose, but that they still receive all the benefits of a marriage anyway.
~Samantha Brett, The Sydney Morning Herald, March 16
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Exactly! This is why women are protected by waiting until marriage to have sex. Imagine that — God’s plan actually works better and brings out the best in everyone. Commit first. Love first. Marriage first. Then sex.
There’s a reason why Susan B. Anthony wrote that when a woman commits abortion, the man who compelled her to commit it is three times as guilty as she.
“In some cases, he might be right. In fact I hear it all the time; women in relationships distraught over the fact their men won’t propose, but that they still receive all the benefits of a marriage anyway.”
Hmmm… I recall an old saying… something about a cow and free milk?
Among perpetual adolescent males there is an expression:
“Why buy the cow, when you can get the milk for free?”
Perhaps the women here could correct my male vision if I’m missing something, so here goes.
As an early and ardent male supporter of feminism, perhaps I didn’t understand the movement; but I was led to believe that male chauvinism had everything to do with men not appreciating women as anything more than a generic role, especially around the issues of cooking, cleaning, and sex. As a young man whose mother worked full-time of necessity, and whose mother suffered derogatory treatment at the hands of pigs, I needed no convincing.
Then came abortion when I was twelve years old. This, the feminist leadership (and my feminist professors in college) assured us would level the playing field and help assure that women were empowered. I began to see guys in college paying for girlfriends’ abortions and then walking away when it was all over. The girls were a mess and the guys simply moved on to the next conquest.
So what has cohabitation and abortion gained for women over the past forty years? Guys get the best years of a girl’s life, her youth and maiden beauty, and when it gets to be too much, when she gets bitchy in the guy’s eyes because she’s starting to want something more, he’s out of there. If she gets pregnant, he pressures her for an abortion, and then he’s out of there.
In a culture with a 50% divorce rate, most boys remain with an embittered mother and hear an endless litany of bitter complaint against the father in particular, and men in general. So when these guys begin cohabiting and start hearing the domestic complaints (which they no doubt have earned) they bolt. Many of these guys have not had the example of their mothers being honored by their fathers, and their fathers being honored by their mothers.
So, yes, I agree with Rabbi Shmuley that there is a broken code of honor. Divorce sets the stage, and abortion finishes the young people off.
Divorce and abortion, the twin tools of women’s empowerment have left women utterly bereft, because they have left men with easy outs on manly responsibility. On both counts, it is the woman who is left with a mess, with the wreckage.
And in both cases the children suffer worst of all.
Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?
BAH!
That is all my father ever said to me. Nothing about my value, worth, beauty or God’s plan for me.
What I find astonishing about Huckabee’s criticism of Natalie Portman is that after her Oscar win and speech, she was criticized by “women’s groups” for her seemingly choosing her baby above her career! So far, I haven’t seen anyone else mentioning that connection.
That’s a really pretty picture, of the bride.
Mike Huckabee wasn’t “blaming” anybody, he just said the fact that she was an actress, and pregnant without being married was glamorizing unwed pregnancy. I don’t think this is an “attack” on Natalie Portman by Mr. Huckabee so much as it’s an attack on Mike Huckabee by the liberal media.
I could be wrong.
I really liked many of the things Natalie Portman said – especially when she thanked her fiance for the greatest gift he could ever have given her, the life she has inside her :) YES! That life is a precious gift! I’m so glad she said that publicly!
THANK YOU, Carla. I am not a “cow” to be “bought” as though that is aspirational. I am a human being whose personality and presence may enchant and attract and occasionally annoy another human being – a complex entity with unique abilities and strengths and weaknesses that someone else will appreciate just as I will appreciate and complement his.
That phrase roughly translates to, “Why would a man spend a life with you, when he could get away with a night?” What a disgusting thing to say to women about their worth. There are many, many reasons I would want someone to want to spend a lifetime with me. Access to my body is not primary among them, but it does come with the territory. If “getting the milk” – free or as a ‘paying customer’ – were the primary issue then I’d high-tail it out of that relationship pretty fast.
Gerard,
I agree with you and appreciate hearing a man’s perspective.
Alexandra,
I can appreciate your opinion on the subject. The whole “cow” statement is a bit crass, but I think it’s directed more to explaining the man’s immature behavior/motivation/point of view primarily, then only secondarily, a woman’s actions. (Does that make sense?) Your beau might be a wonderful exception. You are lucky. I’ve heard men say that one of the reasons God made sex was so men would make a commitment to ONE woman and get married! Sadly, I think it’s true for some men (or why would he have seriously said it in the first place)? We women have to sift through the lousy ones to find a good one and I think saving oneself for marriage helps us to discern without the distraction of the sexual relationship. I don’t think the sexual relationship is the primary factor for choosing a marriage partner.
Carla,
We think you’re a gem! I’m sorry you had to hear the “cow” comment growing up!
Janet,
That is all I received in the sex ed dept. If you can even call that cow statement sex ed. :)
My children won’t ever hear it! THAT is what matters!
You are a gem, Janet!
Janet,
“I don’t think the sexual relationship is the primary factor for choosing the marriage partner.”
Exactly! I read in a book that being married to someone shouldn’t be about who you want to have sex with every night, but you should also consider who you want to look at across the breakfast table every morning (paraphrased, of course).
The cow comment bothers me too for all the reasons stated above. What about who God made me? Sexuality is a factor, to be sure, but it’s only a part of who I am and guess what? We’re going to get old eventually and I want to know he’s someone I can count on even when he can’t get the “milk.”
“Among perpetual adolescent males there is an expression:
“Why buy the cow, when you can get the milk for free?”
Okay, but that is a pretty rational observation.
The immature one is the one who ignores the value of what she has and gives it away anyway. There is the real “adolescent” mind.
It is absurd to give something away with the understanding that there is no commitment and then expect to get a commitment.
It is not the man who is immature in this case. His actions are rational. Her expectation of commitment is irrational and very immature. She is the one with the unrealistic expectations.
This is why fathers used to protect daughters because they knew they were susceptible to “adolescent” thinking.
Huckabee’s criticism of Natalie Portman offended me. I tell people that pro-lifers aren’t all against pre-marital sex, but I’m not famous and the news doesn’t quote me. He made us all look judgemental.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with couples who are having a relationship that aren’t married yet, such as Natalie Portman and her fiance. I do have a problem with creating children and then killing them. In order to put an end to abortion, we need to heal society on many levels: legal, personal, emotional, moral, and spiritual. It is more important to save the lives of children than to convince everyone to get married before having sex. The lives of the children are a priority over the social preferences of social and political conservatives. I think that if people valued the lives of their children and stopped viewing pregnancy as a problem, the committment of couples to each other will increase themselves without me having to browbeat them into it. Priority: save child’s life first. Encourage marriage second.
I liked Natalie Portman’s remarks also at the Oscars. I thought she did a beautiful job – and I believe she is intending to be married. Let’s hope that their union is a God-blessed one, and that she does a beautiful job of being the Mom in the family.
Of course, I would have preferred if things were in a different order – but sometimes people grow up and put things in better order. We are working with a couple now who has 4 children and are going to get married in April. They have returned to Church and are working with the pastor to prepare for marriage. We applaud them, even if things are in the wrong order. They are stepping into the rest of their lives with a life-long commitment. God is good.
I agree Ninek.
The older I get, the more I realize that you will usually receive the respect you expect and demand.
Gerard, you’ve hit the nail on the head.
My shortened version: Ladies, Stop slopping the hogs with free milk.
Carla, sorry to hear about the comments by your dad. Sounds like you could have used a cow growing up with good aim and an ability to kick hard or a bull with some sharp horns!
I raised myself without the love, protection or guidance of my parents. A young girl looking for love. I wish I knew then what I know now.
Carla,
I’m sorry that my mention of that awful statement caused such a memory that I knew nothing about. Forgive me for having elicited it. Your dad seems to have been a tragic figure to have had a daughter of such beauty and spoken that way to you.
Alexandra,
You’ll note that I referred to perpetual adolescent males using that phrase, and not men. Real men don’t think in those terms. However, it’s worth women knowing that the phrase is a pretty popular one, giving voice to a pretty prevalent philosophy. The truth about males is this:
We will act as honorably toward women as women demand, and with rare exceptions, no more than you demand.
Boys need solid, honorable men to teach them by word and example. My dad promised my brothers and me that we would spend the rest of our lives in a wheel chair if we even touched a girl inappropriately. He meant it, and we got the message loud and clear. The only other thing he told us was that every girl we dated was to be treated with the same respect we expected our sisters, mother, and grandmothers to be treated with by other men.
To say the least, dad wasn’t checking to make sure we had a condom in our wallet before going on a date.
In the absence of too many such fathers today, it’s up to the women to set the tone, or be used.
The lives of the children are a priority over the social preferences of social and political conservatives.
Encouraging marriage is a politically conservative issue? Not solely.What about the fight for legalized gay marriage? Most aren’t politically conservative. I think they see that a married relationship is more secure and satisfying than a non-married one also.
I think we need to raise the bar on both taking care of children AND establishing a safe, committed home for them, which includes a couple, mother and father, who are married. Let’s establish a society where all members are valued, acknowledged to have inherent dignity, and are repulsed by the thought of aborting their children.
Ninek,
Sorry, but I have to disagree. Marriage is the bedrock foundation on which families are to be built. Children deserve a mother and father who have made the commitment to each other for life. Skipping marriage isn’t doing anyone any favors. The fight to save babies’ lives goes hand-in-hand with restoring the value and importance of marriage first. If a father won’t commit to his daughter’s mother, how is he supposed to teach her not to be used by men in her life? Or how can he teach his son to respect and value women and make commitments?
We will act as honorably toward women as women demand, and with rare exceptions, no more than you demand.
Absolutely! And that is where women have failed and have been helped by men to do so.
We wouldn’t put up with men’s bad behavior in the workforce and have changed attitudes immensely since the 1960s.
Yet instead of demanding that men behave better in relationships we bought the feminist trash that our biology was the problem. There is nothing wrong with women’s biology. We are meant to bear children.
Instead we should have demanded respect for ourselves, especially within marriage. We should have demanded better working conditions for mothers who wanted careers too.
Contraception has given more power to men and yet created a world where men are vilified and mocked.
Gerard,
No worries. It is just one of those things that had an impact on my life. With your work in Times Square I am sure you understand my longing to change my legacy.
I will always be a work in progress. :)
Carla,
Yet another one I’ve heard often before: “Men hate used furniture but they love to be in the antiquing business.”
You, my dear, are beautiful. Priceless.
“high-tail it” Alexandra???
That’s a pretty funny turn of phrase. heh.
Charming!
I suppose I don’t understand why anyone would want to be with a man who had to be ‘coerced’ into ‘buying’ the milk. I mean, either he’s an immature jerk, and he is just out for milk, so for her efforts in holding out she gets a jerk to commit – grand prize! Or he isn’t immature and doesn’t view her that way, and therefore views the milk as but one of many wonderful things she shares with him. She doesn’t turn a gem into a jerk by sleeping with him.
I agree that people – not just women – get the respect they demand. And I wish that more people demanded more respect for themselves. I would rather not be in a relationship with someone who needed me to DEMAND that he respect me, though. I’d say that I demand respect by not ever wasting time with anyone who doesn’t respect me in the first place.
I would rather not be in a relationship with someone who needed me to DEMAND that he respect me, though.
Your right Alexandra but I think men and women are wired a bit differently. In my experience and those of all of the females I know, one gender will attempt to persuade the other a bit stronger to have sex.
The problem with giving away the milk for free is you don’t know if he really respects you or not (a lot of potential cow purchasers can seem very interested in buying the cow but will back out after tasting the milk.)
If the cow demands the purchaser buy the milk before allowing him to drink it, the odds are significantly higher that the cow is truly respected.
Jennifer,
Thank you! You are as well.
Instead of the cow and milk phrase my dad could have told me I have infinite value and that I am worth the wait. Maybe a simple explanation might have worked better than some farmyard metaphor.
You’re right Carla. The farmyard metaphor is only spoken by immature jerks, as Alexandra rightly calls them. When talking with our daughters (and sons!), telling them that they are holy, to be revered, is how they ought to be raised.
Take a minute and read this. I wrote it a year ago when I began my blog. I know that you’re not Catholic, but I believe the broader message speaks for itself:
http://gerardnadal.com/2010/01/04/of-bridal-veils-and-little-girls-2/
ninek,
I believe the best way to save the child’s life is to assure he or she has a stable home. And marriage fits that bill much better than any other kind of relationship.
And I agree with Pamela. Huckabee was just warning not to glorify unwed motherhood. He’s getting the same treatment Dan Quayle got for disapproving the Murphy Brown storyline. And he was right on several levels. They used the character’s son as a mere twist to the show. Then he disappeared, and returned in glimpses as a five-year-old.
If they really wanted to make any cultural impact, they should have shown the good, bad, and ugly of day-to-day unwed motherhood.
Thanks Dr. Nadal and Hans for your post regarding the true meaning of “marriage”, it is a lot more than the anatomical, physiological, emotional, mental, hormonal and spiritual union of a man and woman that fit together perfectly; it is meant to be the most sacred, holy, beautiful, worshipful, intimate (in-to-me-u-see) and awesome human relationship on the planet, which represents Jesus Christ and his bride, the church. All the PC twists and turns won’t make anything else, cohabitation or any other so-called “union” into the real thing, they are only counterfeits. ”Marriage” is a heck of a lot more than “a piece of paper”. I know some will disagree especially non-believers but those with spiritual eyesight like Govenor (Rev.) Huckabee see why is it now so important to take down and minimize marriage so it becomes meaningless, the last traditional institution left standing that is the very foundation and bedrock of civilization. Because the enemy hates what God has ordained, created and loves; marriage and unborn human life which He created to come out of marriage.
Unwed motherhood the biggest ticket to poverty (yes I know movie stars like Natalie are wealthy but they are by far the exception), children born to unwed mothers are 9 times more likely to live in poverty than those born their 2 parents. Married couples are happier (less depression, mental illness, alcoholism, drug abuse, suicide etc.), wealthier (more income, more savings, more job stability, better work performance etc.), healthier (less chronic disease, less heart attack, less acute disease, cancer, stroke, less sick days, less homicides, less car accidents) live longer, have better quality of life and by every measure the children born into stable two-parent MARRIED homes are better off in every one of these categories than those born into unmarried homes (single, divorced, widowed, cohabiting, separated etc). If you get a chance read Why Marriage Matters by Glen T. Stanton.
“We will act as honorably toward women as women demand, and with rare exceptions, no more than you demand.”
Nah, plenty of men have their own standards not dictated by women.
When I was young and attractive, these principled sorts turned me down. So, I know they exist. Once they figure out she is “that kind of girl”, they dump her. They are looking for a spouse not a hookup. Some guys play it both ways, sleeping with the loose girls while courting a nice girl for a wife. And of course, some are just pure cads.
Guys get the best years of a girl’s life, her youth and maiden beauty
Excuse me? The best years of a “girl’s” life are when she’s young and beautiful and appealing to men? I don’t think anyone should get to define what they think the best years of someone else’s life are, thanks. Something tells me you’d find it pretty offensive if women defined “the best years of a man’s life” as the period where he has enough money to support his wife and is old enough to have learned to shut up and go along with whatever she wants. Or the period where he’s old enough to have sexual stamina but not old enough to need Viagra. As in: the best years of someone’s life are not when they’re the most attractive or useful to you.
Seeing as Natalie Portman’s getting married, I don’t think there’s much to be gained by criticizing her for not being married at the moment. She can’t go back in time and never get pregnant, and if she doesn’t want to get married this very second because she wants some time to plan the wedding, okay. What’s important is that her baby be raised by two committed parents who have his or her best interests as a top priority. I don’t think it’ll make much difference to the baby if his or her parents get married before his or her birth or if they don’t get married until s/he’s X number of months old.
I do think, though, that if you’re pregnant and want to get married, you should do it within the next year and a half, barring unusual circumstances. After a certain point, you have to wonder why people who say they want to get married and already have a kid together haven’t gotten married. NP’s definitely not at that point, though.
the best years of someone’s life are not when they’re the most attractive or useful to you.
Amen!! I may have been better looking and more energetic 15 years ago, but the “best years of my life” have been the last few, when I’ve been financially secure, independent, wiser and more confident.
To say that “youth and maiden beauty (whatever that is)” is what makes up a woman’s “best years” is a huge insult to mature, happy women everywhere.
Agree with Pamela on Huckabee’s observance on Hollywood’s being OK with wrongly celebrating single women and having babies. The average girl and women that face this aren’t making millions of dollars.
Today men are acting as responsible and mature as women. Morality is at a all time low. Not too many cows out there to even think about purchasing.
Dr. Gerard–I went and read the blogpost about veils. Looks like the Holy Spirit really was directing your reply. I don’t think I ever got an explanation as to why a bride wears a veil (I just figured it was part of the whole bridal clothing). I wore a veil when I got married (not in front of my face). Great explanation!
People don’t realize that sexual intercourse/activity is used to solidify the marriage vows. We speak them with our mouths at the ceremony, then with our bodies on the marriage bed. Christopher West described sexual union as the “reaffirmation of the marriage vows spoken with the body” (he gets a lot of what he says from Pope John Paul II’s “The Theology Of The Body”). The thing is, while sexual intercourse/making love can feel good and be an incredible experience it serves a higher purpose than just pleasure. God made it pleasurable so that husbands and wives would come together and be unified and open up the possibility of procreation. While a woman has a cycle as to when she is most and least fertile, the possibility is there and when a man and a woman reverence each other (not just a means to an end of sexual release) but truly regard each other as husband/wife mate for life, it takes that sexual experience to a whole new level and it becomes truly “making love”. Not every experience (even for a husband and wife) is that mind blowing, but when we self LESSly give ourselves to each other that is when it happens.
This is one of the many reasons I advocate waiting until marriage to engage in sexual activity and why I advocate even husbands and wives not using each other; but regarding each other with respect, reverence and love–it’s something to aspire and work towards–to keep working to achieve. We may fall and make mistakes, but we can always improve and better ourselves (which is where God comes in for those who believe in God–He makes perfect that which is not perfect–something I have to remind myself of sometimes).