This from The WSJ. And, as Justin Taylor commented, where are the dads?
In the pale-turquoise ladies’ room, they congregate in front of the mirror, re-applying mascara and lip gloss, brushing their hair, straightening panty hose and gossiping: This one is “skanky,” that one is “really cute,” and so forth. Dressed in minidresses, perilously high heels, and glittery, dangling earrings, their eyes heavily shadowed in black-pearl and jade, they look like a flock of tropical birds. A few minutes later, they return to the dance floor, where they shake everything they’ve got under the party lights.
But for the most part, there isn’t all that much to shake. This particular group of party-goers consists of 12- and 13-year-old girls. Along with their male counterparts, they are celebrating the bat mitzvah of a classmate in a cushy East Coast suburb.
Today’s teen and preteen girls are bombarded with images and products that tout the benefits of sexual attraction. But must we as parents, give in to their desire to “dress like everyone else?” asks author Jennifer Moses. She talks with WSJ’s Kelsey Hubbard.
In a few years, their attention will turn to the annual ritual of shopping for a prom dress, and by then their fashion tastes will have advanced still more. Having done this now for two years with my own daughter, I continue to be amazed by the plunging necklines, built-in push-up bras, spangles, feathers, slits and peek-a-boos. And try finding a pair of sufficiently “prommish” shoes designed with less than a 2-inch heel.
All of which brings me to a question: Why do so many of us not only permit our teenage daughters to dress like this—like prostitutes, if we’re being honest with ourselves—but pay for them to do it with our AmEx cards?
I posed this question to a friend whose teenage daughter goes to an all-girls private school in New York. “It isn’t that different from when we were kids,” she said. “The girls in the sexy clothes are the fast girls. They’ll have Facebook pictures of themselves opening a bottle of Champagne, like Paris Hilton. And sometimes the moms and dads are out there contributing to it, shopping with them, throwing them parties at clubs. It’s almost like they’re saying, ‘Look how hot my daughter is.'” But why? “I think it’s a bonding thing,” she said. “It starts with the mommy-daughter manicure and goes on from there.”
I have a different theory. It has to do with how conflicted my own generation of women is about our own past, when many of us behaved in ways that we now regret. A woman I know, with two mature daughters, said, “If I could do it again, I wouldn’t even have slept with my own husband before marriage. Sex is the most powerful thing there is, and our generation, what did we know?”
We are the first moms in history to have grown up with widely available birth control, the first who didn’t have to worry about getting knocked up. We were also the first not only to be free of old-fashioned fears about our reputations but actually pressured by our peers and the wider culture to find our true womanhood in the bedroom. Not all of us are former good-time girls now drowning in regret—I know women of my generation who waited until marriage—but that’s certainly the norm among my peers.
So here we are, the feminist and postfeminist and postpill generation. We somehow survived our own teen and college years (except for those who didn’t), and now, with the exception of some Mormons, evangelicals and Orthodox Jews, scads of us don’t know how to teach our own sons and daughters not to give away their bodies so readily. We’re embarrassed, and we don’t want to be, God forbid, hypocrites.
Still, in my own circle of girlfriends, the desire to push back is strong. I don’t know one of them who doesn’t have feelings of lingering discomfort regarding her own sexual past. And not one woman I’ve ever asked about the subject has said that she wishes she’d “experimented” more.
As for the girls themselves, if you ask them why they dress the way they do, they’ll say (roughly) the same things I said to my mother: “What’s the big deal?” “But it’s the style.” “Could you be any more out of it?” What teenage girl doesn’t want to be attractive, sought-after and popular?
And what mom doesn’t want to help that cause? In my own case, when I see my daughter in drop-dead gorgeous mode, I experience something akin to a thrill—especially since I myself am somewhat past the age to turn heads.
In recent years, of course, promiscuity has hit new heights (it always does!), with “sexting” among preteens, “hooking up” among teens and college students, and a constant stream of semi-pornography from just about every media outlet. Varied sexual experiences—the more the better—are the current social norm.
I wouldn’t want us to return to the age of the corset or even of the double standard, because a double standard that lets the promiscuous male off the hook while condemning his female counterpart is both stupid and destructive. If you’re the campus mattress, chances are that you need therapy more than you need condemnation.
But it’s easy for parents to slip into denial. We wouldn’t dream of dropping our daughters off at college and saying: “Study hard and floss every night, honey—and for heaven’s sake, get laid!” But that’s essentially what we’re saying by allowing them to dress the way they do while they’re still living under our own roofs.
Read Full Post »
truth wins, and it needs a truth-teller
Posted in Comments on the passing scene on March 29, 2011| Leave a Comment »
By the 1970’s passage of the Equal Rights Amendment to the federal Constitution was a forgone conclusion. Both parties had for years supported its ratification in the planks of their quadrennial platforms. The amendment was introduced first to the Congress in 1923, and by 1972 it had won approval in 28 of the 38 states needed for ratification. Within a few short years, five additional states had approved this brief amendment. It sounded innocuous, even common sense.
Who could be against something so simple and fair?
Well, in 1972 a leader, Phyllis Schlafly, rose in opposition. Fighting what seemed to be a laughably doomed campaign, she began explaining the implications of the amendment. No doubt initially regarded as a quixotic oddity, then as a serious challenge. Slowly the tide began to turn, and her voice slowly gained traction. As 5 additional states approved ratification, 5 states voted to rescind their approvals.
Oh, Mrs. Schlafly was hated. Critics lined up to call her hypocritical and anti-intellectual. In a 1973 debate Betty Friedan famously expressed her desire to see Mrs. Schlafly burn at the stake. She endured abuse ranging from a pie to the face to bomb threats.
But she just soldiered on. Cheerfully, clearly, simply speaking truth into the national conversation.
Eventually in 1982 the Equal Rights Amendment died of natural causes, despite the extraordinary chicanery of the US Congress in extending the ratification deadline by 5 years. Its demise was attributable in large measure to one courageous leader.
We find ourselves in similar circumstances today. Same sex ‘marriage’ seems to be heading for inevitable acceptance, even approbation of American society. Courts are ruling that direction, and numerous states are approving it for their own citizens.
What will be the outcome? Will America become the Holland of the western hemisphere? Or will someone stand in the gap, taking the slings and arrows of those opposed in order to speak truth into the public conversation?
Truth wins. It takes time, but you cannot build anything long-lasting with sin of any kind, least of all lies. So truth will win out, but how many lives will be devastated in the meantime? How many souls will be twisted and wrecked by the deceitful words of sin’s champions?
History shows us that many will oppose injustice and unrighteousness, but battles coalesce, seemingly on their own, behind one man or woman. We need that champion who is willing to withstand the focused vitriol of sinners and confidently wave the standard of righteousness.
We need a Phyllis Schlafly for our generation.
Read Full Post »