Friday, August 10, 2012

7 Quick Takes: Nuptiality, Sexuality, and Pot Roast

--- 1 ---

My sister Elizabeth got married on Saturday! Definitely the biggest news around here. It was a simple, intimate wedding, exactly what Jason and Liz wanted. A lifetime of joy to you!

--- 2 ---
I adapted this recipe for the slow cooker yesterday.  And changed a bunch of stuff, so I think it counts as being original.

Trim a 2 1/2 lb. chuck roast of all visible fat.  Heat a tbsp of oil in a skillet, sear the meat on all sides.  Put meat aside.  Saute one chopped onion, 3 cloves minced garlic, and a package of sliced mushrooms in the pan.  Put the vegetables in a crock pot, put the meat on top.  Add a bay leaf, 1 tsp salt, 1/2 tsp pepper. Pour a can of beef broth over the whole thing.  Cook on low four hours.

Add 1/2 cup of pearl barley, cook on low another four hours.

Remove meat.  Stir in 1 1/2 cups of frozen peas, turn heat to high.  Peas will be ready in about five minutes.  Empty crock-pot into a colander set over a bowl to catch the gravy.  Yum.

--- 3 ---
Note to self:  Do not chop onions while wearing the baby.  She cries too!

--- 4 ---
Speaking of baby wearing, I've been wearing Katie Rose pretty much All. The. Time.  With Anthony, I would wear him because I'd read about how beneficial being close to Mother is for babies.  This time it's because I need two hands free when Anthony's around, I don't like moving the baby from one landing zone to another constantly, she doesn't take kindly to being left in the swing or bouncer for more than a few minutes anyway, and I need to protect her from her big brother's affections!  So purely practical, not at all idealistic.  I've read that first borns tend to be idealists, while second borns are pragmatists.  I believe it!

--- 5 ---
I'm back to doing French lessons with Rosetta Stone.  I took a hiatus when baby time came, but I actually remembered all of the vocabulary!  Hurray!  Now I'm on to some more about families.  The phrases for hugging and kissing in France are quite difficult to me.  If I go to France I'll just have to maintain my personal space.  I like that the words for "wife" and "woman" are the same.   It is in the nature of the woman to be a wife.  Every vocation is nuptial: We can be married to a man or else be brides of Christ. "Her desire will be for her husband."

--- 6 ---
In the same vein, my friend Kate shared a crazy thought with me this week:  Ballroom dancing is really Theology of the Body in a nutshell.  It's actually quite brilliant.  I keep coming up with more ways it fits.  Here are a few:  You can only dance with one person.  It needs to be male-female pairings to really work.  The man has to lead.  If both try to lead, they fight each other, and if neither leads, nothing happens.  If the woman leads, it doesn't really work so well because the woman's role is to be receptive.  She is the one being spun around, dipped, etc. in most dance moves.  They could technically make it work, but it would require much more effort in communication than if they did it the traditional way (e.g. The man only has to turn his hand a certain way for her to spin around.).  It's easy to come up with them.  Share yours in the comments, if you're feeling inspired.

--- 7 ---
Kudos to the Boy Scouts for holding fast to their policy of excluding gays from being members or leaders.  And boo to Mitt Romney for trying to appeal to both sides on matter.  Romney's been an all-around disappointment, so this is really no surprise.  Fence sitter since 1994.  At least he's consistent.  Bah.  Anyway, I wanted to talk about the Boy Scouts.  The Supreme Court upheld their right to exclude whomever they wish as they are a private organization, but the pressure has naturally been turned way up of late.  I hope they stay strong.  They're absolutely right to keep gays out.  The great thing, or one of the great things, about the Boy Scouts is that they are unapologetically masculine.  That is a rare, rare thing nowadays.  Even the military is more and more feminized!  Boys need to experience manliness, to test their mettle against nature together with other boys.  Adding a gay kid to the group would completely change the group dynamics, no matter how much sensitivity training occured beforehand.  This shouldn't need to be explained, but it would just be plain awkward to have to share a tent with someone who might be sexually attracted to you.  Boy Scouts ought to be a safe place to test and develop one's manhood.  Adding homosexuals to the mix would automatically hinder that process by making it self-conscious.  It wouldn't be fair to the majority of the boys, and most likely the gay child would have a hard time of it, too.  They would sense that their presence is a problem, even if everyone were outwardly very accepting.  And homosexual leaders are just a bad, bad, bad idea.  Let's not repeat the clergy abuse scandals that arouse from admitting gays to the priesthood.  If people object to this policy, they can start their own organization rather than bully the Boy Scouts into changing it.  The American Heritage Girls were founded as an alternative to the ever more liberal Girl Scouts, and they are thriving.

For more Quick Takes, visit Conversion Diary!


  1. Any baby-wearing tips to share? Maybe I didn't have the right carrier(s), but I found it tough to do things like the laundry and the dishes while wearing Michael--he was just in the way!

    1. Michael is old enough to wear on your back now. That's the way to go for laundry etc IMHO. I use a soft structured carrier or SSC. The brand I use is Boba, but there are many brands, Ergo probably being the most popular. I can give you more specific critiques and recs if you want. Since Gordon and I are so tall, the Boba was best for us, but shorter people tend to like the Ergo or the Beco.

      You could also look into using a woven wrap for a back carry but I personally never felt comfortable solo wrapping Pippa on my back with a wrap, whereas I use the Boba all the time.

    2. It does slow me down, but it's generally better to wear her and be slower than possibly not get a chance to do it at all! I am getting better at it I think. I like the ring sling's adjustability. I feel more secure if I can have her really snug against me. I haven't ever done a back carrier; I will check out the Boba, Karla!

  2. The pot roast recipe sounds great - I will print it out and hopefully get around to trying it some day.

    I expect to be wearing our baby girl a lot too, for the same reasons. I'm not exactly excited about it. haha.

    Also, I totally agree about the Boy Scouts. I'm amazed they've stayed strong so far. But I don't have super high hopes that they'll be able to continue resisting the pressure. But yeah - if people don't like that they can't be gay and in the boy scouts, they are perfectly free to start their own group. I wish that logic applied, though, to the many male-only groups and institutions that feminists have pushed their way into, and thus destroyed from within. Men need to be men by hanging out with other men and not women sometimes! geez..

    1. A group of all men seems to be inherently threatening to feminism.

      The Scouts have already gone to the Supreme Court and won. But the gay lobby still isn't giving up, twelve years later. Our side needs to be as tenacious.

  3. I guess I'm just curious as to how you suggest the Boy Scouts would treat a child who was unsure of his sexuality (but didn't put it into words, didn't come out, etc). I guess as someone who understands perhaps a little what it is like to have chaste, SSA friends who have acted firstly in accord with virtue and their faith (- i.e. wouldn't act on their SSA at all), how do you react to that in such an organization?

    1. Aimee, you raise an important question. I know people with SSA who struggle to live chastely too. One of them was a Scout, and camping trips and such were just impossible for him. I think it would be prudent for those with SSA not to put themselves in that sort of near occasion of sin, even if it means giving up all the other great benefits of scouting.

      Really, what boy isn't unsure of his sexuality to some degree? Boys in general have this deep need to test and to prove their manliness. Boy Scouts could be a great vehicle for that. If a boy just seemed a little odd, kind of prissy, I don't think that would necessarily be a problem. He would either man up eventually as he matured or decide he doesn't like Scouts and quit.

      Especially with very young boys, it wouldn't be right to label them "gay" before their sexuality really even could possibly be defined. It seems like there is a trend to label a child well before it's appropriate. I'm thinking of stuff like "Princess Boy," remember him? In those cases it's really the parents who are trying to make a point.

      I don't think the Boy Scouts are out to kick out any boy who might not be totally straight. But for the Boy Scouts to be successful as an organization, they need to be able to maintain their masculine ideals. Does that make sense?

    2. I absolutely do follow that Boy Scouts do need to maintain a masculine identity/retain masculine ideals, (and I agreed with what most of you said above,) a boy having SSA doesn't necessarily mean he is less masculine (at least in the macho-boy sense, though not necessarily in the sense of masculine-as-a-man-to-love-a-woman). I think the biggest thing for any young man/young woman with SSA to consider is the appropriateness of actions and relationships especially with same-sex individuals.

      Though that is not to say that an SSA-attracted girl couldn't have a perfectly normal friendship with another girl; or that an SSA-attracted boy couldn't have perfectly normal friendships with other boys. I tend to believe that heterosexuality vs. bisexuality vs. homosexuality is a lot more fluid than we think (more on a spectrum than by the categories I just named), and that general attraction (to people of one sex) is a lot different from specific attraction (to one person of either sex). That being said, always knowing your limits in any sort of situation in which you might be tempted is good -- and knowing when to avoid such dire temptation is even more necessary.

      All things to think about -- but honestly, I think maybe the Boy Scouts should have a different bar of reference? Maybe instead of judging by sexuality, they judge by chasteness? I don't know. Obviously, as someone who isn't a mother to a son, I have no real say in the matter I suppose. I just get frustrated when I know chaste SSA young men who might be great scouts, but I know unchaste young men who sleep around with young ladies and who are in the highest levels of scouts. It just seems a double-standard, I suppose -- and one that I've often seen in the condemning of "gay" men and women, while our culture runs rampant with premarital/extramarital sex.

      All interesting things to think about... but definitely something worth talking over. Thanks. :)