“Why Twitter Isn’t Manly”
Emma Ayers

The American Conservative (May 18)

But most unfortunately, the masculine revolution has manifested as a collective cry of outrage on social media—resulting in a bunch of chest-beating Twitter threads and Facebook tirades against the downhill slide of culture. Such is the way of the world, I suppose. The greatest war, the war against the mind in pursuit of the human soul, is destined to be waged in the comments below an errant tweet. Everything is stupid.

It’s a pity, too, because the medium thwarts the conservative message. In fact, if only Marshall McLuhan were still around, he’d remind us that “The medium is the message.” He’d be right about that too. The medium is no good, so the message is doomed to fail. Using social media, caring about social media, putting time into social media—it’s all the enemy of manhood.

“The Main Barrier to Christianity? Church Leaders”

Edward Dadd

The Conservative Woman (May 14)

Before the lockdown of March 2020, I was a regular attendee of Sunday Mass, yet I have not set foot in a church since. Both my local Roman Catholic and C of E churches operate a booking system to obtain your place in the pews. Facemasks are mandated, hymns are not sung, and communion is not fully taken.

Perhaps my absence is an indictment of my own commitment or lack thereof, but I cannot be the only one who does not wish to offer any kind of consent to this new form of worship. I did try to enter my nearest cathedral (Salisbury) for a few moments of reflection. However, it was being used as a Covid vaccination centre and I was turned away. 

“Blending Home and School”

Michael Q. McShane

National Affairs (Winter 2021)

More than other civil institutions, the traditional public-school system has a tendency to highlight and exacerbate value differences between citizens. Because there is only one set of academic standards and 180 days of instruction, decisions must be made as to what will and will not be taught in classrooms. For this decision-making process to work well, parents and educators need to come to the table with a shared set of values and priorities. In the absence of such solidarity, fights over school structures and curricula can become fierce, adding fuel to the fire of broader social and cultural animosities.

“The Pillars of Transgender Medicine are Shaking”

Michael Cook

MercatorNet (May 7)

The latest news on this front leaves a cloud of doubt hovering over transgender medicine. It is increasingly looking like a kind of 21st century voodoo.  In a series of publications doctors have expressed their dismay at the ready availability of gender transitioning and its rapid spread amongst young people …

The notion that transgender rights is the human rights issue of our time is an illusion. The idea that gender affirmative drugs and surgery are the only way to cure dysphoria is an illusion. And the impression that the transgender movement is an unstoppable juggernaut is also an illusion.

.

“Biden’s Daycare Plan is Bad for Families

J.D. Vance and Jenet Erickson

Wall Street Journal (May 4)

The essential point isn’t that “child care” is bad for kids, however, but that a federal push to get droves of children into daycare is. These are two different things, raising radically different questions. For example, how can we ensure safe facilities and capable caregivers for millions of additional children moved abruptly into child care? Hardly a trivial logistical challenge …

Our democracy might be comfortable with the trade-offs here—higher gross domestic product and more parents (especially women) in the workforce on one hand, and unhappier, unhealthier children on the other. But we ought to be honest and acknowledge that these trade-offs exist.

“The Supreme Court can finally overturn 

‘Roe v. Wade.’ It should do it.”

Henry Olsen

Washington Post (May 18)

The argument in favor of killing that unborn human life must thus rest on the contention that the mother has no moral obligation to keep it alive. If we accept that argument, one must then ask how far that it extends. Viability outside the womb cannot suffice as a limiting principle since infants are as dependent on other people to stay alive as the unborn child. If it is morally acceptable to cause a human’s death by refusing to keep it alive inside the womb, then it must also be morally acceptable to refuse to act to keep it alive during its dependent, infant state outside the womb.