Inspiration in Conservative Dress: “The Big Bang Theory” Edition

Inspiration in Conservative Dress is a reoccurring series of posts of various modest and feminine outfits to inspire other women to dress modestly and resist society’s pressure to dress provocatively and subscribe to “hook up” culture. Through conservative dress, A Lady of Reason sends a message of resistance to the “sexual revolution” and radical liberal feminism, and the upholding of feminine virtue. Arguably, this could also extend to the support for social conservatism in general. How we dress signals who we are in society. I also want to state that this idea is not mine originally, but done on another religious blog called The Catholic Lady. I was inspired by hers to make a secular version for A Lady of Reason. 

On the TV show “The Big Bang Theory”, two characters who are female scientists have displayed feminine and modest outfits through out the series. Bernadette, played by Melissa Rauch, and Amy played by Mayim Bialik, who are microbiologists are often seen in dresses, skirts and tights with wonderful cardigans! While they are fictional, their styles serve as good inspiration for modest feminine women, who are also women of science!


(Recently, unfortunately, it seems that Bernadette has been given a more generic and less feminine wardrobe like seen here. I hope they reinstate some of her gorgeous outfits!)

Related image  Bernadette Purple Cardigan  Bernadettes pink floral dress with cardigan on The Big Bang Theory.  Outfit Details: #TheBigBangTheoryRelated image   Related image


 Image result for amy big bang theory dresses

Amy and Bernadette

  Image result for bernadette big bang theory dresses

Mayim Bialik is also devoted to modesty in real life and is a great role model for young girls and women who emulate women in Hollywood where immodesty is rife and the norm!

Related image  Image result for mayim bialik red carpet

Separate Spheres and “Locker Room Talk”

There seems to be a double standard when it comes to the majority group wanting their own private spaces, whereas a minority group is basically entitled to them in the PC world. This is no different for men versus women. Women more often than not, have many things that can be female-only spaces, from clubs, to schools, and of course, private bathrooms and dressing areas, like men. Many argue that this keeps women safe from sexually predatory men threatening women and in some cases such as separate dressing areas and bathrooms makes sense. However, the unfairness begins where women are allowed their own exclusive spaces elsewhere, but when men wish to make “men only’ spaces, they’re labeled as sexist. Gone are the days of the “no girls allowed” tree house, or boys only games. The PC feminists decry it as “gender discrimination” whereas girls can create their own girls only spaces. Now, I personally have no issue with either sex forming their own separate groups in many cases, there can be guys nights and ladies nights, men’s clubs and women’s clubs, the issue starts when one sex is told they aren’t allowed to but the other is. Some women, seeing the discrepancy, seem to think that every male space should also be a female space.

An issue that stems from that is the debate around men’s “locker room talk”. Locker room talk, for those who haven’t heard is basically the lewd joking around men like to do when among their own outside of polite company. Think of anything un-PC about women and gay people, and you get the idea.  Many women decry it as sexist and fosters the objectification and abuse of women. Men have tried to explain themselves, but are silenced by the PC liberal feminists who decided men can’t have a say in explaining their own behavior. The men who do speak out, acknowledge that it is said within male-only circles, such as sports teams, and friend groups, and not for women to hear at all! While I do agree much of locker room talk is indeed more lewd and off-color, I think the key thing that makes it acceptable is that, it was never for ladies’ ears in the first place! The men who are saying all the off-color sex jokes in the privacy of the men’s locker room for instance, never implied that they shout lewd obscenities at women or in mixed company. I would argue those PC liberal feminists cannot really understand the nuances of a man who respects women, but can also joke around with his buddies about them in private. Locker room talk has been around for ages. So has the abuse of women. Does that mean the two are necessarily correlated with one another, or that one caused the other? By that logic, men have worn beards for ages too since antiquity! Do men who wear beards also help cause a culture of disrespect toward women? Evidence suggests that it’s the men who are quiet, never speak of such things that are often the perpetrators of crimes against women. The normal healthy man who expresses a healthy sexuality, not a predatory one, is the one who lets it out with his buddies, than forcing his repressed sexuality on an unwilling woman. An unpleasant reality for the radical feminists, mostly every man they know and will meet has done juvenile locker room talk at one point or another. That doesn’t make them sex-predators or condone actual abuse of women.

Not to mention, guys aren’t the only ones who objectify people! Throughout high-school, I hate to admit, I have said quite “unladylike” things joking with my girl friends! I’d hate for a guy or a teacher to have overheard our lunchroom conversations with all the dirty jokes we’d do! Would people say, albeit being off-color, it promoted misandry? Equating certain foods to certain body parts unjustly objectified men? Just as our conversations weren’t for outsider’s ears, neither is the guy’s conversations in the team locker room! Also, how many times have you heard these radical feminists say they don’t want a penis in the room, or a “sausage party” at work, meaning men there? Isn’t that objectification, reducing a man to his nether regions? How would those women react if men demanded a vagina-free zone, or no “pussy parties”? Can we accept, that not all spaces are women’s spaces and what is said in them isn’t for us to hear or comment on? We talk of the “male gaze” in our lives but what about the “female gaze”, the constant nagging of radical feminists’ voices over young men’s shoulders telling them they can’t speak as guys in their own private space? Look, a man who makes obscene comments at women is in the wrong, but a man who in the privacy of the men’s locker room, or club with his buddies and makes an off-color remark about women is just being a guy. If we demand women’s only spaces where we can say anything we want, so can men. There’s a time and a place for everything, even locker room talk. Can we not overthink this? Guys will be guys 🙂

Related image

What Christmas Means to Me: Regarding The “War on Christmas”

This may surprise some, but despite being an atheist, I celebrate Christmas with my own family. Traditionally, both sides of my family are Christian, albeit non-practicing, so we celebrate traditional Christian holidays, such as Christmas and Easter. However, my family does not make those holidays religious, and it is more about getting together and remembering family and friends, than about the birth of Christ. We exchange gifts, eat Christmas dinner, and simply joke around and have fun enjoying each other’s company. Uniquely, I feel that as an atheist as well, it’s not like I really can celebrate the “wrong holiday”, as if being secular is a religion in itself and requires its own holidays! It’s not like saying I’m Christian then celebrating Diwali day or Eid, both holidays outside the Christian religious tradition, or a Hindu celebrating Easter! There’s no God or gods to say “no, you can’t celebrate this or that… You’re worshiping the wrong god!” when you don’t believe any gods or God exists. Who says I can’t celebrate a longstanding family tradition with my family? Who’s to say I can’t have a nice dinner and exchange gifts and enjoy the warmth from a close knit family? For my family at least, Christmas is an inclusive holiday, whether or not you make it about Christ.  To me at least, the “reason for the season” is about family getting together, despite our busy lives, to stop and remember how much we care for each other and have a little fun, in between challenging and hectic lives. The warmth and joy of our family all together means so much more than about celebrating a man that supposedly lived 2000 years ago.

This may surprise many of my conservative peers, but I do not feel the need to have Christmas in the public sphere and be the only holiday. “Happy holidays” and “season’s greetings” do not offend me. I understand the argument about such things being a PC invasion by the liberals, who want to force “diversity” on people. I mean, I don’t like forced diversity than any of my fellow conservatives, but being non-religious, I do not believe America has to be a “Christian Nation”. Christmas celebrators often take for granted, how prevalent Christmas is during the holiday season already. Even phrases such as “the holidays” are often used as a code for “Christmas”, even if they are trying to avoid it. Christmas has been in the public sphere for ages now, it’s everywhere one looks! I’m not trying to say that all traces of Christmas must be banished, there can be no Christmas trees or presents in stores, or no colored lights outside. That’s not what I’m saying, but I am not personally offended if businesses, or the US government wants to make it more generic to others who don’t celebrate, to either uphold that the US is not a Christian theocracy, or to attract more potential customers during this time of year. I am all for private citizens and private businesses, if they so choose, to have the freedom they’re entitled to to express their beliefs and traditions. Private entities should not be intimidated to hang colored lights, or have Christmas trees on display! My main point, is that in the public sphere, not private homes and businesses, such as municipal buildings, and government buildings, “the holidays” is more appropriate in a nation of religious freedom, than Christmas alone.

Some fellow non-religious conservatives however, point out that there are concerns about counter-culture people wanting to use getting rid of Christmas in the public sphere as a way to undermine our culture and our society, perhaps slowly turning it into theirs to impose their own ways. While I am no fan of political correctness, nor forced diversity, nor the dismantling of important tenets of society and morals, Christmas is just not as high on the list of issues to fight over. There are many battles waged by the PC liberals, but even we must pick and choose what to prioritize. The world won’t fall if Christmas is relegated to the private sphere of life. Jews celebrate Hanukkah, and even more important holidays to them, such as Passover and Rosh Hashanah in the private sphere. Muslims celebrate Ramadan, and Eid in the privacy of their own families. Hindus celebrate Diwali Day alone. They do not have the luxury of having school and work let out on their time frames. They do not have or demand that stores mention their holidays when the time comes, or menorahs, colored chalk, or slaughtering goats in the public square annually! Yes, it would be a stinker to have work or school on Christmas, but it is not the end of the world, to miss one day of work/school declaring a religious exemption as many have the freedom to do as well.

Not to mention, all the other holidays have the same sentimentality attached to it as Christmas. Those who argue that Christmas out of public life would somehow impede the celebration in private homes and families is absurd. That was never the issue. It was about Christmas as the only holiday being acknowledged in public where everyone is. They fear that their cherished memories would be destroyed. No, they won’t, because one, you can celebrate Christmas to your heart’s content every December 25th in your home for the rest of your life! Number two, who’s to say Christmas is anymore special than other holidays cherished by other families? Whether it’s Passover dinner, Eid celebrations, Diwali day etc… family and friends come together and celebrate their own cherished traditions and make memories of their own surrounded by the warmth of their own families. I’d argue that holidays in general, are so special to people, not because of the religion, but because of the family, and the memories made and shared together. Holidays are a very personal thing, as well as societal. Not everyone needs your memories, nor your holiday. They have their own.

As for the argument about people, such as radical Muslims, demanding that we give up our own culture, starting with Christmas, I pose the question, Is it actually productive and reasonable to fight Islamic extremists, who wish that the entire world become an Islamic theocracy, by making our own nation a Christian theocracy? Is one theocracy for another change anything really? What about rising above those ignorant people, and saying, “We’re better than you. We won’t sink to your level. Our society allows people to be different from us. We stand for the freedom of people to have their own identities.” Implying that those who disagree with the assertion that Christmas must be celebrated collectively in the public sphere, are un-american, or anti-Western or anti-tradition insults people like me, who are not Christian, for one thing, and actually celebrate Christmas with family, just not demanding everyone else has to as well! I fight against the PC invasion of the “anything goes” society, the hook up culture, the faux victim hood of minorities who just want benefits like welfare and affirmative action. I am against radical feminism that makes girls and women vulgar and masculinized, society accepting that gender is meaningless, the acceptance of broken families, etc… Whether or not there’s a Christmas tree in the public square, people saying “merry Christmas” stores with nativity scenes, is inconsequential when compared to society’s real issues such as hook up culture, the welfare state, affirmative action, gender confusion being taught as “just another identity”, “Nasty women”, the glorification of divorce and single parent broken homes, medicalization of addiction as a “disease”, safe spaces, ad hominem attacks, and hypocrisy and censorship among countless others by the PC Liberals.

I am not against people from other religions or cultures being in this country. Not everyone has to be white Anglo-Saxon protestants! My issue starts when they demand victim hood status, and things such as forced diversity, the welfare state, quotas, and everyone else to walk on eggshells and be immune to any critique! Christmas being treated like every other religious holiday that isn’t Christian is not the end of the world, nor our society! What really matters in the society I and many other conservatives want, is not a superficial thing like celebrating one holiday over another, or by itself exclusively, but a society of intellectual freedom, as well as morality and common sense. A society of broken homes, people on welfare asking for victim hood status, hook ups, “Nasty women” people silencing who disagree with them, will be dismantled by morals, common sense, and those willing to fight back directly against the issues at hand, not whether or not we celebrate one holiday above all others in this nation! Using Christmas as a proxy war for other more impactful ways society is being dismantled does not address the respective issues at hand, and only serves to imply the need for Christianity to make a just society, which is not necessary for the secular conservative. As many conservatives, unlike our liberal opponents paint us to be, are not white supremacists, who wish only one race should exist, or is moral, but who simply want no special treatment for others and discrimination against themselves, let’s not be religious supremacists where we believe that only a Christian country and society is a just and righteous one! I celebrate Christmas, and believe in the right for it to be celebrated, but not for the entitlement for Christmas to annex the public sphere! Let’s save our “wars” for what is really worth fighting for to create a fair and just society!

Image result for edwardian christmas

The Dilemma of The Lady-Soldier

Women have been serving their country in many ways through out history even before being allowed in the military. From spying, to smuggling information, to even posing as men and fighting, many women have wanted to answer their country’s call to bravery the same way as their male counterparts. I don’t dismiss in the least the bravery and sacrifice those valiant women made.

Women in the army as official soldiers is still a relatively new thing, only a few decades old. However, they weren’t in direct front line combat roles. Now though, the US government decided to let women join the ranks in elite male units, such as the marines, and in direct front line combat. I think this goes too far. Unlike the denials of the feminists, and politically correct crowd, it is plan and simple that women are physically weaker than men. Women do not have the physical strength and endurance demanded of male soldiers, in which all men are not invited either! Many men do not make the cut into the armed forces, especially elite units, so why must we delude ourselves that women can? Look, no one likes admitting women cannot do things men can, or that they are inferior. However, the cruel reality is: women are not fit to be in direct combat and only endanger their male comrades. Not to mention, many men will be distracted by seeing their female comrades injured in battle, as many men were taught to protect women. Men are traditionally the defenders of women. Wartime propaganda is rife with the call to arms to defend women! The military has lowered standards of physical fitness so women could join in too. This PC invasion of our military’s standards only makes us laughable to our enemies, and us look like a slave to societal whims than objective truths. We need our military to be based on tactical advantages, not social desires for egalitarianism. Not to mention, the sexual tensions brought up by many as a concern in coed units. Officers, and military wives alike dread such an occasion. Some criticize the military for being too macho or a “boy’s club”, but that’s what has made it so efficient in the past. The comradeship between soldiers is likened to being brothers in arms. Should they be walking on eggshells not to make some insensitive joke about women because of PC liberal feminist soldiers among them? The military has enough issues with sexual harassment/assault of female soldiers within the army, taking away focus from our enemies. Can I just say this bluntly? The military is NOT a female space! It traditionally was for guys to be guys without PC feminists freaking out at their every word. If it makes more morale, and unit cohesion leading to a better military if men do “locker room talk”, so be it. What’s more important, a well-defended country, or feminine sensibilities? If women truly had the strength and endurance needed of a solider in combat, I’d have no problem with them having a place in the army, if in all-female units. However, the reality is, women in direct combat is a danger to our military’s fighting force, and our image as a society who lets women fight while men stay home comfortably.

However, I’d be naive to think that combat troops are all our military is made of. Indeed, modern warfare has created more roles than the usual battlefield soldier. Now, we must have military engineers, scientists, espionage, people who can win the “hearts and minds” of a people as some examples. It is naive to think, in modern warfare, which often is not on a battle field, but in a community, women don’t have any place. When our enemy hides in the community, anyone including civilians like women and children could be the enemy too. A man may not be able to access the part of society women and children inhabit like a woman can. A female spy might pick up intelligence from enemy women that the men aren’t talking about. Also, a woman might be less likely to be seen as a threat, thus more discreet. There are units of soldiers whose jobs are to try to relate to the community to gain an ally against the enemy. Perhaps women can have a part to play in there. Or, perhaps in non-combat roles, such as the military engineer, who designs technology, or the scientist or medic. In modern warfare, brains has begun to be just as important as brawn. Women could help in the “brains of the operation” albeit not suited for the”brawn”. While I disagree with women being allowed to be in say, fire teams storming a building, or on the front lines killing and being killed, women may have a place in less dangerous areas of the military. The military used to realize that not everyone has the same strengths, and used to put people in the role that best suited their strengths. Women in the military should be no different. Women can add their own advantages to our military without having to be identical to their male comrades in arms. We are deluding ourselves as a country to have physically weaker women in combat alongside the strongest of the strong! We delude ourselves to think that men and women in the same unit won’t lead to scandals, pregnancies and disgrace. Why do we have women in elite marine units, for instance, when most men cannot make the cut? When will the military realize not to be “defeated” by some PC snowflakes? Look, I don’t decry women occupying more intellectual and peaceful roles in the military, but women pretending they are as strong as men is insane! Women can serve their country too, but not when it endangers everyone else! Ladies, let’s not let our pride and ego get in the way of admitting when our weaknesses make a job better suited for someone else.

Image result for aus dem frauenstaat

Conservative Positions Can Be Justified: No Religion Required

Many of my fellow conservative readers may have noticed, that unlike many of my fellow conservatives, I have never, invoked religion as an argument for my positions here on A Lady of Reason. Indeed, the whole point of this blog is to give non-religious/secular minded women who have conservative views an outlet. This is where I disagree with many of my conservative peers. While we share many views on many issues, I feel like i do not need to invoke God for justification for my views, my opinions are backed up on strictly secular grounds. Many conservatives who in most matters I agree with, think that secularism is bad, or a trait only the liberal snowflakes ought to embrace. Some, have written articles about how secularism drains the purpose or joy out of life, or impedes traditional morals and values. Many conservatives feel like a huge part of being conservative requires religion! I digress. Here are some issues which I generally agree with my fellow religious conservatives on, but justify from a secular perspective.

Modesty: Many religious traditions have embraced modesty, including Christianity, Judaism and Islam. However, the merits of modest dress don’t necessarily have to involve religion. Modesty in dress signals an attitude of shunning detrimental hook up culture and hypersexualization and unladylike vulgarity and promiscuity. Modesty conveys the image of a lady of standards, not one who will throw herself at any man who passes by! Modesty does not have to be about pleasing some god, it can be about resisting a culture that wants women to be cheap and easy. Not to mention, the role of provocative action and dress and its correlation with sexual assault.

Gender roles: Women and men are different by nature, it has been proven scientifically that male and female brains are wired different. The societal denial of the inherent differences in gender is detrimental to men and women alike, in that each tries to be forced into the other’s role, to no avail. Now, women and girls are being told they have to be more like men to be worth something, to be equal to men, and to denounce their own womanhood. Men and boys are being feminized, and turned into soft sheep afraid of their own shadow! While religious people can say that God ordained certain roles, the secular minded can acknowledge the scientific evidence for the differences in genders, and the societal implications for a society that denies them.

Traditional Family: “Any family is a real family” is the new slogan in town! However, dysfunction and unfulfillment plague these so called families such as divorced and broken homes, single parent homes, same sex parent homes, children raised by other relatives. God doesn’t have to get involved. Religious or not, an unhappy dysfunctional home that lacks what it needs to raise well rounded children is detrimental, period. The decay of the nuclear family is spreading every day, and reflects an “anything goes” society, where marriage is dishonored, children are not the priority, and “alternative” lifestyles take precedence over what has been the family structure for decades. In this “hook up” culture, the traditional family, one of loving parents and generations of stable marriages are going away. The impact on society is a generation of children without real families and stable homes, and in therapy!

The Institution of Marriage: Marriage was once a deep promise, a lifetime of commitment to your partner. Now, it’s little more than dating 2.0! Promiscuity, infidelity, divorce, and such are rampant! Younger generations are forsaking marriage for “live in” situations, and hook ups! In this hook up culture and anything goes society, marriage symbolizes the lost sense of commitment and devotion to one’s partner in life. One doesn’t need God to decree marriage is the only way to be in a relationship. One simply has to witness the cheapening of love, commitment and devotion in favor of flings and hookups and treating people as disposable commodities, instead of life partners to see the benefits of a society that embraces marriage.

Abstinence and Chastity: Sex has been cheapened so much by society today. Once, sex was reserved for wedlock, but now, it’s an anyone can join affair! For young ladies, the choice to save yourself for marriage is not just about whether or not God decrees you must. It can be a secular based choice as well, like for me. I will admit this is more of a personal preference, but for good reason. Abstinence before marriage practically, will prevent many “accidents” such as unwanted pregnancy by some random guy, or an STD from a guy who isn’t committed to you nor told you. Sex within wedlock is the “safest” form of sex, even with protection, as you and your partner are committed to each other, they won’t just leave you after the “fling” is done. More abstractly, I personally believe that the greatest gift a young lady could give a man is trusting him with her sexuality. A lady of standards does not just sleep with any man, and give herself away like a handshake. True, men often have more sexual freedom, but I argue women are not suited to emulate the sex drive of a man, by her biological nature. Women evolved to be selective with mates since she has more to lose if she slips up and gets pregnant. A man can just walk away, she is stuck with a child for 9 months. Waiting until marriage is a choice that gives sex its due reverence, and not just a hook up. A lady used to have her first time be a milestone, now it’s merely a handshake…

Traditional Femininity: More specifically within gender roles, I feel that women should become the ladies women of past generations were raised to be. Ones who wished for marriage, not hookups or live in boyfriends. Ones who embraces elegance and grace, instead of vulgarity and promiscuity to get their way. Girls should be taught to be what our grandmothers were: ladies, not tomboy male wannabes, or rude and vulgar “Nasty Women”. Women should be unashamed to act and dress as women. Wear dresses and skirts, do more traditionally feminine things, wear a gown to their prom instead of a tuxedo. Young women should become ladies of standards, not some cheap sleaze bag who hands herself on the street corner and hooks up with any guy who asks. Such detrimental behaviors, vulgarity, promiscuity, aggressiveness under the guise of “being a man”, being a “Nasty Woman” as the current radical feminist movement puts it, all have negative affects for society and women that do not need a religion to know they’re detrimental!

Yes, I am an atheist myself. I embrace science and reason, yet also embrace traditional morality from the religious. I just don’t have the religious part in my reasoning. Just because I’m secular, doesn’t mean I think an “anything goes” society is a good thing. I don’t believe secularism will lead to unchecked morals and anarchy! I base much off my moral code and what I feel is right or wrong off ethics and evidence, what I see to be good or bad for society. I don’t need arbitrary pronouncements on what should be right or wrong. I can reason for myself and these are my conclusions. I also feel like my secular world view is mutually exclusive with shunning political correctness and the snowflake hype of the left. While many secular minded people are highly liberal socially, the two are not contradictory if one can be conservative without religion. My blog title reflects this fact. We are Ladies, women of standards, elegance and grace who embrace their femininity, women who do not have to emulate men to feel noteworthy, but also people who use reason, logic and evidence to support their views and guide their morality. I don’t need religion to be socially conservative. The evidence is right in front of me!

Related image

Inspiration in Conservative Dress: How Tight is Too Tight?

Inspiration in Conservative Dress is a reoccurring series of posts of various modest and feminine outfits to inspire other women to dress modestly and resist society’s pressure to dress provocatively and subscribe to “hook up” culture. Through conservative dress, A Lady of Reason sends a message of resistance to the “sexual revolution” and radical liberal feminism, and the upholding of feminine virtue. Arguably, this could also extend to the support for social conservatism in general. How we dress signals who we are in society. I also want to state that this idea is not mine originally, but done on another religious blog called The Catholic Lady. I was inspired by hers to make a secular version for A Lady of Reason. 

In this installment of Inspiration in Conservative Dress, I ask the question, While the hemlines and necklines are conservative, does the tightness take away from its modesty? How tight is too tight? I’ll make an important note too, this is NOT about bashing and tearing down other women’s choices as I believe that each individual women can define her own modesty standards, it’s the spirit behind it that counts the most. I ask this to make everyone think about evaluating their own choices in modest dress, and to support and provide gentle and lady like critique of clothing that might be in the middle ground between conservative and indecent. Not so immodest that it is provocative, but not so conservative that immodesty can be ruled out. All examples are from generic models, or myself. Like I said before, this isn’t a place to tear down and bash other women’s choices, but to give everyone a new perspective.

Image result for jcpenney junior dresses Related image

Image result for bodycon dress Related image

(This may be a controversial stance for some, but my judgement says that all can be acceptable in settings such as a party, or with a modest top for everyday for the top two pictures. The length and coverage make up for some of the tightness. However, I’d recommend leaning towards a looser fit for a professional environment. The red dress’ bottom is a bit too tight though in my opinion… When in doubt, find ways to make up for more suggestive parts of your outfit.)

The Disintegration Of The Nuclear Family

What do you picture when you think of the typical American family? If you’re like most people, it usually conjures up the image of mom, dad, their two kids and that white picket fence. The family of our grandparent’s generation, where mom and dad raised the kids in a married relationship, and the kids all had the same father! Many will point out, even then, most families weren’t in idyllic bliss by any means, couples still fought, dysfunctional addicts who couldn’t raise their own, jailbirds, illegitimate children and infidelity were there back then too. However, this does not mean that such things were publicly accepted. These things were spoken of in hushed tones, not advertised as “just another family”! The traditional family was still the ideal, and what everyone who was respectable tried to emulate.

Nowadays, this traditional family structure has given way to all sorts of strange combinations, from same-sex parents, to single moms or even dads, to blended families, families where the kids have to be raised by their grandparents because their parents are unfit, parents in jail, bitter divorces, mom with “live in” boyfriend, and broken homes. Many liberal feminists and other PC proponents call such non traditional families “progress” and that now, we can accept all sorts of families! However, the evidence is in favor for the traditional family, one of a married mom and dad, and children born in wedlock. Children from those types of families do better psychologically, and are less likely to be broken homes. While many psychologists and sociologists concede to that conclusion, others, to be politically correct and not “offend” the other types of families downplay the statistics in favor of “acceptance”. But, acceptance of what? The disintegration of the stable home? The welfare state? Parents who can’t get their act together and raise their own children? Children with no father figures?

Often, these non traditional families lack many aspects that the nuclear family has to give children. For example, single parent homes, such as with single mothers, there is no father figure to guide the development of a son into a man, and guide a daughter to know how a man should treat her in the future, and become a lady of standards. With single dads, there is no motherly influence to guide a daughter to become a whole woman, nor how to teach a son to treat women. In both cases, there simply is no perspective that only the other gender can give. Same with same-sex parents. While I am not against gay marriage for most ethical reasons, this particular case I do oppose. Parents of one single sex cannot give the perspective of the other sex to their children and are basically like single parent homes in that sense.

Divorced homes are broken homes. Plain and simple. While divorce is extreme cases is warranted, such as physical abuse and completely toxic relationships with no reconciliation, often times it is for less serious charges, such as being “tired” of one’s partner and wanting something else. These parents act like juvenile teenagers: “I can break up with my spouse if I want to! We’re adults and no one can tells us no…” . However, they fail to realize that when you have kids, it’s not about you anymore. You are not young people, free to break up and throw away your partner on a whim anymore. Not to mention, there is plenty of statistics on the deep psychological scars from being raised in a divorced home.  The new boyfriend or girlfriend will never be your child’s mother or father. Often, the kids resent them, but you just won’t listen since you think it’s all about you and your “right” to throw away the foundation of stability your kids were once in. Indeed, “live in” boyfriends are no fathers, often, many have been found out to have contempt for and even abuse the children! If he doesn’t want to marry you, he doesn’t want to commit to raising your kids with you.

Infidelity, toxic relationships, domestic abuse, etc.. while there in our grandparent’s generations, were never so destigmatized and accepted to be seen in the open as in today’s “hook up” culture. Marriage and the sanctity of marriage means nothing anymore. Now, both sides see fit to throw away their vows and forsake their promise “till death do us part”. In the case of childless couples, it’s one thing, but when children are in the mix, they suffer as their family is ripped apart, and loyalties are divided. It is a great shame, that more of my classmates throughout school were in single parent divorced families than in happily married two parent homes like myself. Maybe one or two other kids, but that was it per class. It is indeed quite the anomaly, that my family has had many generations of stable marriages lasting lifetimes, on both sides of the family!

Why is this not the norm anymore? Why are there so many broken homes, from single parents, to divorced parents, to the devaluing of fathers and lack of accountability? Why are more and more kids being raised by grandma and grandpa, instead of mommy and daddy? Custody battles, restraining orders, CPS calls by teachers, it was never this bad! The “modern” “progressive” family is now one of non-commitment, absent fathers, two mommies, two daddies, two houses, bastard children, grandparents as parents, live in boyfriends, not to mention plenty on welfare! It is politically correct to accept all these sorry scenarios, in favor of “every family is a real family”, but the only reality these families give, is one of years in a therapist’s office!

The traditional family from the 50’s, while “old school”, has worked raising stable and loving children who went on to make more. Why fix what was never broken? They say they want other situations destigmatized, but does anyone think, maybe such detrimental and dysfunctional arrangements should get their just stigma. What our families look like says a great deal about our society. In this “any thing goes” society, apparently so does the family! I was fortunate to come from a family with generations of love and devotion, where marriage was honored above all, and children grew up with two loving parents, mom and dad. Why is the nuclear family forsaken for politically correct monstrosities? Ladies, demand that your family will be the best it can be: with stable marriages, devoted fathers, and children born from wedlock. Why can’t we strive for the families our grandparents had, the families our country cherished once, the families our children grew up in happiness and stability?  It’s not just what you want anymore, as they always said in the days of the nuclear family, “Think of the children!”

Related image