Ruth Institute Blog

Over at Dante Atkins’ Daily Kos post, some commenters have said that no-fault divorce is necessary; without it, women would be stuck in abusive marriages, unable to prove fault.  Everyone admits that there are some reasons why a woman (or man) might need to leave a marriage.  These include situations like:

• spousal abuse
• child abuse
• substance abuse
• addictive behaviors (addiction to gambling, pornography, spending, etc.)
• infidelity

But what I am wondering is this—how many divorces are the result of these situations?  And how many divorces are sought for much less threatening reasons?  Reasons such as these:  Read more…

Dante evidently got all confused reading the responses of the Ruth Institute to his post entitled Ruthless.  So confused, in fact, that he was unable to respond to the challenges I put to him.  I can understand.  Dante’s original post contained lots of error.  Had he made only a couple of errors, only a couple of posts would have sufficed to dispute them.  But Dante emitted a vast avalanche of error.  It took more than a couple of posts to set him straight.

This post will solve that.  It will collect, into one place, several of the challenges I made to him in my series of posts refuting his argument.  If Dante is able to respond adequately to the challenge, I will admit my mistake and I’ll even send him a certificate of apology suitable for framing.  Let’s see how he does: Read more…

Dante Atkins last Sunday poked his stick into the hornets’ nest that is the Ruth Institute. We, the bloggers at the Ruth Institute responded. I helpfully emailed Dante to alert him to our response, and wondered if he had the guts to match his wits against mine. He didn’t.

Surely, Dante responded. Just not to any of my posts. Mine were the posts entitled “Dante’s Infernal Post.”  They chided Dante for his lack of understanding of mathematics, and challenged him to answer various questions in support of the thesis of his post.  He did not.

Strangely, Dante seemed to think that all of the posts written in response to his post entitled “Ruthless” were written by Dr. J. herself. They were not. They were written by various bloggers at the Ruth Institute, myself included. This is no secret. In fact, every post helpfully identifies its author at the very top under the title. Those written by Dr. J say the words “Jennifer Roback Morse” under the title. Those written by me bear my handle “Arlemagne1.”  I wonder how Dante could possibly have missed that? Read more…

I know it is tedious to refute nonsensical, illogical, factually incorrect or otherwise bad arguments. But it must be done. Yesterday’s nonsense has a way of becoming today’s conventional wisdom. And our friends at the Daily Kos made a very bad argument indeed in the course of their smear job against the Ruth Institute the other day.

The Gay Establishment has been circulating a version of the argument Dante made at the Kos:

“In (both Prop 8 in CA and Issue 1 in ME) the campaign tactics used were despicable: both campaigns sought to convince the electorate that legalizing same-sex marriage would lead to second-graders being recruited into a lifestyle of sodomy and depravity.”

Poor Dante: once again, he has no empathy for other people’s concerns. The real issue in those ads about 2nd graders was not that gay men were going to jump out and grab children. There was not a hint of any such thing in any of the ads in CA. The issue was parental rights: Read more…

Ari’s post about Philip Longman’s book, reminded me that Dr J’s Bookshelf has several titles on Demographic Decline. My little collection proves Ari’s point: concern about demographic decline is not the exclusive province of the Left. including Longman’s book. Longman is at the New America Foundation and Schwartz Senior Fellow at the Washington Monthly. His latest book is called, The Next Progressive Era.
Read more…

As a new guest blogger, I must admit that I hadn’t really noticed the logo.  I assumed it was a star or a flower.  Now, looking at it more closely, I can see a circle of women, but I just don’t see the “old-fashioned dresses”.  The logo appears to depict a stylized female form, with a narrow waist and wider hips.

That seems like a pretty typical way to represent the female shape.  But I got curious–what sort of image or symbol would a “feminist” website use?  A search of Google Images using the term “feminist logo” turned up mostly the circle-over-cross female sign, with or without a fist (or a paw print, for vegan feminists).  There was only one site (the Minnesota DFL) that had a stylized female form.  I wonder why feminists would so avoid any representation of who they are (human women), and instead use a scientific symbol.

I am flattered by the attention from Daily Kos blogger, Dante Atkins. Sadly, this post is short on substance, and long on ad hominem attacks and innuendo. I will leave aside for now, his silly attack on our logo, of all things. I will ignore his mangling of the Biblical story of Ruth, except to note one thing: I chose Ruth because she is a unifying figure, loved by all the major faith groups. Catholics love her; Jews love her; Evangelicals love her; Mormons love her. Everybody loves Ruth, it seems, except for leftist bloggers. I’ll leave it to the reader to imagine how leftists like Dante expect to build a coalition when they alienate every major faith tradition in America. Read more…

Okay, Dante.  It’s put up or shut up time.  Another challenge for you.

Could you please explain to me what benefit society in general will have by redefining marriage?

When I say benefit, I mean an actual, tangible benefit.  I am looking for something like “it will increase GDP by 1% extra per year for the next ten years” or some similar tangible benefit.  Perhaps you will argue to me that it will make the sky bluer or the wash whiter.  I don’t know.  But I have yet to hear how my fellow citizens are going to benefit from the massive change you propose.

I have heard that my fellow citizens won’t suffer.  I doubt that.  But let’s leave that alone for now.   I think your fellow citizens are entitled to ask how they will benefit from a policy proposal. Read more…

Phillip Longman in his book discusses  the possible  social impact of declining birth rates.  Longman is a  progressive.  His most recent book is one that praises the politics of the Progressive Era.  The politics of the Progressive Era gives right wingers like me nausea.  Read more…

Dante Atkins wrote:

The real mission of the Ruth Institute is to erase the gains that women have made with regard to their social, economic and sexual liberation and ensure that they become baby factories like something out of Margaret Atwood’s Handmaid’s Tale.

Now, before you run away in a screaming panic, please answer me one question:  I was recruited to blog for the Ruth Institute by Dr. J herself.  Dr. J knows my situation.  She knows that my wife’s a doctor.  She knows I supported her throughout college and medical school so she could achieve her dream.  I took care of the children so she could pursue her career.

Dante, could you please explain how I, as a member of the nefarious Ruth Institute (and as a certifiable member of the religious right) want to “erase the gains” of women?