Épisodes

  • It’s Only Natural (Essay)

    It’s Only Natural (Essay)
    Aug 31 2026
    It’s Only Natural Strong roots find ways to grow. “Alfredo,” I call over the new gardener, “this here. Is it a weed?” Alfredo pokes at the thin, lush branch sprouting up from the dirt. “No.” He shakes his head and smiles. “It’s a tree.” “A tree? But we never had a tree here. It’s too close to the fence.” “Maybe your neighbor had a tree.” A memory-wracking pause. “Oh right, he did. But he took it out a while ago.” “Well, this is a root, and it’s growing again.” “The root is growing a tree? In the middle of the root?” “Yup.” “Even though the tree was taken out?” “Yup.” “What happens if we leave it? “It’ll grow a new tree.” Huh. The backyard exchange with Alfredo wasn’t just a lesson in gardening, but an unearthing of a truth about the fundamental makeup of Creation, colloquially referred to as “nature”. Nature is the system we credit for the day-to-day running of the world, including the celestial bodies of space. To say, nature is an all-encompassing term for the factory setting of the universe, the innate coding entwined throughout, the very essence that makes each entity what it is. Although nature can be tamed or trained, trammeled or trampled to behave in ways incongruous to its default state, a lack of constant force or compulsory system override results in reverting back to factory settings. “Nature” or “natural” are the ultimate descriptors, the words used when logic runs out of explanations, when discovery reaches the end. The nature of a root compels it to burrow deep and intermingle with the soil to anchor that which grows upward. Knobby or gnarled, thick or thin, a root left to its own devices will continually reach outward. Roots shore up the base of a plant, though their oft seen, their efforts only evident in what grows above. Though roots are generally regarded in their role of literally grounding a plant, roots are just as much a part of the plant as the side that grows in shapes and colors very different from its base. The growing tip of the plant is just the other side of the root, unsurprising as it mirrors its nature to always reach outward. Though far less pleasing to the eye, and certainly never glorified in tabletop vases, without roots, stems and leaves and fruits and buds are just a wither away from mulch. However, without the stem and leaves and fruits and buds, the root is just an anchor without purpose. Roots are first to form and last to leave, a clue of nature as to why they’re even there. As if something essential to growth is connected to the health and strength of the roots. As if the very nature of roots is to ensure the plant grows. Roots are more than just a base, as they’re map of the plant as well. Where did this flower come from? Trace its roots. Why isn’t this plant budding? Check its roots. Will the leaves grow back? Depends on its roots. This truth is most evident when it comes to weeds, which contain roots too quick and eager to promulgate to know they shouldn’t anymore. And really, what’s a weed, but a fast-growing, dominating plant we’ve decided not to keep? Characteristic to a weed is its resiliency in the face of our attempts to uproot it. Weeds return again and again, unless wholly ripped out with their roots. Even then, the soil must be partially overturned to ensure the job’s thoroughly done, or they’ll be back and expanding just as quickly as before. Weeds can do little else, as such behavior was written into their very coding from the start of Creation. Why so much emphasis on growth? Growth is the greatest indicator of life, the defining line between existing and being alive. Unhealthy growth is fragile, twisted, wilted, and will not endure. Healthy growth is vivid, bold, and vivacious, a constant expansion and reaching to be more. What sprouts above soil is more fragrant, flavorful, colorful than the roots it stems from. Yet, not a single leaf, stem, branch, blossom can survive without the plain roots that start it all and support the plant beneath. Cut a branch, leaf, or flower and see how long it lasts away from its roots. Cut away a branch, leaf, flower and see how long before another grows in its place. “Alfredo, why aren’t these trees bearing more fruit this year?” The gardener looks from the leafy lemon tree to the overgrown peach tree, both vibrant and healthy, but scant on offerings. “They need to be watered better.” “They are watered, see all their leaves are green.” “They need to be watered deep, a few times a week.” It’s not enough for roots to burrow, to stimulate the power of growth in the ground, to thrive where soil is rich and nourishing, but to continue to do so even after a tree is grown. It’s not enough to pick and trim, to focus on what’s above, to be satisfied with how things appear, for what’s beneath still requires care. At their best, roots present the possibility of something sweet and beautiful for others. ...
    Afficher plus Afficher moins
    8 min
  • On Other, Other Life Forms (Essay)

    On Other, Other Life Forms (Essay)
    May 19 2026
    On Other, Other Life Forms The quest for other life forms must be anchored in the knowledge of why we’re even here. Let’s get nitpicky. Also, unapologetically religious in nature, though the points stand on merit regardless. This isn’t a screed against space travel, for looking up, even beyond, is worthwhile. Rather, the aim is to properly frame our search through understanding what exactly is “other life” and where exactly is “out there.” The terminology “other life” or “other life forms” is presumptuous in nature, as it can only be asked within a vacuum which denies the existence of myriad life forms on planet Earth. Not only are there other life forms aplenty, but the range, capacities, colors, designs, etc., etc., etc., are so diverse and so far-ranging that not a single planet in our system comes anywhere close to dreaming of similar potential. Even more, every part, planet, and particle in space lends to the preservation of life on earth in some way. Almost as if it’s all here for us. Per Torahic categorization, there are four general kingdoms in creation. The so-called lowest is “silent”, for the predominately inanimate basics of existence, water, soil, rocks, minerals, and the like that comprise it have a lifeforce so quiet it’s barely noted. Thus, we view creations in this kingdom as existing but not exactly alive. The next kingdom is “growth”, essentially plants and all vegetation where growth is usually visible and indicative of the lifeforce within. Third is the “life” kingdom, which includes all creatures from insects to birds to marine life to mammals, as each overtly display an animating lifeforce not only through growth, but also some measure of mobility, intelligence, communication, or similar. The final kingdom is “speaker,” aka man, the only kingdom made in G-d’s image. The lifeforce within man is undeniable, not only for all previously specified reasons, but also because, unlike the other kingdoms, man goes beyond a measure of intellect in his ability to communicate ideas, teachings, morality, ethics, and abstractions to others, mainly through speech. For this display of what’s deemed higher intelligence, man is considered the highest of the four kingdoms. With that set, our quest for other life begins with understanding why these four kingdoms aren’t life forms enough. The “silent” kingdom covers just about everything that isn’t obviously alive. For example, the four building blocks of creation, earth, water, air, and fire. The varying parts of our atmosphere which cause the sky to blaze at sunrise and sunset. The very earth from which all things grow, as well as rolling hills, fertile valleys, and majestic mountain ranges. Gentle waters which calm the soul and raging waves which quicken the heart. Rocks which stand against the fiercest winds, but also caves and crevices sculpted over time. Geodes, crystals, stalactites, stalagmites, in shapes and colors man cannot always describe or name. All are “silent” in their steadfast, unchanging existence. In the context of our quest, any discovery within the “silent” kingdom doesn’t qualify as an other life, not only because some forms within this kingdom have already been discovered in space, but also because the categories within this kingdom literally don’t display signs of life. Never mind that the “silent” kingdom sustains every kingdom above it, revealing it may not be quite so lowly a kingdom as supposed. Either way, our search mandates we find a form that’s obviously alive. Ergo, despite the wonders and marvels of the “silent” kingdom, our exploration continues. Does the “growth” kingdom qualify as another life form in our search? Do we seek proof of some sort of life beyond moss and ferns and fungi and flowers and vegetables and fruit and trees? Well, yes and no. We’d be thrilled to find any kind of vegetation, as long as it’s not here. In other words, we want what we have here, just somewhere else. Then again, we don’t have to find an exact replica of Earth, only something that’s entirely like it but on a different planet. Plants show life in their visible growth, and are incredible dynamic doing so. Plants can run rampant and wild, plants can be domesticated and tamed; some thrive in the sun and some only open to the moon. They have no eyes, they have no ears, yet they know the difference between night and day, between summer, winter, spring, and fall. They know when it’s time to blossom, to shed, to regrow. Even more, there are plants which heal, plants which harm, plants which flavor, plants which sustain, plants which dominate, plants upholding entire ecosystems, and plants which light the way with their glow. Some plants are beautiful, some terrifying, some cooling, some fragile, some stronger than blades. Some plants tower, some are unnoticed, some provide food, shelter, clothes. The “growth” kingdom climbs and clings, flowers, ...
    Afficher plus Afficher moins
    8 min
  • A Case Against Blasphemy (Essay)

    A Case Against Blasphemy (Essay)
    Mar 25 2026
    A Case Against Blasphemy Free speech cannot be absolute where it portends absolute destruction. Before formulating arguments about why blasphemy laws never work, before outlining the decisive points in favor of unfettered free speech, before launching into lectures about censorship and cancelations, separation of church and state, rights and freedoms and liberties, hypocrisy and hysteria, gather those excellent points, pack them tight, then set them aside. Before even reaching the decision of best, most practical enforceability, truth and necessity must first be asserted. A strong case has been made that the Founding Fathers of the United States never considered blasphemy laws in writing the First Amendment protections of free speech, because it wouldn’t have entered their minds to do so. No matter how religious someone was at home, religion held strong enough sway over the culture that the government needn’t interfere where society would regulate behavior on its own. The blatant disregard for the Divine rampant in society today was unimagine then, not least because reverent regard for the Divine is vital to upholding the world they made. So, while it may not have been constitutionally illegal to blaspheme, no one who wanted to remain in good standing and company would consider such a derisive act in public. And sometimes that’s all it takes to ensure the desired outcome, as historical precedent has reliably shown. Eventually, blasphemy laws were passed and enforced on a governmental level, and there’s plenty of places that may still officially have them on the books. We’ve moved so far as a society that we no longer pay attention to those that remain, so they linger unenforced. We’ve more pressing issues to deal with these days, or so we’re told. Yet, what if our more pressing issues can be traced in large part to our laxity in regard to blasphemy? And, if not the language itself, then to the same cause at the root of both acceptance of blasphemy and the rest of the societal ills at present. For one thing is certain, neither government nor standing nor company is enough anymore to entirely enforce word choice in most circles. The only circumstance where such efficiency is ever seen is in regard to social constructs around the imagined oppressed of the day. This perversion is an accurate reflection of what results when public displays of religious irreverence are no longer considered blasphemous, let alone tolerated, ignored, celebrated. The result of this is that unassailable protection of natural rights is intentionally subverted and directed toward malicious ends. Free speech absolutists are quick to counter with the case of satirist George Carlin, who was arrested in Wisconsin in the seventies for a routine that was ultimately deemed “indecent.” For many, his case is absolute proof against blasphemy laws, made all the easier if they actually agree with what he said, let alone laugh at it. The laughter part is important, for comedy and satire have proven time and again to be among the greatest weapons the populace can wield against the government. Only a free people can mock their ruling class without fear of repercussion, and the persecution of comedians, or any well-liked entertainer, isn’t usually well-accepted in a liberty-minded society. Except, blasphemy isn’t aimed at the current government, but at G-d, Who exists beyond any mortal systems. Moreover, blasphemy isn’t the same as comedy, as even the religious and the wider umbrella of believers have jokes that include G-d. The difference is the same as jokes from family members and from outsiders, namely the affection underlying the tone of the former. For non-believers or so-proclaimed atheists, jokes about G-d are usually a euphemism for mockery, belied by the sour notes of jadedness, bitterness, disdain, even anger they can’t entirely hide beneath the laughter. Such comedy does not stem from a desire to share amusement but an excuse to belittle what they don’t truly know or understand or simply find agreement in their contempt. Thus it falls under the blasphemous, not least because the result is not to free speech but to lessen the image of G-d in the eyes of the beholder. Blasphemous displays are not “fresh” or “edgy” or “freeing” or “empowering” or “complex” or any other manner of progressive mangled label breathlessly used to validate the degenerate. As the law against blasphemy has existed thousands of years, so has the cause for it. To say, the law wasn’t made as a preemptive forewarning of a possible future, rather, the law was established for past, present, and future, because some things about the human condition don’t change, but are merely repackaged over time. The law against blasphemy first appears in its most definitive form as the third of the Ten Commandments given by G-d to Moses on Mount Sinai. Anyone who believes in the advantages of displaying the Ten Commandments and ...
    Afficher plus Afficher moins
    8 min
  • We’ve Left Little to Imagination (Essay)

    We’ve Left Little to Imagination (Essay)
    Feb 19 2026
    We’ve Left Little to Imagination Uninspired creative endeavors are not faults of potential but culture. Cloudless deep blue sky. Green coated hillsides. Calm ocean glimmering under a warm sun. A good day for a hike. Others were of similar mind, parents and kids and friends relishing the beauty and the day. Some wore t-shirts and shorts, some leggings, tank tops, pants. And some wore colored spandex so form-fitting even bills would reveal their value. Passing one such woman markedly sculpted by spandex, the thoroughness of the impact of the last several decades coalesced into a singular understanding. Though we gradually desensitize to the ever-infringed upon demarcation of now archaically-perceived propriety, the bright sun and clear ocean air showed it plainly. In our current age of progressive enlightenment, some decision was made that everything must be stated, everything must be qualified, everything must be shown. As necklines plunged and hemlines shortened, modesty and privacy became so unknown they currently border on the fantastical. Is it any wonder then that true creativity is feeling more and more uncommon, considering we’ve left little to imagination? Imagine a gift, artfully wrapped. Take a moment to see it, paper, card, bow, precise folds, and all. What’s inside? It could be air or a pebble or a key that leads to a train, plane, the power of rain. Sense the possibility? The mystery? The chance for any single or series of items to be awaiting your eyes? Until the box is opened, anything could be inside. Then it can be admired, appreciated, valued, but it can also only be what it is. Imagine a gift, artfully wrapped. Take a moment to see it, paper, card, bow, precise folds, and all. Notice the corner? The paper is ripped just a bit, enough to peek at what awaits your eyes. Do you catch the edge of a design? The point of an image? The fractured angle of a letter? Until the box is opened, anything could be inside, though the mystery is not quite the same, as a clue narrows the possibility. Still, it could be a good many things. Imagine a gift, wrapped only with a bow. Exciting, but it’s clear what awaits your eyes. Do you take it out right away? Maybe. Do you put it aside, because there’s no mystery to uncover, no guess to confirm? Perhaps. Do you imagine what else it could be? Probably not. Once you know what it is, you don’t regard it quite the same. Imagine man throughout the ages in different states of wrapping. Then think of how much has changed once we stopped closing doors, stopped covering up, stopped being subtle. In just another push to progress ourselves right into eternal, unmitigated happiness and freedom, we became more and more explicit in language, in dress, in art, in literature, in entertainment. The easier everything became to access, for any number of excuses from “education” to “we’re all adults here,” the less need there was for our minds to conjure what we couldn’t see. How much is there to imagine when everything is right in our line of sight? The result of such changes is most often noticed in the various possibilities of creative output. One dominant tendency is to imitate or rework what’s already been created, repackaging instead of reinventing. While that could lead to some unique creative endeavors, it’s difficult to call the same rose by another name just to make it appear as something else. The other inclination most often revealed is that when someone wants to garner notice, they no longer do so through an admirable, “Here’s what I’ve done,” but something more akin to, “Look at this body I have! Like this and this and this!” Such is the machination of a disingenuous illusionist, who seeks to distract from what’s real with shock and morbid fascination rather than true wonderment and value. It fixes the viewer’s eyes on something he can’t bring himself to look away from, so he doesn’t realize he’s not seeing anything interesting, intriguing, or intelligent at all. These approaches lead to underdeveloped creativity and people unable to bring life to empty spaces. Both hamper imagination, and thereby human innovation and achievement. Imagination is defined by its ability to range, to explore unmoored and unfettered, to envision what else could be. When everything is known, and in such sharp focus too, what is left for the mind to wonder about? What motivates creative endeavors, when the eye is so overstimulated by continual, concentrated bombardments of noise over substance? At times there is an advantage to knowing what a thing is, to spending hours, months, years exploring its entirety, usually in regard to what matters most in life, faith, meaning, relationships, and the like. For these, and similar, solidity is more important than imagining, so the more focus on what we have, the stronger, more resilient it can become. Moreover, this is specifically possible for things that truly matter because they have already...
    Afficher plus Afficher moins
    8 min
  • Make Morality Mainstream Again (Essay)

    Make Morality Mainstream Again (Essay)
    Dec 30 2025
    Make Morality Mainstream Again The adultification of teen fiction has intentionally Frankensteined books for teens into cesspools of ideological normalization. A while ago, I met a mother and her daughter, the latter of whom I hadn’t seen in several years. On the cusp of turning twelve, she’d obviously grown in the time since, and, her mother proudly informed me, had become quite the reader. Indeed, the girl held quite a thick book in her hand. Which was it? The girl showed me the cover. I turned to the mother. “Do you know what your daughter is reading?” She’d figured telling her eleven-year-old she could read whatever was marked 14+ was a safe enough guardrail for appropriate content. As reading is an experience between book and reader, the mother wouldn’t have seen what her daughter was taking in. She couldn’t either know that her daughter’s book was familiar not because it was something I’d read but because it was something I wouldn’t. Worse, she thought she could trust the institution. THE READING DILEMMA Parents want kids to read, but as most can’t keep up with their reading habits, they don’t fully realize what’s being allowed, even promoted, in books for young readers. As with other once vaunted institutions, the publishing world has morphed in ways many aren’t fully aware of. Over a decade ago, I signed my first contract for Young Adult (YA) fiction. Before and since, I’ve watched the genre boom through the stages of audience demographic to viable business. Throughout, YA has expanded from books for teens to a genre unto itself, attracting talented writers, lucrative contracts, and the golden goose of Hollywood adaptations. YA is officially for readers 14-18 years (and up). However, as it’s after Middle Grade (8-12 years), tweens are frequent readers, plus many eleven-year-olds reading up. There is “lower” and “upper” YA, but they’re unofficial categories for libraries or writers specific about their target audience. Most retailers and publishers categorize all teen books under the general YA umbrella. NA, New Adult, mainly written for college-aged readers into their early twenties, is often sheltered under the YA umbrella too. Alongside the wider publishing industry, YA has changed significantly over the years, reflecting broader shifts in society. What follows isn’t an analysis on talent or quality but content, as something about words in a book makes what’s written more real, valid, romantic, admirable, aspirational. Thus, the intent is to shed light on some of the many topic and imagery that are included in books for young readers. At risk that this won’t earn me any friends in publishing (at best), here’s some of what I’ve seen: DEVOLUTION OF YA FICTION Growth of the YA audience/genre is an objective benefit, logical as it is to increase methods for targeting potential customers. As YA has increased in business and position, its morphing into genre unto itself has attracted many adults readers. As a YA author, I read mainly within my market and see the appeal for adult readers considering how well the genre’s developed. The migration of older readers to YA is certainly one of the many reasons it’s been so adultified. Other factors include the poisonous stranglehold ideological tentacles have on many aspects of culture, entertainment, and education. The shifts adults have finally caught onto in adult fiction and film have infected literature for younger audiences, picture books through YA. A quick example, originally, romantic comedies centered on a man and woman who clashed at the outset, then eventually found their way to each other at the end. The story would build to some romantic declaration, then a kiss. Anyone who’s been watching knows that there’s now a whole lot of touching that happens before any romantic declaration occurs. Longer, more frequent kisses are only second to scenes of the pair sleeping together before deciding how they really feel about each other. All this is becoming commonplace in YA. What was once cutesy stories about a high school girl chasing a crush has now become stories featuring a whole lot of other firsts, even seconds, and then some. The devolution of YA is a result of purposeful normalization and reshaping of societal norms through manipulatively emotional appeals by writers, agents, and editors. On average, books from larger publishing houses take roughly eighteen months to two years to evolve from contract to product on the shelf. To say, story trends are set in motion well before their rise in popularity. Whatever the view on agents as gatekeepers to the larger houses, publishers only publish so many books in a year, an amount significantly less than all the people who want to be published. Hence, agents act as preliminary filters for editors, whittling down potential authors to relatively more manageable numbers. An agent must really believe in a writer and project to nab one of those few ...
    Afficher plus Afficher moins
    8 min
  • Because Could is Not Should, II (Essay)

    Because Could is Not Should, II (Essay)
    Nov 11 2025
    BECAUSE COULD IS NOT SHOULD, II Legally could is not morally should, and untangling the two dooms the latter. In the 1960s, Ralph Ginzburg’s conviction for promoting obscenity through his magazine of “literate eroticism” was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. He lost the case, but NPR isn’t the only one to have dubbed him a “free speech icon” in the historical record. Debatable if what he fought for is considered free speech, but he certainly shouldn’t be elevated as an icon for publishing obscene and erotic materials. The fight may seem silly to the generation of today, as there remain almost no limits on what can be published or filmed anymore. Worse, such materials no longer garner notice through delivery in the mail or ducking behind a curtain to a secluded section of a store, as all of it comes directly to a private handheld screen, or in an innocuous cardboard box, without anyone the wiser. A win for free speech, absolutists and liberally-minded say. In a strictly legal sense, perhaps, but standing upon the wreckage of society wrought by that supposed victory, debate is smithereened by the undeniable wrongness of the cost. That battle was a harbinger for the fate of the morality war, a war long since clouded by terms and rationalizations around unfettered freedoms and absolute legalities. Thus, the battles rage, but clarity, and thereby the war, can only be won with unyielding, unassailable adherence to the conviction that legally could is not morally should. Recent studies show that Gen Z wants to see less obscene material in books and entertainment, and though some may profess puzzlement at these results, they’re entirely logical. As they came to shelter under the aegis of free speech, travesties like obscenity, pornography, erotism began appearing everywhere, from big-budget Hollywood films to books for young readers. The current generation has been so inundated by the never-ending ticker tape parade celebrating the mainstreaming of immorality seeing it is no longer edgy but numbing and meaningless. Proliferation led to oversaturation, so much became too much. Then again, Gen Z’s preferences may not be anchored in morality, but rather in eventually rejecting something they saw everywhere, through easy, ready, and constant access. The mind may eventually forget, but the eyes cannot unsee. Thus, the role of the reliable moral guardrail, the knowing that could is not should. Consider the rebranding unrepentant individuals have welded upon the porn industry. Despite the absurdly high rate of suicides by women, and men, reports act surprised at such inevitabilities, describing several in a row as having shaken the industry to its core. They’ll speak about terrible treatment from an industry insensitive to costs of healthcare, mental health, abuse, harassment, exploitation, drug and alcohol use, and more, in addition to the self-destroying doubt that comes between signing one job and wondering when the next will knock. Never mind the unspoken truth that shame has a way of creeping in unrelenting when the day is quiet and the mind is unoccupied. As the average lifespan for a female so-called adult film entertainer is below forty, anyone with a functioning mind and intact moral compass knows that the fault is not in the treatment, but the industry’s very existence. And for those about to wail about free speech, expression, association, and the like, think very, very carefully about what it means that a woman might commit suicide after a career spanning about three years and two hundred films. Two hundred films. That’s, at minimum, two hundred partners in three years. You call this freedom, expression? You call this entertainment? You’re shaken by a rash of suicides? You think a soul dies just because the body no longer listens? No, you’ve fallen prey to thinking that legally could may as well be should. If absolutists and activists are so psychotic as to still support the allowance of this industry, if other nut jobs are adamant about rebranding so everyone can hide behind a false, brittle shield of self-worth, then society itself must make it unimaginable for the existence of such “entertainment” resulting in a multi-billion-dollar industry, let alone anyone willingly admitting to being part of it. Laws should make it impossible to profit, society should make it impossible to allow without honest, devastating shame. So brazen, so lost has the distinction become that the industry has award ceremonies. The industry has a hall of fame. The industry calls popular and “high performers” stars. Some are even married, which means their spouses allow them to participate in this so-called “work.” As if there never was a case in the history of man of a job negatively impacting a worker. Mainstream film isn’t much better, which could be why Gen Z is rejecting its excess entirely. Mainstream film also features nudity and eroticism and essentially pornography by ...
    Afficher plus Afficher moins
    8 min
  • Because Could is Not Should, I (Essay)

    Because Could is Not Should, I (Essay)
    Sep 17 2025
    BECAUSE COULD IS NOT SHOULD A man knows the difference between when women could and when women should. Recently, I had a conversation with someone about women serving in the army. The contention was that if a female can, then why shouldn’t she? Say the fitness tests didn’t have lower standards for women, say all qualifications were the same, if a woman passes them all, if a woman proves her strength and ability and agility to be on par with men, then let her serve. After all, she could. Women could serve in the army, perhaps, but not in combat. In general, they don’t actually have the physical fitness to meet the same standards as men. They don’t actually have the same all-around military skillset as men. They don’t have the strength to drag a wounded man to safety. They don’t have the stamina to hike miles and miles and miles with dozens and dozens of pounds of equipment on their backs. They don’t have the same sort of tactical minds and strategic ways of thinking. Perhaps some of this could be taught, but the mindsets are fundamentally different at their core. But what if there was a woman who could? If a kid was hurt, a woman could carry him miles and miles on her back. Even pregnant, if needed. Women could, and if they want to, they should. No. No. Could is not should. While it’s true there are some very strong women, and while it’s true that women have accomplished great feats of strength, these are anomalies most often occurring in heightened or extreme circumstances, where there’s a danger to life or a focused determination arising from a very specific need to get something very vital done. It’s not proof of enduring, reliable strength. It’s not proof of consistency. It’s certainly not proof that women should serve in combat, and everything else that entails, no matter their physical fitness. Follow this argument long enough and someone will inevitably bring up the female sharpshooters who served in the Russian army during World War II. True, women can often shoot equal to, even better than, men, but that does not mean women should serve as snipers in war. A job which requires endless hours of stillness, ducking bullets, and relieving yourself in the woods or plastic bottles. Is this what we envision for women? Is this the greatest they can achieve? Becoming predatory, patient, precise, hardened killers? Considering how men struggle with PTSD, why would we willingly subject women to it? Oh, and as for those roughly two thousand female snipers that Russia sent to war, only about five hundred made it back. In body, at least. Men have one job, one primary job, and that is to ensure women are nowhere near where bullets are flying. Unfortunately, women get caught in warzones, women get caught in terrible situations, but to deliberately send them out to serve in combat, to feed the beast of war, the thought should be too abhorrent to contemplate past its formation. Because could is not should. Recently, I was helping to clean up after a social event. I was carrying a bag of garbage in a box out to the front of the house. It wasn’t heavy, and I carried it just fine. I passed from the kitchen through the living room, where a few young men sat on the couch. “Don’t worry,” I joked to the sitting men, “I got it.” They glanced up, saw that indeed the box was no issue, then went back to whatever they were doing. And why not? I was older, competent, a woman carrying out the garbage, but a woman who could carry it after all. Obviously, they were not needed. A couple passed by, herding their two young kids to the car. The wife walked past first, saw what I was carrying, then turned to her husband and told him to take the box. He did so willingly, not because I couldn’t, but because I shouldn’t. So even though it wasn’t heavy, and even though I could carry it, I didn’t argue. I let him take it from me because he should, and if I would fight it, I would mold another man for that line on the couch. A while ago, I was carrying bags into a local center. A man who knew me since birth was coming down the stairs. I wasn’t struggling, they weren’t that heavy. He was several decades older, but he took them out of my hands, because “a lady doesn’t carry bags.” Maybe it’s because he grew up in the Midwest. Maybe it’s because he grew up right. Maybe it’s because he grew up before the hammerings of women and society effectively obliterated the distinction between could and should. For we’ve lost the ability to discern the difference and with it we’ve lost something vital in how men treat women. Because men have incessantly been harangued for holding doors open because women are also strong, because men have been told not to be heroes because women do not need saving, because men have been yelled into accepting that women can do it themselves for we are just as competent as any man, if not more. Truth is, even where the data clearly states the facts to be ...
    Afficher plus Afficher moins
    8 min
  • Make G-d Mainstream Again (Essay)

    Make G-d Mainstream Again (Essay)
    Aug 13 2025
    https://eltenenbaum.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Make-G-d-Mainstream-Again.mp3 MAKE G-D MAINSTREAM AGAIN The surgical removal of G-d from society must be undone with deliberate, persistent reintegration. As the academic year shifted to summer, focus on books in libraries and curriculums likewise shifted to summer reading lists. As an author, I’ve taken up some summer reading of my own, mainly used, bargain-priced books published over a decade ago. From the markings, many are former library books, since replaced with some of the books many parents are concerned about today. Without rehashing what’s been spoken of many times before—though also not quite thoroughly enough—in regard to current books for young readers, I’ve noticed something about some of these summer reads beyond the more obvious choices of subject matter and protagonists. While many of the changes in children, teen, even adult, literature is quite clear from covers and blurbs, subtler changes were also implemented in the same time frame, ones less easily charted than bestselling genres, fads, and the like. I’ve written before about the prevailing lack of historical fiction for young readers, and perusals of the options on hand for my summer reading has only further confirmed its current, glaring absence. There’s something else, however, something connected yet even more important that should not be overlooked. It’s something that probably doesn’t appear in studies or graphs or sales numbers, but detected only by those who look for it. Namely, and perhaps unsurprisingly, the removal of G-d from books for young readers, and adults too. If you’re an avid reader, you may have noticed this, but only now realize how prevalent the practice truly is. Alternatively, this assertion may seem baseless, as numerous books among the highly popular fantasy genre, for example, mention religion plenty. Except, look again. More often than not these books speak of gods not G-d. Where there is monotheistic religion, it’s often portrayed as corrupt or at odds with the celebrated science or magic of the day. It’s backward, antithetical to progress and change, too politically powerful, home to a secret society of assassins, and many other things which don’t include honest, faithful service. So, while there may be religion in books, how is it really portrayed? While that aspect of world building isn’t difficult to notice, what it used to be only recently struck so potently because the mention of prayer to a single G-d appeared in a book that wasn’t purely historical, where such reference could be relegated to accuracy as compared to modern cultural norms. The book for teens was fantasy, had dragons, yet the jailed, despondent protagonist kneeled in the dirt and prayed to G-d. Significantly, the book was from a major publisher, not a specifically religious one. To say, there was a time when mention of G-d in a mainstream narrative was commonplace, because it reflected a time when readers lived in a society where adherence to Him was commonplace too. An editor once asked after my adamance to include a clear monotheistic belief in one of my fantasy series. The books didn’t focus on any particular religion, but were particular to mention Heaven as a Divine reference. Bear in mind, the question was from one practicing Jew to another, so there was no anti-religious sentiment at its base. I think the question was both warning and curiosity. Warning that perhaps the inclusion was moving from present to preachy, and curiosity about why monotheistic Divinity needed to be so specifically noted, particularly in a fantasy realm. The answer is a very simple and profound truth, because even in fantasy, there is no world without G-d. This adamant assertion was unintentionally tested when I sat down to write a book that was largely historical fiction, albeit with a touch of fantasy. The book is set in ancient Egypt, a land of many, many gods, so a protagonist with pagan belief’s wouldn’t just be expected but also historically accurate. Except, I couldn’t do it. No sooner had I begun to research the Egyptian pantheon, then I knew there was no way my fictional character living in a fictionalized historical setting would pay any sort of obeisance to this plethora of deities. Because, endeavoring to make belief in G-d real down to the bones means that even in fiction, there is no world without G-d. A number of religious authors write fiction for mainstream publishers. Some can be noticed for their cleaner books, and some are noticed for Who they choose to thank in their acknowledgements. Academically curious, I once asked one of the latter about the religion she’d crafted in her fantasy series, about the many gods in her made-up world in relation to the single One she believes is in the real one. Her answer was a bit disjointed, and it was undoubtedly because she’d never been asked that before. Characters, plot, vision for her series, but ...
    Afficher plus Afficher moins
    8 min