The story, written up in The American Prospect, points out that the 1970s feminist attitudes ensconced at Smith are quaint by today’s standards. While an earlier generation of feminists accepted psychological identity as integrated with bodily form, today’s feminists are increasingly strict mind-body dualists, holding that the mind determines gender entirely apart from biology—a ghost in the body’s machine.

The details, as with all such matters, are complicated: Wong may be admitted to Smith if she checks off “female” on her application. But Wong identified as male when applying for federal financial aid, meaning Smith would risk its status as a historical women’s institution by admitting her. And the only recourse the feds will recognize to amend her aid application is gender-reassignment surgery.

The article’s author had this to say of the generation gap amongst feminists, including those who denied Wong’s college application. It would seem the movement has a longstanding crisis of identity-acceptance—one that pales in comparison to the discrimination they attribute to the conservative movement:

But despite their commitment to gender equality, many feminist institutions have long had trouble seeing trans women as part of the movement. Cisgender feminists of the 1970s often viewed their trans sisters with suspicion, as though they were men in dresses trying to invade “real” womanhood. Some women’s centers, rape-support organizations, and lesbian-rights groups have gone as far as expelling trans women from their midst. The legendary Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival has always barred trans women from entry (and still does). Second-wave thought leaders like Mary Daly called them “Frankensteins” and in her book, The Transsexual Empire, radical anti-trans feminist Janice Raymond accuses trans women of “appropriating” the female body and many other much less pleasant things. After decades of protest and education, many cis feminists and their organizations have “evolved” on trans rights, but it’s not hard to find Raymond’s heirs active today, even in the younger generations. Wong’s case clearly illuminates how quick some feminists still default to some very conservative, essentialist beliefs about gender when it suits them.

If you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, “this is my friend,” but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend. And that’s, it seems to me . . . what supporters of Proposition 8 are saying here. You’re—all you’re interested in is the label and you insist on changing the definition of the label.

One commentator took immediate offense at the analogy, baffling at the comparison of marriage to childhood friendship. He further pointed out that redefining marriage is a matter of permitting, not compelling, as in Roberts’ hypothetical. But this, like so many other cases in public debate, misunderstands the function of analogies—to point out an illustrative common property of two ideas, not to compare the substance of the ideas in their entirety.

If I, for instance, claimed that my friend’s unsuccessful attempts at rock climbing made him look like a “fish out of water,” it would be absurd to conclude my analogy was invidious because it compared my friend to a fish.

Roberts was, of course, comparing an instance of redefining friendship to the redefinition of marriage. If we were to supply the label “friendship” to something which just is not friendship, we would commit a logical offense, reappropriating a meaningful term to an object it does not suit. The relevant point in Roberts’ analogy is its anti-voluntarism: Marriage is not just whatever we say it is, and we cannot furtively repurpose marriage while pretending we are merely expanding the use of a label.

Mistaking analogies has become familiar in the marriage debate. The argument has often been made that if we establish a blanket right to be married in whatever fashion we see fit, there would seem to be no justice in prohibiting group marriage or other plural marital arrangements. Instead of seeing the analogies amongst revisions of marriage that alter its central properties, interlocutors have often claimed that traditionalists simply compare same-sex unions to polygamy and its unique demerits.

A few favorites:

Needless to say

Midwife (as a verb that does not involve childbirth)

A rare window (unless we’re talking about a real window that is in fact rare)

Rorschach test (unless it is a real one)

Palpable sense of relief

Gestalt/Zeitgeist

Remains to be seen

Double down

Rose from obscurity (in journalism, all rises are from obscurity)

Dizzying array (in journalism, all arrays make one dizzy)

Withering criticism (in journalism, all criticism is withering)

Predawn raid (in journalism, all raids are predawn)

Dons the mantle of

Growing body of evidence

Tapped (as substitute for “selected” or “appointed”)

Ignominious end

The Church confounded media narratives by electing him, and the crowd in St. Peter’s Square this evening was electrified to see the fumata was white (it initially looked black) after just a day and a half of conclave deliberations. Pope Francis made an incredible first impression. A dark horse prospect and unknown to many in the crowd, more than a few were struck by his statuesque pose after emerging on the balcony above us. A few waves to the crowd at first, then stillness. One can only imagine Francis spent these first few moments in in prayer.

Unlike the public greetings the past several popes have delivered, Pope Francis conducted his appearance as something close to a liturgy. As much as a new pope can do, he drew himself little attention, wasting not a moment before asking those assembled to pray the Lord’s Prayer, a Hail Mary, and a Gloria for the emeritus pontiff, Benedict XVI. The same sense of conscientious attention accompanied his granting of a papal indulgence.

His extemporaneous Italian impressed Roman natives, at least a few of whom shouted “che bell’Italiano!” at his opening phrases. Those words, one should note, were as serene and tranquil—even easygoing—as might ever be expected of a man just elected pope. The papal office has evidently not caused him to forget he is a pastor.

Then came the entirely unexpected. Still observing a liturgical form of sorts, Francis bowed to the crowd and asked for our prayers for him in silence. The requested silence came immediately—a stunning, astounding silence from the deafening shouts just moments before. Everyone hushed without exception, most certainly taken aback by the gesture. “I came not to be served, but to serve,” as the scripture goes.

Many possibilities await the new pope, from revival of the Jesuit order’s original luster to a bolstering of Christian renewal in its most rapidly expanding regions—the lands south of the equator far removed from western Europe.

Pope Francis’ parting words came quickly, his appearance being surprisingly brief in retrospect. “Brothers and sisters, I will be leaving. Thank you for your welcome. Pray for me and we will see one another soon. Tomorrow I want to go and pray to the Madonna that she may protect Rome. Good night and rest well.”

Already, then, Pope Francis is following the lead Pope Benedict XVI established as he departed office. Just a few short weeks ago at his last public Mass, then Pope Benedict quieted the applauding crowd to a whisper, saying, “Thank you, now let us return to prayer.” Just as Benedict resolved to spend the rest of his life in a return to prayer and contemplation, Pope Francis has begun his pontificate with an undeniable focus on prayer—for his predecessor, for the guardianship of the Church, and most strikingly, in his acknowledgement of dependence on the Christian faithful’s prayers for him.

For the small percentage they comprise of Catholics worldwide, Italians are disproportionately represented in the Roman Curia and ecclesial governance more broadly, not to mention their long history of native-born popes. And while the last memory of an Italian pope is now three decades old, today’s populus Romanus has not let go of its special concern for the Roman pontiff. If the Corriere della Sera‘s polling can be trusted, a strong current of Italians (it claims nearly forty percent) has expressed admiration for Boston’s Cardinal Sean O’Malley among the field of papabile cardinals. Along with his pastoral and theological strengths are qualities that resonate profoundly with the loyalties and hopes of many Italians. He is a Capuchin Franciscan like the nation’s beloved Padre Pio. He speaks Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese flawlessly, and strikes most as humble and consummately apolitical.

Today O’Malley offered Mass at his titular church, Santa Maria della Vittoria, the Roman landmark famed as the home of Bernini’s masterwork, St. Theresa in Ecstasy. The church has received much attention of late, if perhaps for indecorous reasons, being a stop on the city’s Angels and Demons tour. But at least Dan Brown’s fantasy manages to commit the irony of bringing tourists into churches instead of away from them.

The aged Carmelite friars who serve as the church’s caretakers excitedly said they had never in recent memory witnessed a crowd of today’s size. Perhaps forty print journalists, cameramen, and reporters packed into the transepts of the diminutive space, one of them having to be pulled away to allow O’Malley to process to the altar. A large congregation also attended, most of them natives, judging by their laughter when O’Malley joked in Italian of his desire to take the Bernini statue back to Boston. The press were largely Italian as well, save a number from Boston news outlets.

As he has indicated repeatedly in interviews, O’Malley bristles at the idea of his cause for Petrine ministry, often averring his desire not to waste his return flight ticket to Boston once the conclave is concluded. Of course, the fervor among Italians amounts to little more than speculation, and speculation can be a very idle pastime. But the excitement may have a dimension one can call proper and holy as well. Far from imposing political categories on the papal election, many admire O’Malley not simply for what he can do, but for who he is, and the sense he emanates of being a Christian disciple.

Of more frivolous note, it is worth noting that Cardinal O’Malley (one Italian priest insisted he take the name Pope Francis I) would be the first bearded pope in three centuries. Pope Innocent XII was the last, sporting a moustache and goatee. Still more tongue-in-cheek, one wonders if this fact might warm Eastern churches to overtures of reconciliation with the West, given that the question of bearded clergy served to sour the cultural divide that accompanied the Great Schism. Perhaps more a propos, one wonders about the great possibilities for an Irish-descended pope to inspire reconciliation and calm in the troubled ecclesial life of Ireland and Scotland.

As ever, the Church will decide.

SHUCHMAN–Amos, of New York, on February 1, 2013. Beloved and caring husband of Alice Shuchman for 51 years, father of Daniel (Lori Lesser) and Nina (Brian Roth), grandfather of Jacob, Sarah, Aaron and Ariela. Born in Tel Aviv in 1928, fought bravely in the Haganah. Loved his family, his birth and adopted countries, finance, skiing, opera, ballet and biking in Central Park. Loved everything about NYC, except the New York Times. Services at Beth El Cemetery (Or Zarua section), Paramus, NJ, Sunday at 11am. Memorial contributions to a charity of your choice. His fearless heart still beats within all of us. Shalom, Saba.

Via Nathaniel Botwinick at The Corner

… priests are the caretakers of the Church’s artistic patrimony. Each pastor is ostensibly the curator of a small art gallery as well as the overseer of a physical plant which needs constant maintenance, repair, and additions. Then there are the lucky few, or perhaps not, who have the opportunity to build anew. Building a church is a grand undertaking which includes thousands of decisions from hiring the right architect to raising millions of dollars to critiquing the statue of the Blessed Virgin to deciding whether the door hardware should be bronze or polished brass. And it all has to be done in addition to the full time job of running the parish.

Given that many pastors have to be shepherd, curator, head of the physical plant, chairman of the music and education programs, and chief development officer, does it make sense that they should have some training in art and architecture?

After an introduction, the applicant went on to write the following:

I am writing you to inquire about a possible summer internship in your office. I am aware it is highly unusual for undergraduates from average universities like [redacted] to intern at [redacted], but nevertheless I was hoping you might make an exception. I am extremely interested in investment banking and would love nothing more than to learn under your tutelage. I have no qualms about fetching coffee, shining shoes or picking up laundry, and will work for next to nothing. In all honesty, I just want to be around professionals in the industry and gain as much knowledge as I can.

I won’t waste your time inflating my credentials, throwing around exaggerated job titles, or feeding you a line . . . about how my past experiences and skill set align perfectly for an investment banking internship. The truth is I have no unbelievably special skills or genius eccentricities, but I do have a near perfect GPA and will work hard for you. I’ve interned for Merrill Lynch in the Wealth Management Division and taken an investment banking class at [redacted], for whatever that is worth.

In the ensuing exchanges amongst the bankers charged with vetting the candidate, the mood was decidedly in favor of granting an interview.

But as far as one can tell, pet obituaries have remained unexplored territory—until now. Singapore’s largest newspaper, The Straits Times, will soon publish remembrances of deceased pets (photographs are allowed). And no mention of pet veneration can go without a word about what makes it attractive—pets satisfy the nurturing urge without nearly as much fuss as children:

The decision to market obituaries to pet owners in tiny Singapore, one of the world’s richest countries in terms of per capita income, comes as wealthy Asians have fewer kids and shower more attention on pets.

Research firm Euromonitor, in a recent report on Singapore’s pet care market, said people are spending more on premium pet food as well as accessories such as strollers for dogs and designer pet clothing.

“Many pet owners are increasingly treating their pets as household members and are therefore pampering their pets with luxurious food, products and services, just as they would dote on their family,” it said.

One might further observe that the more we broaden marriage’s public meaning, the thinner it becomes for individuals, signifying less and less of distinctive value. An article in The Atlantic last week lends one such vision of marriage, with its public meaning lost in a cloud of private objectives. Millie Kerr coyly wonders why we don’t extend marital recognition to single persons:

Back in 2003, Sex and the City identified a cruel reality about single life: There’s no single-person’s equivalent of a wedding—a time when people travel from afar to bring you gifts and toast your life decisions.

Carrie Bradshaw said, “If you are single after graduation, there isn’t one occasion when people celebrate you” besides birthdays, which we all enjoy.

Despite a proliferation of single adults, little has changed since that episode aired nearly a decade ago: trips are not planned when we’re promoted at work, nor crystal glassware gifted when we buy our first homes. It seems that milestone celebrations are still reserved for couples and families.

It shouldn’t be that way, of course. NYU professor Eric Klinenberg wrote Going Solo: The Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone to tell “the story of the biggest modern social change that we’ve yet to identify: the extraordinary rise of living alone.” Marriage rates have reached a record low, and adults are generally marrying and having children later in life. As a result, single people can expect later (and fewer) unions. But societal traditions are lagging behind this shift.

When will barometers of celebration reflect the growing number of singletons?

If recent conceptions of marriage have already pitched our ideas about monogamy, permanence, and gender complementarity, there seems to be no independent reason against excising marriage’s essential orientation toward the “other” as well. But if marriage’s contours are flattened such that the institution no longer involves a union, it seems fair to assume it no longer has any real meaning at all.

Perhaps Kerr and others who’ve entertained single-party marriage are tongue-in-cheek. But the reasons she posits for marital recognition in the first place reflect the fundamentally postmodern prerogatives of the marriage revisionist movement. Kerr is far from the only writer whose intuited vision of marriage is, as she says, “a time when people travel from afar to bring you gifts and toast your life decisions.”

This is the sort of thing that makes priests and pastors wince. Many of them, I suspect, would recommend against marriage for a person whose first aim was to be celebrated for reaching a milestone. (Jennifer Roback Morse has elsewhere argued the importance of distinguishing such private reasons for marriage from the more essential public ones.)

There’s a certain sadness to all this, as well. That a generation of singles has been left to wonder whether marriage is primarily about affirmation indicates a vocational insecurity not to be taken for granted.