<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
	<channel>
		<title>First Things RSS Feed - Carol Iannone</title>
		<link>https://www.firstthings.com/author/carol-iannone</link>
		<atom:link href="https://www.firstthings.com/rss/author/carol-iannone" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<description></description>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<copyright>Copyright 2025 First Things. All Rights Reserved.</copyright>
		<managingEditor>ft@firstthings.com (The Editors)</managingEditor>
		<webMaster>ft@firstthings.com (The Editors)</webMaster>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jan 2025 16:56:05 -0500</pubDate>
		
		<ttl>60</ttl>

		<item>
			<title>Donne Undone</title>
			<guid>https://www.firstthings.com/article/2000/02/donne-undone</guid>
			<link>https://www.firstthings.com/article/2000/02/donne-undone</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2000 00:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
			
			<description><![CDATA[<p> However much traditional standards are leveled in our late democratic society, American theater will persist in challenging putatively oppressive values and the figures who enforce them.&nbsp;
</p> <p><em><a href="https://www.firstthings.com/article/2000/02/donne-undone">Continue Reading </a> &raquo;</em></p>]]></description>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>A Third Way?</title>
			<guid>https://www.firstthings.com/article/1999/02/a-third-way</guid>
			<link>https://www.firstthings.com/article/1999/02/a-third-way</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 1999 00:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
			
			<description><![CDATA[<p> 
<em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Summer-Gods-Americas-Continuing-Religion-ebook/dp/B005ERZLGC?tag=firstthings20-20" target="_blank">Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America&rsquo;s Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion</a>  <br></em>
  
<span class="small-caps">by edward j. larson <br>basic, 318 pages, $25, $14.95</span>
</p> <p><em><a href="https://www.firstthings.com/article/1999/02/a-third-way">Continue Reading </a> &raquo;</em></p>]]></description>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>The Truth About Inherit the Wind</title>
			<guid>https://www.firstthings.com/article/1997/02/002-the-truth-about-inherit-the-wind--36</guid>
			<link>https://www.firstthings.com/article/1997/02/002-the-truth-about-inherit-the-wind--36</link>
			<pubDate>Sat, 01 Feb 1997 00:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
			
			<description><![CDATA[<p> In the middle of the hot summer of 1925, the famous &ldquo;Monkey Trial&rdquo; took place in Dayton, Tennessee, a small town of about eighteen hundred people in the Cumberland Valley. A young teacher named John Scopes stood accused of violating the Butler Act, a measure passed earlier that year to restrict the teaching of evolution in state-funded schools. The defense featured the famous attorney Clarence Darrow, and the prosecution starred the celebrated orator, populist, and three-time Democratic presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan. Nearly two hundred reporters descended upon the town, including H. L. Mencken of the Baltimore  
<em> Evening Sun </em>
  (which helped underwrite Scopes&rsquo; defense). Newspapers and magazines carried innumerable articles and cartoons on the case, and telegraph operators wired stories to Europe and Australia. For the first time news of an American trial was nationally broadcast by radio, while thousands of people came to Dayton itself to take in what became a virtual carnival, complete with sideshows.
</p> <p><em><a href="https://www.firstthings.com/article/1997/02/002-the-truth-about-inherit-the-wind--36">Continue Reading </a> &raquo;</em></p>]]></description>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title> The Last Temptation Reconsidered </title>
			<guid>https://www.firstthings.com/article/1996/02/the-last-temptation-reconsidered</guid>
			<link>https://www.firstthings.com/article/1996/02/the-last-temptation-reconsidered</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 1996 00:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
			
			<description><![CDATA[<p>When presidential candidate Bob Dole castigated the entertainment industry for excessive and graphic use of violence, it was only the latest salvo in a culture war that has been raging for some time. Arguments over government funding of offensive art, renewed efforts to restrict pornography, initiatives to curb violence on television, and attention to smut in cyberspace all indicate a backlash against the ongoing &ldquo;liberalization&rdquo; of our allegedly puritanical society, manifest from the founding of  
<em> Playboy </em>
  to the controversy over Vladimir Nabokov&rsquo;s  
<em> Lolita </em>
 . Though the critic Simon Karlinsky declared that the publication of Lolita signalled at last the &ldquo;collapse of the Victorian moralistic censorship that had persisted in Western countries till the end of the 1950s,&rdquo; it appears his pronouncement might have been premature.
</p> <p><em><a href="https://www.firstthings.com/article/1996/02/the-last-temptation-reconsidered">Continue Reading </a> &raquo;</em></p>]]></description>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Legitimate Mothers</title>
			<guid>https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/legitimate-mothers</guid>
			<link>https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/legitimate-mothers</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 01 Aug 1995 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
			
			<description><![CDATA[<p> Contemporary feminism began some decades ago with what Betty Friedan called the &ldquo;feminine mystique&rdquo;-the notion that women had been trapped into thinking of full-time wife-and-mothering as their path to fulfillment. The feminine mystique went on to become the defining and energizing idea of the feminist movement, as outrage over the quantities of female talent being squandered in kitchens and scout dens took hold. In the generations after Friedan, many women would define themselves in opposition to their mothers&rsquo; experience of baking cookies and serving tea with a degree from, say, Wellesley. 
<br>
  
<br>
 A Wellesley graduate who famously avoided this ignominious fate, Hillary Rodham Clinton, remarked feelingly on a recent PBS documentary that, due to restrictive definitions of femininity, America had lamentably lost the services of untold numbers of women as doctors and lawyers and judges and teachers and so on. Perhaps only the First Lady could make feminism sound like a selfless desire to serve, but what is more important in her remarks is that she spoke as though every woman had the ability to be a professional, and as though only professional women counted. 
<br>
  
<br>
 At the time of the publication of  
<em> The Feminine Mystique </em>
  in 1963, there seemed to be so many Seven Sister graduates up to their elbows in cake mix that the many women who had taken a basic satisfaction in motherhood were overlooked and forgotten-especially women from that class for whom the alternative was being not a doctor or a lawyer or a judge but, say, a machinist. The movement seemed driven by the discontent of overeducated, upper-middle-class women and their angry daughters determined not to repeat their mothers&rsquo; mistakes. 
<br>
  
<br>
 Some commentators anticipated that a division would arise between women who wanted motherhood and women who did not, but it turns out that motherhood was not to be left behind in the new feminist model. A division developed instead between the rapidly receding ideal of motherhood as a primary activity and the accelerating insistence on motherhood as one among many &ldquo;life experiences.&rdquo; 
<br>
  
<br>
 It seems necessary to bring all this to light now because, while the insistence on motherhood as a life experience seems to be in the ascendancy (guiding all kinds of public choices and official decisions, from work policy to day care to welfare), the rapidly receding ideal of motherhood as a primary task may not have entirely flickered out, particularly among the nonprofessional classes. This still-surviving ideal of motherhood needs to be considered before we can fully understand some of the chronic problems we face at present-especially the problem of single mothers receiving public assistance. 
<br>
  
<br>
 The professional class&rsquo;s attitude toward these women has routinely been that no young woman would choose motherhood (especially early in life, and especially without a husband) if she had other options. We commonly hear that these &ldquo;children having children,&rdquo; or even &ldquo;babies having babies,&rdquo; are without hope-prompted to pregnancy by the bleakness and emptiness of their lives. A child at least gives them &ldquo;someone to love,&rdquo; something to live for, a way to be needed and appreciated. 
<br>
  
<br>
 This is no doubt what inspired a recent experimental program for young mothers called New Chance, which served 1,408 women in ten states, and which, according to the  
<em> New York Times </em>
 , &ldquo;showered&rdquo; its participants with education and social services. The program was closely watched by welfare experts since its basic inspiration seemed close to many Clinton Administration initiatives. 
<br>
  
<br>
 An article in the  
<em> Christian Science Monitor </em>
 , written at an earlier stage of the program, gave details of the services offered and suggested that it was yielding some modest successes. The young mothers, aged sixteen to twenty-two, came to community centers five days a week, from nine until three. Their children generally received on-site supervision and health care. In the mornings the women studied toward their high school equivalency degrees; in the afternoons they received counseling on careers, family planning, parenting, and child development. Later in their programs, they were given training in job skills, internships related to their career choices, and further education. Each had a personal case worker to provide individual support and direction. 
<br>
  
<br>
 A later article in the  
<em> Times </em>
 , however, tucked away in the bottom corner of page sixteen, reported that the program had at last been determined to have failed. The experiment had &ldquo;no effect in moving [the mothers] from welfare into the job market,&rdquo; the  
<em> Times </em>
  reported. &ldquo;After eighteen months, those who joined the program were no more likely to be off welfare or in a job than a similar group that received no services,&rdquo; and about &ldquo;80 percent of the mothers from both groups were still collecting welfare.&rdquo; The program did succeed in getting more women in the test group than in the control group to complete their high school equivalency diplomas, but this turned out to be meaningless. Both groups were still reading below eighth-grade level at the end of the eighteen months (which perhaps tells us more than we wanted to know about the value of the high school equivalency degree). And, most importantly, 57 percent of those in the test group were pregnant again after the eighteen months, while 53 percent of those in the control group were. 
<br>
  
<br>
 One reason for the failure of programs like New Chance may be that the women involved do not see motherhood through the eyes of our national elite. They see that having a child may actually be something primarily and immediately desirable, not something to avoid or postpone-not a make-do out of desperation, not an inconvenience that interferes with an education, not something to do while also advancing a career, not one of a number of life experiences, but a primary experience. 
<br>
  
<br>
 We used to see public service advertisements that tried to discourage illegitimacy by portraying the frustration and loneliness of the single mother, but these young women know better. Single motherhood is an established institution in our society by now; these women have numerous friends who have had babies out of wedlock, and they do not quite see the awful, hopeless, dead-end entrapment of public lore. If they did, they perhaps would be more careful, but what they see instead is many young women managing, more or less, and probably enjoying, more or less, the experience of motherhood. This may be the reason we no longer see the kind of public service campaigns that we used to; to those in the know they would look as antiquated as the old VD films that were once shown to GIs. 
<br>
  
<br>
 Of course we have all heard the discouraging statistics connecting single motherhood to poverty, crime, limited education, and unemployment. But these statistics do not reveal a life of total desperation in each individual case. While single motherhood is a bad idea overall, it is dishonest for welfare reform critics to keep up the fiction that it is only embraced out of hopelessness or despair, or that it can only be countered by massive public programs offering greater &ldquo;opportunity.&rdquo; In many city neighborhoods one can see briskly attentive single mothers and their offspring, shopping, lunching out, playing in the park, walking home from school, visiting the library. Recently, a number of unmarried women on public assistance (many of them already mothers several times over) managed to obtain fertility treatments on Medicaid. A news article told of the &ldquo;joy&rdquo; felt by a single mother when she heard that her teenage son&rsquo;s girlfriend was pregnant, and a husband and wife pastoral team with a radio ministry had to give a lecture on the inappropriateness of baby showers for single Christian women. 
<br>
  
<br>
 To onlookers consulting the statistics, the situation of single mothers may seem hopeless, even disastrous. But to these women, it is a real life they are living, and not some apology for a life. In fact, compared to real motherhood, the New Chance model of studying, laboring, work shopping, interning, skills training, career counseling, etc., all under the watchful eyes of a social worker, probably looks a little grim. Even &ldquo;wanting someone to love&rdquo; is not as desperate or illegitimate a reason for having children as it may at first sound. &ldquo;I look at my children and I know I gave something to the world,&rdquo; a welfare mother told the  
<em> Times </em>
 . (The situation of the children may be a different story, but that is not what we are asked to consider by those who want us to pity the women&rsquo;s lives.) 
<br>
  
<br>
 Even so, women in the professional classes, confronted with a young single mother, imagine that the only life worth living is one very much like their own-that to live without the prospects of a major career, to give birth without completing an education, to rear a child without setting up a college fund and providing violin lessons, is to face a void. But this is simply untrue. A great many people manage to enjoy life with much less than all that, and do not feel nearly as sorry for themselves as others do for them. 
<br>
  
<br>
 None of this is to suggest that single motherhood is a good thing; in fact, its escalation is an alarming sign of how far the institutions and civilizational mechanisms of our society have been destroyed by the forces of &ldquo;liberation&rdquo; in recent decades. But the ascendant trivialization and denigration of motherhood by the professional classes keeps us from seeing not how &ldquo;hopeless&rdquo; these lives are, but, relatively speaking, how gratifying. For many women being a mother can suffice, despite what all the feminist maximizers, actualizers, and promoters of female potential and absolute self-fulfillment may think. 
<br>
  
<br>
 If it is true that illegitimacy is spreading through all levels of the population, perhaps one of the reasons is that state-supported single motherhood has been for some time the one situation in which women can actually be relatively relaxed about putting motherhood first. The idea of a nonworking wife has already become unthinkable for many middle-class men. &ldquo;Welfare Mothers Have a Big Job To Do Raising Their Children,&rdquo; ran a defense of welfare opposing the idea that mothers on public assistance should be made to work. Who makes such an apologia for the harried middle-class mom, &ldquo;juggling,&rdquo; &ldquo;balancing,&rdquo; and &ldquo;having it all&rdquo;? Our society should rethink its ideas about motherhood, if it is serious about reducing illegitimacy. Come to think of it, it should rethink its ideas about motherhood, period. 
<br>
  
<br>
  
<em> Carol Iannone teaches at the Gallatin School of Individualized Study at New York University. </em>
  
</p> <p><em><a href="https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/legitimate-mothers">Continue Reading </a> &raquo;</em></p>]]></description>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title> On the Death of Literature</title>
			<guid>https://www.firstthings.com/article/1992/10/on-the-death-of-literature</guid>
			<link>https://www.firstthings.com/article/1992/10/on-the-death-of-literature</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 1992 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
			
			<description><![CDATA[<p>  
<em> <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Death-Literature-Professor-Alvin-Kernan/dp/0300047835/?tag=firstthings20-20" target="_blank">The Death Of Literature</a> </em>
  
<span class="small-caps"><br> 
by Alvin Kernan <br> 
Yale University Press, 240 pages, $22.50</span>
 
</p> <p><em><a href="https://www.firstthings.com/article/1992/10/on-the-death-of-literature">Continue Reading </a> &raquo;</em></p>]]></description>
		</item>
			</channel>
</rss>
