Every year, I look forward to the annual survey of college freshman that reveals their attitudes on a wide variety of issues and tracks the trends of nearly 50 years of accumulated data from nine million college students.  The lead author this year, psychologist Jean Twenge, summarized the 2013 findings with a stinging rebuke of today’s college freshmen, describing their “tendency toward narcissism” and noting that the trend line on narcissism has increased “30 percent over the past thirty-odd years.”

In a recent Fox News analysis of this year’s American Freshman Survey, Dr. Keith Ablow, a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team, was not surprised at the findings on narcissism. He described today’s college students as “faux celebrities” who are “the equivalent of lead actors in their own fictionalized life stories.”  Dr. Ablow has written much over the past few years about what he calls “the toxic psychological impact of media and technology on children, adolescents and young adults.”  He has long noted the dramatic discrepancy between the dismal test scores of contemporary young people and their self-perceptions of being “gifted and driven to succeed.”

I found Dr. Ablow’s explanation and analysis of the American Freshman Survey fascinating as well as very, very troubling.  He blames social media and all the technology tools and games for creating false images and expectations.  He claims that social media and technology are “the psychological drugs of the 21st Century and they are getting our sons and daughters very sick, indeed.”

For instance, he is troubled by Facebook where “young people can fool themselves into thinking they have hundreds or thousands of ‘friends.’”  Worse, they have absolute control over the medium: they can “delete unflattering comments,” “block those who disagree with them,” choose only the most “flattering, sexy or funny photographs” to project just the image that they want others to see, and “publicly connect” to a wide variety of celebrities by simply clicking “like.”  He didn’t mention the indiscriminate, often quite damning, posts that some youth are putting out there for everyone, including future employers, to see.

Twitter, too, has problems, according to Dr. Ablow.  Teens and young adults can have “followers” and “fans,” enhancing their “faux celebrity.”  Computer games create the illusion of “being something that they are not.”  Likewise, reality television fosters “self-involvement and self-love” that, though fictionalized, can seem real and/or normal.

Dr. Ablow ties all these influences on our teens with the political correctness of handing out trophies to losing athletic teams and inflating academic grades.  Add manic dancing, too-loud music, drugs like Adderall, and gigantic energy drinks into the mix and it’s no wonder we have a generation of youth with major psychological problems.

Warning the public that “false pride can never be sustained,” Dr. Ablow laments all the “young people who are higher on drugs than ever, drunker than ever, smoking more, tattooed more, and pierced more and having more and more sex, earlier and earlier and earlier, raising babies before they can do it well, because it makes them feel special, for awhile.”

Sadly, he concludes, “They’re doing anything to distract themselves from the fact that they feel empty inside and unworthy.”  He thinks that we’ll see epidemics of depression, suicide, and even homicide as all the “real self-loathing and hatred of others that lies beneath all this narcissism rises to the surface.”

Yes, he uses the word, “EPIDEMIC!” [emphasis mine].  And he expects that this epidemic will “dwarf the toll of any epidemic we have ever known.”  His warning is sobering: “By the time we see the scope and destructiveness of this enemy clearly, we will also realize, as the saying goes, that it is us.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/08/are-raising-generation-deluded-narcissists

You know that feeling after you’ve read a really great book? The one that makes you want to tell everyone to read it, too? Sometimes you buy it for others, and pass it along. You want everyone to absorb the content and take as much away from it as you did. Well, that’s how I feel about the band for King & Country, and it’s for more than just their unique talent.

Joel and Luke Smallbone aren’t just a couple of brothers whose music is topping the charts; they are men whose morals and convictions lead them to influence the culture with an encouraging message. In a society that panders to those who sell out for their shot at the big leagues, these men are becoming successful while espousing a truth that women and men in this generation desperately need.

Through their “Penny Culture” campaign, Joel and Luke are addressing the modern worldview head on by posing a question: “Can you put a dollar amount on your worth?”  Of course not, because you’re “priceless,” right?  And yet, “actions speak louder than words.” And if we say we’re priceless, but live according to the dictates of a culture saturated with promiscuous, brazen, and indifferent people, we wind up selling our priceless selves for little more than a penny.

We see it every day. From movies to billboards, the reoccurring theme is the same: sex, and not sex that costs you something, like a lifetime commitment.  We’re talking about plain, old, gratuitous, “I didn’t even ask her what her name was” sex.

We live in a world that encourages women to “liberate” themselves, but our view of “liberation” is skewed. Cultural feminism defines the “problem” in terms of men who want to oppress women by lowering their self-worth — getting the price as cheap as they can.  But instead of empowering women to demand the highest price (love, lifelong commitment, respect, honor, etc.), the culture surrounds them with hypersexualized imagery and tells them that the road to empowerment lies in selling themselves short.  In other words, it’s like buying filet mignon at ground beef prices while convincing the beef that it was empowered to set the price.

Wearing a penny on a necklace, Joel and Luke reject the culture’s view of women. “How about we start a revolution of people that treat the opposite sex with respect & honor?” they ask. They remind the teens and college folk who attend their concerts that every man and woman is priceless, regardless of the low price the culture would lay on them.

And I think that’s refreshing. I’ve grown up in this “Penny Culture,” and it’s easy to fall prey to the lifestyle it produces. Those with graceful, sophisticated, old-fashion values — the real class acts of our generation — are hard to find, while the “progressive modernizers” of our society are frighteningly front and center, clawing their way to the top in order to be the ill-fitted role models for our youth.

The world wants you to settle — to sell yourself for infinitely less than you’re worth. Think about it long and hard. There has to be more. You’re worth more, aren’t you? (If you just read this and said, “No,” then think again. That’s the culture talking.)

We need more men like Joel and Luke, real men who will take a stand against the Penny Culture and loudly proclaim that the lifestyle it pushes is wrong, and that you — yes, you — are worth more than a mere penny. Joel says, “At every fK&C performance, we take a moment to pass on our position regarding a woman’s incredible worth — as well as call out us men! It’s time for us to step up and stand out, and treat you ladies as you deserve to be treated. Chivalry is not dead!”

Here, here! Chivalry certainly isn’t dead! Ladies, the men you read about in books — the ones who will fight for you because you’re worth fighting for — exist! Don’t give up, and don’t settle for less than you’re worth.

“If we could leave you ladies with one thought,” said Joel, “it’d be this: Don’t let any man disrespect you in relationships. So often society suggests for women to talk, dress, and act like you’re worth nothing more than a penny, but it’s our belief that there’s a God who says you’re priceless!”

Well said, Joel.

Joel Smallbone on the Penny Culture

for King & Country: Let Your Love Be the Proof

As the United States is about to go over its own fiscal cliff, EU nations are facing up to the realities of big government and bad policies. Carolyn Moynihan, deputy editor of MercatorNet, wrote recently about how Italians are turning to home for support in an increasingly inhospitable public culture.  In fact, two Italian market research organizations — Coldiretti and Censis — report that one-third of adult Italians (more than 60% of young adults — up from only 48% in 1990) live back home with their parents.  This sad development is especially affecting the 18- to 29-year-olds who haven’t been able to find work or can’t afford their own place on the low salaries of available jobs.

The Italians refer to the generation that had moved in with mom and dad as “big babies” or “mama’s boys” because they are not leaving the nest. The young adults, though, explain that they wish they could have their own places and be independent, but the unemployment rate for 20-somethings in Italy hovers at over 30 percent, and many of those with jobs are settling for part-time or low-pay jobs they wouldn’t have even considered in better economic times. Even well-trained, well-educated young adults are struggling to find good-paying jobs. One survey reported that fully a quarter of 30 to 40-year-olds in Italy still live with their parents. Sadly, such are the realities during a financial crisis where unemployment is rising and prices for basic commodities like food and fuel are too high.

Of course, Italy is not alone in facing the consequences of the fiscal crisis and bureaucratic expansion. A harsh reality is that “re-distributing the wealth” doesn’t stretch money very far.

The silver lining to the fiscal crisis is that hard financial times strengthen the family as a place of solace and succor to provide balance to the difficult times and financial crises. As the public aspects of people’s lives become unbearable, they retreat to their private and personal space — home and family — where they find relief from the stress.  In fact, the Coldiretti and Censis report was titled: “The economic crisis – living together, living better,” a title that recognizes the benefits of a family haven when there is no place else to turn, a place of solidarity and support, and a place of refuge where family members can repair and renew their spirits before they return to the demanding challenges they face in their professional and/or public lives.

Researchers are learning that the concepts of “home and family” have grown musty from misuse and lack of appreciation in the fast-track marketplace.  In New Zealand, the University of Waikato is sponsoring an upcoming conference to explore the “public-private nexus” of “home and identity.”  They are working with foundations to explore ways to bring academics and public policy experts into the discussion about the importance of home.

Other researchers are acknowledging the lack of understanding about the pivotal role of home.  Others decry the attention to “home” without a corresponding acknowledgement of the role of “family” in strengthening nations.  Still others want researchers and policymakers to appreciate the role and contribution of men to home and family.

As I’ve written in my latest book, Marriage Matters, the married mom-and-dad family — in addition to being important for the well-being of men and women and, especially, children — is the foundation of societies and nations.  Marriage has been recognized as a special institution across cultures and throughout history.  Perhaps these desperate economic times will remind us of the importance of marriage and family.

Are American women — and some men, too — turning to Jane Austen for dating advice? If the spate of books recently released or coming out soon is any indication, the answer is “Yes.”

A recent Time article lists three of these books and summed up the necessity of the quest: “We’re no longer content to watch fictional characters find true love: we want Jane Austen to help us out, too.”

Perhaps the need for advice comes from our lack of relationship rules and structure in today’s society. If “reality” television accurately portrays today’s dating scene, morality is irrelevant and an “anything goes” attitude is prevalent.  Does that lack of values lead to compatibility, security, and commitment? (Hint: No, it doesn’t.)

The Washington Post runs a weekly column in their Sunday magazine called “Date Lab.” It is almost the same story each week: two people who were matched through the Post’s database of applicants go on a blind date; upon seeing the other person they each usually tell the interviewer the person isn’t their normal type but are cute/good-looking; the couple talks for several hours, finding common interests and experiences; the two usually remark separately that time flew by, they had a good time, rate the date pretty high and then say, “but there was no chemistry,” or “I didn’t feel a spark.” That’s the end of the story, on to the next date.

Jane Austen’s novels would be a pretty quick read if the characters based their future prospects on their initial reaction to someone. Judging compatibility after only one meeting would not have led to Mr. Darcy marrying Elizabeth Bennet. Almost 200 years after its publication, Pride and Prejudice still has women dreaming of finding their own Mr. Darcy, but they won’t find him if they follow current dating trends.

And that is perhaps because they are going out (sometimes not even on a “date,” just a “hook-up” with no supposed strings attached) without getting to know each other, much less view the other person or evaluate the other as a prospect for marriage. When a couple views each other as a potential life-long mate and companion, their perspective is necessarily deeper and more thoughtful than merely judging on appearance. Obviously, such deeper considerations are in stark contrast to couples eyeing each other only for a casual sexual encounter.

As I say in my new book, Marriage Matters, the truth is simple. To love deeply and with greater enthusiasm, we must be highly discriminating about our relationships with the opposite sex.

That’s a lesson that Jane Austen taught 200 years ago — and it is still useful today.

Some experts like to debunk the idea of a dad’s importance and talk about the “myth of the perfect family.” Such thinking, however, merely sets up a straw man and is erroneous.  There is a voluminous body of research that is clear and unambiguous: The very best family for a child’s positive development and good outcome is a married mom and dad. As Time magazine put it: “Growing up in a home in which different men cycle in and out is not good for a child’s health or well being.  Think of these families as having ‘domino dads,’ with each one’s departure putting pressure on the next.”

This is no small problem.  The negative consequences for both the mother and the child are so well documented they have almost ceased to register on the public’s radar.  The number of young women who are cohabitating instead of getting married is increasing; the number who have children before getting married is increasing; and the number of children who live in blended households as a result of divorce or prior cohabitation is increasing, as my research and writing reveals.

Single moms of children from multiple fathers are far more likely to be “under-employed, to have lower incomes, and to be less educated.” The children in these households live with enormous stress: “Everyday decisions are more complex and family rules are more ambiguous.” Just figuring out logistics, such as “whose turn it is to spend time with the kids and who gets more attention,” and dividing up time, responsibilities, and finances — who lives with whom when, who is responsible for what when, and who pays for food, clothing, and incidentals, as well as who pays child support for what child — is daunting and sometimes impossible.  Sadly, and most damaging to the children, is that the conflicts that lead the parents to separate in the first place tend to go on and on, with the kids often caught in the middle.

Cassandra Dorius, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research, presented her findings from a recent study at the Population Association of America. She studied data from up to 20 interviews with each of 4,000 women over a 27-year-period.  The data for the study came from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth.  Dorius called the trend an “intergeneratic transmission of disadvantage.”  She said, “Juggling all the different needs and demands of fathers in at least two households, four or more pairs of grandparents, and two or more children creates a huge set of chronic stressors that families have to deal with for decades.”

While opposition to the findings was immediate, others believe the situation is not “inherently bad or good” and, in a flight from reality, they argue that any group of people can successfully parent.  They contend that the larger problem is whether the dad plays a role in his child’s life, whether married or not.  Yet research is clear and unsurprising: When a mother finds a new man or has a child by another man, fathers typically become less involved financially and emotionally, and they are far less likely to be a physical presence in their children’s lives.

Only by facing facts and addressing problems realistically can we hope to see a brighter future and the inherent potential of the next generation realized.

Proverbs 4:23 tells us, “Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life.”

We Christian women are called to be confident in the love that God provides.  With our self-esteem constantly targeted by the media, it is sometimes difficult to remember that the Lord created us to be a treasure won by a determined and respectable man.  Unfortunately, our society encourages women to be the hunters instead of the hunted.

Nine out of 10 males I personally interviewed say that when a woman pursues them, it highlights two very unattractive attributes: insecurity and desperation.  So why do women do it?  Is it because we are impatient and unwilling to wait for Mr. Right to come our way or because we are craving male attention?

Both of these reasons are a result of not trusting the Lord.  He has provided a way to fulfill each of our needs.  When we feel uncared for, He assures us in places like Jeremiah 33:11 that His love is always with us.  When we feel that unattractive, He whispers through Psalm 139:14 that we are fearfully and wonderfully made.

So when a man pursues us, we need to remember who God designed us to be.

1. We show obedience to the Lord by investing time and emotion only in solid Christian men.
2. We show respect for ourselves by giving our time only to men that have the courage to ask us for our number and not cowardly giving us his in case we want to hang out sometime.
3. We show value by accepting dates that require time and thought and not accepting “we can do whatever you want to do” pseudo-dates.
4. We show loyalty by humbly going to God in prayer concerning each gentleman that requests a relationship with us.
5. We show honor to God by saving sex for marriage and dating only men who are dedicated to following this command.

Even though movies like No Strings Attached and American Pie give a degrading view of male and female relationships, this should not be the reality in Christian dating relationships.  We must all guard our hearts from the lies with which we are daily bombarded and combat them with the truth God has made clear to us: He loves us, we are fearfully and wonderfully made, and He is faithful to provide.

After all, we are supposed to be loved as Christ loved the Church.  So why would we settle for less?

Our guest author is Amy Royall.  She is a junior at Liberty University and an active member of the LU chapter of Concerned Women for America.

The New York Times recently published an article noting the significant increase of divorce in rural America.  Their polls revealed that, for the first time in history, rural Americans are “just as likely to be divorced as city dwellers.”

The rural Americans of Sioux County, Iowa, ponder the causes of this cultural shift in their town and cite education, class, and women in the workforce as reasons for the changes in values and the town’s culture.

As county residents told their stories and viewpoints, higher education was blamed for one couple’s rift and eventual separation.  Upon receiving more education than her husband, a wife claimed, “I grew more confident.  We were totally different people.”

As that attitude — we became totally different people than we were when we married — justifies divorce, we must understand that it has huge ramifications not only for the individual but for families and society as well.  Education itself is not the root of divorce, of course; it is simply a means by which women feel more empowered and confident.  As wives become more self-sufficient (and sadly, therefore, sometimes become overly assertive, opinionated, and have less respect for their mates), many husbands, who traditionally have been the provider and the head of the household, are sometimes at a loss about their role and how to be the leader of the family, thus leading to divorce.

Maria Kefalas, a sociology professor at St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia told the New York Times, “It has hit the whitest, most married, most idyllic heart of America — Iowa.  The cultural narrative about marriage — you get a job, you marry your sweetheart, you buy a house, you educate your kids — has been torn to shreds.”

Though overall divorce rates remain relatively stable; they are too high.  The facts surrounding divorce are sobering with “121 million married adults and 26 million divorced people in 2009, compared with about 100 million married and 11 million divorced people in 1980.”

These findings and observations on divorce reflect a dramatic attitude shift: The traditional view of marriage — divorce is not an option, a black-and-white perspective that the commitment is for “better or worse” for a lifetime — has faded to a wide swath of gray, where numerous causes, including “no fault,” can rationalize a divorce.

Click here to view the New York Times article.

Two Notre Dame professors, Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker, analyzed data from the National Study of Youth and Religion, the National Survey of Family Growth, and the College Social Life Survey (and others), in their effort to understand premarital sex among young Americans. Their book, Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate, and Think about Marrying, is a 312-page review of the current sexual situation for contemporary young adults. Naomi Schaefer Riley reviews the book for Commentary. Miss Riley reports:

• Young adults today do not associate sex with marriage.
• An “increasing share” of young adults don’t even think about getting married.
• 84 percent of 18- to 23-year-olds have had premarital sex.
• College students are less promiscuous than those who are not in college.
• Serial monogamy is the typical pattern for today’s young adults.
• Men tend to overestimate their peers’ sexual activity.
• Half of the women, and 25 percent of men, engaged in “unwanted” sexual activity in the two weeks prior to the survey conducted by one study.
• Young adults have bought into some significant myths:
  • They believe married sex is a “let down,” when, in truth, married couples have more and more satisfactory sex than unmarried couples.
  • They are under the mistaken impression that cohabitation is a good “testing ground” for marriage, when numerous studies disprove that myth and, in fact, show that cohabitation is more a guarantee of divorce and unhappy married relationship.
  • Pornography is a major source of sexual information and attitudes and has, in fact, replaced sexual activity with a real woman for many young men.
• Women continue to control access to sex (though many young women do not realize their power in the sexual realm); women are still the ones to decide if and when sex occurs.
• Regnerus and Uecker conclude that women are poor “sexual economists” — that is, they think their sexual power is their control over sexual desire in men (actually, men are thinking about sex all the time). In fact, women’s sexual power consists of establishing the terms and conditions for sexual interaction — a fact of which many young women are unaware.
  • On campuses with more women (the situation on most of today’s college campuses), there is more sexual activity (women have less power within the context of that environment than in situations where there are fewer women).
  • When the environment pushes women to have sex, they make choices that end up making them unhappy.
  • One study revealed that 70 percent of young adults regret the circumstances and timing when they lost their virginity, with women having the most regret.
  • Women are more unhappy the more partners they have (but men are not). And, regrettably, the younger the loss of virginity, the more sexual partners young people tend to have.

Source: “Premarital Wrecks,” by Naomi Schaefer Riley, a review of Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate, and Think About Marrying, by Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker, Commentary, February 2011, pp. 59-61.