Contrary to Popular Myth, Religious Households Tend to Have Greater Spousal Equality

In the wake of the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, a great deal of attention has been given to her private life, exposing crass stereotypes held by some secular Americans about their devout compatriots. Prominent among these is the notion that religious women tend to be subservient to their husbands. Naomi Schaefer Riley and Hal Boyd point to research that suggests the opposite:

According to a report by the Wheatley Institution, . . . highly religious couples are more likely to say they make “major decisions” together. Survey data from eleven countries, including the United States, found a particularly strong correlation between shared decision-making and home-centered religious practices.

Couples who worship at home report fewer disagreements about finances. . . . And women in these relationships were also much more likely to say their partners were “forgiving,” “kind” and “responsible.” This doesn’t sound too dissimilar from, say, Amy Coney Barrett extolling her husband’s cooking in the Rose Garden.

Religious, home-worshipping couples also report greater relationship quality and stability, and they are three times more likely than less-religious peers to report a sexually satisfying relationship. The women don’t appear to be repressed; in fact, they’re generally more likely to say they’re happy and that their life has meaning and purpose.

In America, [at least], women still tend to be more religious than men, and they also tend to run the household more often than men. At home, they typically play a larger role in determining how and when holidays are celebrated, ritual meals served, and religious displays set up. . . . Indeed, it probably means that the men in these relationships are following their lead. Measured this way, then, a family’s religiosity may actually be a sign of a woman’s power, not her submissiveness.

Read more at New York Post

More about: American Religion, Family, Supreme Court

 

Hizballah Is Learning Israel’s Weak Spots

On Tuesday, a Hizballah drone attack injured three people in northern Israel. The next day, another attack, targeting an IDF base, injured eighteen people, six of them seriously, in Arab al-Amshe, also in the north. This second attack involved the simultaneous use of drones carrying explosives and guided antitank missiles. In both cases, the defensive systems that performed so successfully last weekend failed to stop the drones and missiles. Ron Ben-Yishai has a straightforward explanation as to why: the Lebanon-backed terrorist group is getting better at evading Israel defenses. He explains the three basis systems used to pilot these unmanned aircraft, and their practical effects:

These systems allow drones to act similarly to fighter jets, using “dead zones”—areas not visible to radar or other optical detection—to approach targets. They fly low initially, then ascend just before crashing and detonating on the target. The terrain of southern Lebanon is particularly conducive to such attacks.

But this requires skills that the terror group has honed over months of fighting against Israel. The latest attacks involved a large drone capable of carrying over 50 kg (110 lbs.) of explosives. The terrorists have likely analyzed Israel’s alert and interception systems, recognizing that shooting down their drones requires early detection to allow sufficient time for launching interceptors.

The IDF tries to detect any incoming drones on its radar, as it had done prior to the war. Despite Hizballah’s learning curve, the IDF’s technological edge offers an advantage. However, the military must recognize that any measure it takes is quickly observed and analyzed, and even the most effective defenses can be incomplete. The terrain near the Lebanon-Israel border continues to pose a challenge, necessitating technological solutions and significant financial investment.

Read more at Ynet

More about: Hizballah, Iron Dome, Israeli Security