Sunday, January 09, 2005

Evolution Promotes Free Agents in Every Sphere of Life--So Get Over It Already

"...At a time when the medical community has been heartened by a decline in risky sexual behavior by teenagers, a different problem has crept up: More adult women are forgoing birth control, a trend that has experts puzzled -- and alarmed about a potential rise in unintended pregnancies.

The December report did not tabulate unintended pregnancies, though preliminary information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found a slight increase in the birth rate in 2003, most notably in women older than 30..."


Well before we go getting our panties in a bunch over this development, let me first say SO WHAT??? A woman over 30 is a free agent and there are NO LAWS against her deciding to have a child as a single mother. As long as she's a self-supporting, reasonably normal human being and since MOST PEOPLE are that, we must assume she is too...So what is the big deal here? Do we vet all those married youngsters in trailor parks across the nation popping out one kid after another before they are barely functioning adults themselves?

If we do, I never heard of it...

So why do we NEED to vet these adult women? Quick answer, we don't...

The logical reason for this situation is that these women are just looking around at their prospects and deciding that the current crop of men we've spawned are not up to their standards. AND who could blame them...the men of our society have morphed into a bunch of useless crybabies, who are never quite sure if they are ready for a committment yet (like David Letterman, at 51, still wasn't SURE if he was ready to be a parent, righto). A woman's eggs could get 'hard boiled' waiting for Mr. Right at that age and I'm not sure most of them should wait much after 30 before making a few hard choices in this area anyway.

Let's face it the book "Making a Life"...was a real eye-opener for many women really cutting down by as much as a decade the timeline of the waiting period before decisions NEED to be made. We USED to think that around 40 fertility started declining in women, NOW we know womens' fertility begins declining around 27 or 28 and continues that decline each years thereafter until she finally hits menopause...which just to let you know ladies is no day at the beach either, but that's another discussion...

Now, never-married women over 30 tend to be the cream of the crop (well-educated, higher income, probably better groomed). On the other hand, their counterparts, never-married men over 30 are the dregs of our society, many of them ex-cons, drug addicts or just barely recovering acoholics, in short a pack of losers and slobs...

Now why in the heck should we waste the cream of the crop on these losers?

Why?

Puhleeeeeease...

The statistics showing children from single mother households as having problems showed that the mid to higher level income mothers (making $50,000 annually and up)were doing JUST FINE with their kids and I'm sure if we cared enough to check some of the income statistics of this new batch of 30 something single mothers, we'd find the same thing...their kids are going to do just fine...

This latest 'finding' that women over 30 are taking the plunge into motherhood alone is NOT a bad thing at all...but just another necessary step up the evolutionary scale as more and more men opt out of the marriage market to pursue more important life goals such as Monday Night Football and/or hanging around the corner trying to score a dime bag of weed...

Thus women deciding to have children on their own after 30 ensures the ongoing contribution into the gene pool of our best and brightest mothers even as their male counterpart continue their existence as laid-back slackers just barely existing on the fringes of real life...

This trend is absolutely nothing to worry about, just more scare tactics from the other side...busily spinning more bs in mens' never-ending attempt to regain their place at the apex of everything, even when they are not really very interested in marriage or children to begin with...so I guess women shouldn't be either...until men get around to it at 50 or so...we'll just wait...

Again, puhleeeeease....get over yourselves already...

14 comments:

Pseudo-Adrienne said...

Well hooray for them. It's their bodies, their lives, their money---I see why not and so what. Women don't have to wait on men anymore, especially if those men aren't financially secure or "father material." Meaning that he isn't that emotionally and financially committed or supportive to the woman or the child he sired. And nor is he responsible. It takes more than just sperm depositing and paying a check every month to be a *real* father.

I just hope these women are well informed about the health risks of conceiving and giving birth later in life, and have access to the best prenatal care possible. And I hope these women are financially secure and have support from friends and family while raising their children.

Now....NYMOM, you'll be happy to know that this is coming from proud EX-men's/father's rights advocate. It's Thea, now known as Pseudo-Adrienne, so don't refer to me as 'Thea'.

I have become a liberal neo-feminist and stand opposed to those 'men's/fathers' rights' fanatics because of how hateful and sociopathic they are, especially to women. I don't see how threatening mothers, dressing up in Holloween costumes, and giving joint-custody or custody to abusive
men who aren't really fathers (and some just want to reduce or avoid paying child support) a good thing. Because it isn't.

Now, you hate feminists. I've read you're posts on Trish Wilson's blogs and seen how you've accused feminists of screwing everything up. I'm a feminist, but I'm not for automatic joint custody or 'gender neutral custody'.

Try to remember NYMOM, before you go on about how much feminists have screwed everything up (which sounds similar to the inane rantings of the men's/fathers' rights folks), if it hadn't been for feminists, you probably wouldn't have been able to divorce or even blog. Unless your blog was about fashion, cooking, tupperware party announcements, or how wonderful it is to be a Stepford wife. And if you had refered to men as 'recreational sperm donors', your blog would have been deleted and you would have been slapped with an obscenity fine or something similar.

I used to have a liberal, feminist, Anti-Bush blog, but when I came to the realization that I wouldn't have enough time to maintain it due to my class schedule of six classes and eighteen credit hours total, I deleted it. I want to remain on the Dean's Honor List after all so I can get into Law School three and half years from now. I just post comments on feminist/liberal blogs now and bash Bush.

Now once again...I would like to thank you in reminding me how it's antifeminist women and pro-matriarchal women like yourself who hold nothing but contempt and disdain for men, who are the real 'man-haters'. NOT feminists. Now if only men got that, then they would see the benefits of feminism and embrace them. Our society would be more equal, though I'm sure you probably disagree.

I've NEVER heard a feminist-woman say such horrible things about men like you have. I've heard feminist-women refer to men as sperm-donors (because some men are nothing but sperm donors because of how irresponsible they are and they're NOT real fathers to their children). And I've heard feminist-women say how they wish we can castrate rapists (I wouldn't have a problem with that) and kill men who abuse their wives and children (I wouldn't have a problem with that either).

I don't deny the mother/child bond, nor do I deny maternal instincts. But I do not agree with you that fathers would never do irrational things to protect their children like a mother would. Such as that father down in Florida who beated up a crocidile in order to save his son. Nor do I agree with you that all fathers are worthless, even if they're loving, caring, devoted, and involved in their children's lives.

Neither do I agree with you that all men are criminals and anti-social. I don't even believe it's even half of men who are like that. It's only a minority of men who are like that. But men do commit more crimes than women. But I do not agree with you that female criminals should be ignored in the media. But I don't agree with the men's/fathers' rights guys who do NOTHING but post how evil and psycho ALL women are.

I believe in providing services and aid to abused men, but I do NOT agree with the men's/fathers' rights guys in closing down women's shelters or allocating millions to men's shelters. Because abused men make up a very miniscule fraction of victims. I have no problem in opening men's shelters, but they wouldn't need so much funding or staffing because of how few abused men are. Of course the men's/fathers' rights folks disagree with me, but oh well.

Anyways, I left the men's/fathers' rights folks due to how misogynistic they are. One of their 'manifestos' is just as you say here on your blog, they want to be in control of women's bodies and be head of the household again. I believe (like most feminists) the best household is where the mother and father work EQUALLY together to raise their children. But at the same time, there's nothing wrong in a one-parent home, despite what the men's/father's rights guys say.

Though I'm sure you view single-dad households (where the mother practically does not exist because she left or died) to be an abomination, even if the father is loving and devoted to his child(ren).

A lot of those men's/fathers' rights males want to give men a say in abortion and birth control, and some want to outlaw abortion and birth control. Because that would mean that the women is in control of her reproduction. Not the male. And a lot of those men's/father's rights males are pro-'sending women back to the kitchen and kicking them out of the workforce'. Not to mention, most of those guys are Ultra-Conservative and anti-progressive.

I certainly don't agree with you in "all women are destined and should be mothers" because that sounds like patriarchal (and even matriarhcal) crap to me. Women are more than just their reproductive organs and not all women have to give birth simply because they have the organs to do so. I also don't agree with you that the reason why women aren't having as many children anymore is do to the threats made by fathers' rights men.

More often than not, the reason why women aren't having children anymore is because they simply don't want to be an incubator. Feminism has taught them that they can be more than just a mother in life. My reason to not have any children has nothing to do with the threats made by fathers' rights. I just don't want to be an incubator. There is no incentive in the world that would make me change my mind or other women's minds. Pregnancy and childbirth are things that I have NO interest in experiencing, no matter what you promise me (and some women) in return.

It's the career-oriented life for me.

So just to let you know, I had an epiphany recently, and it was to leave the men's/father's rights fanatical misogynistic movement, and embrace liberal feminism.

We agree on something....finally...but it's not your pro-matriarchal views, nor is it your hate and contempt for all males. We both hold contempt for the men's/fathers' rights folks because of their venomous misogyny and anti-progressive/ultra-conservative attitudes.

Anyways, I need to get to Starbucks and Philosophy 100.

PS: My most sincere apologies for the hate emails. I know what those feel like because ever since I've announced my liberal feminism, I've received hate email a couple of times from psycho-male Republicans and some men's/fathers' rights males. Later.

--Pseudo-Adrienne (formally known as 'Thea')

Pseudo-Adrienne said...

"Because that would mean that the women is in control of her reproduction. Not the male."

Crap...I meant if men were given a say in abortion and birth control, and if abortion and birth control were outlawed, then that would mean that MALES would be in control of a woman's reproduction...again. Which is what men's/fathers' rights folks want...control over women and children again. As if they are nothing more than just property. Like I said, I left them because they're pro-'lock them in the kitchen and keep them pregnant all the time'.

Men should have NO say in when a woman reproduces or does not reproduce. It's her choice, not his. She has to put up with the pregnancy and birthing crap. Not him.

NYMOM said...

Wow...

A few weeks ago you were sending me such threatening emails I was going to report you to security here...Now I get this...It's a little much for a Friday just before a long weekend...

Either you've really just had an epiphany or someone has put you up to this for what reason I do not know...

I will read this later tonight from home and reply...

Later...

Pseudo-Adrienne said...

Read my profile and notice my posts on feminist/liberal blogs and you'll know that I'm nobody's pawn. NOBODY'S!!

College, the women's studies girls, and the girl who lives across from me in the dorm, has really enlightened me. Besides, I was tired of being treated like sh*t by men's/fathers' rights males, all because I'm female. They hate women, especially women who aren't submissive, 'traditional', and ultra-conservative. If the women aren't pro-'going back to the home--staying in the kitchen--being constantly pregnant', then they're evil b*tches who've ruined society. They really are just full of sh*t.

Some of those b@st@rds are racist, fascist-Christians, and belligerently homophobic (minus 'hot' lesbians found in PlayBoy and MAXIM magazine).

And if you talk to anyone in my family or those around me, you'll be pretty damn sure that NO ONE orders me around or puts me up to anything. I'm too arrogant, stubborn, fiercely independent, and free-spirited to be 'put up' to anything. My stubborness is far worse than an unbroken horse many times over, according to my family. My raging youthful hormones keep me from being somebody's pawn.

NYMOM said...

"Now, you hate feminists."

First of all I do NOT hate feminists...nor do I blame them for everything...I simply pointed out that they have been worse then useless throughout this current crisis...NOT only have they been useless, but many have frequently aided and abetted men in separating mothers from their children, even infants...

I hate to point this out to you, but you have been a party to this too...along with many other women too numerous to name...

You cannot undo all the damage you do to people just by saying you're sorry after the fact...Remember that...


"Neither do I agree with you that all men are criminals and anti-social. I don't even believe it's even half of men who are like that. It's only a minority of men who are like that."

I never said ALL men were criminals...I understand that hard-core criminals are a small percentage of the entire population, nevertheless, I do believe that MANY more men then women commit acts that are anti-social in nature, even if not crimes...

For instance, many men have one-night stands with women and spread disease or have children from these encounters...Of course people always say when I bring this up, well for every man who does this is one woman...Well that is wrong...Prostitution or the 'world's oldest profession' does NOT exist because women make it profitable but because men do...

Additionally men have always, and still do today if able, abandon children...although the latest propaganda from party headquarters is to act like mothers 'drive' them off for money. Even if this is true NOW, it is only a recent phenonemon. What about all the thousands of years where men have done this on their own, when are they going to be made to answer for that?

As always the root of our most intractable social problems remains the selfish, irresponsible and and deviant behavior of men...even if these behaviors are not labeled as crimes...and this has been true from the time of the Romans, probably longer, but we don't have such good historical records from older civilizations to judge this.


"I also don't agree with you that the reason why women aren't having as many children anymore is do to the threats made by fathers' rights men.

More often than not, the reason why women aren't having children anymore is because they simply don't want to be an incubator."

There is no mother who is an INCUBATOR...there are ONLY mothers, good, bad or indifferent...this thinking is a residual taint left over from hanging around with these fathers' rights nuts...

BTW, I never said ALL women have to have children... thus, the name of my blog WOMENASMOTHERS...it is ONLY for those women who chose to be mothers...Women who chose to do other things have that right...but probably won't find much of use to them here...



"So just to let you know, I had an epiphany recently, and it was to leave the men's/father's rights fanatical misogynistic movement, and embrace liberal feminism."

Let me give you some advice, forget all these 'isms'... Live your life to be the best person YOU can be without feeling the need to join up with an 'ism' or cult-like advocacy groups (which by the way I consider many of the mens/fathers rights groups to be morphing into)...most are totally useless at best (such as feminism has recently demonstrated) or dangerous at worse (such as the future will show Fathers' Rights group to be)...



"PS: My most sincere apologies for the hate emails. I know what those feel like because ever since I've announced my liberal feminism, I've received hate email a couple of times from psycho-male Republicans and some men's/fathers' rights males."

Well I'm happy to hear that you've come to your senses...

Peace...

Pseudo-Adrienne said...

"You cannot undo all the damage you do to people just by saying you're sorry after the fact...Remember that..."

Duh. I've known that forever. What's in the past can't be changed. What...I shouldn't have said anything? That would have been rude. People should always admit when they're at fault, and when they've done something wrong. I was raised to apologize whenever I did something wrong, even though it wouldn't change anything.

And FYI, laws are more damaging than words and posting on blogs. I think you should hold legislators, judges, and lawyers more responsible for the anti-mother damage that's sweeping through the West. This is the reason why I'm staying the hell away from Family Law....it is tainted.

My words never directly enacted any laws as I'm just some blogger, not a politician, not a judge, not a lawyer....yet. And I only voted once back in November...and it wasn't for anyone who was pro-fathers' rights.

And the 'incubator' comment, didn't come from some father's rights male. It came from reading an essay written by a second-wave feminist who described how men throughout the ages have used pregnancy to subjugate women, due to the lack of or willful prohibition of contraceptives.

Incubation is a technical, and yes, unflattering term for pregnancy and gestation. I use it to emphasize my point that women shouldn't be forced to have babies and do nothing but have babies. Because that would be forcing women to be nothing but baby-maker machines...incubators. If she wants to get pregnant out of her own freewill and choice, then of course she isn't an incubator.

A woman routinely forced to give birth by society's demand of her to do so, has been sadly reduced to being an incubator. Because that's what she is to society...a birthing machine, nothing else.

And typically, these father's rights dumb@sses are so fervently against abortion-rights and the morning after pill, because that takes away the male's control over women's reproduction.

It disgusted me how they went on and on about it wasn't fair that men didn't get a say when a woman reproduced or if she decides to have an abortion. They wanted laws that would force women to 'consult' the biological father before either continuing the pregnancy or have an abortion, and basically ASK FOR HIS PERMISSION before doing anything. It was stupid.

Yes, men who sleep around and spread disease should be held accountable and punished. And a rump in the back seat of a car should not grant the guy automatic parental rights.

I never denied male abandonment or male irresponsibility. I see it every day in the news. I hear about it from people who don't have a father because he left or was nothing more than just a one-night-stand. Or stories of pregnant teen girls, whose boyfriends practically disappeared when she announced her pregnancy.

Which is why the whole fathers' rights stance is stupid. More fathers should be responsible and involved within the mothers' and children's lives, and fulfill his parental obligations before the law just starts handing out all kinds of rights to fathers.

Men need to prove themselves, first. Stop abandoning pregnant women, stop killing pregnant women, stop killing children, stop being so unproductive, stop blaming women for everything that went wrong in their lives, and stop being so irresponsible, would be a nice start if men really want to be considered to be good fathers.

NYMOM said...

"A woman routinely forced to give birth by society's demand of her to do so, has been sadly reduced to being an incubator. Because that's what she is to society...a birthing machine, nothing else."

Well I don't agree with this statement...however limited the contraception years ago, most women who had children did so willingly and joyously and loved their children in spite of everything...

...and still do...

For instance, slave mothers wept when their children were taken away from them and tried every strategy they could think of to keep them...we have many historic accounts of this. Surely these women who were being used as 'incubators' by men to make money loved their children as much as any pampered woman having her children in a mansion somewhere, although according to your thinking they should have loved them less...

Mothers' bond with her children does NOT depend upon the surrounding society's demands or changing viewpoints on how important a mothers' children are to her...it is not a changeable thing depending upon the times, the financial or tax benefits available or the child as hottest trend in male-fashion accessory...

The mother/child bond exists independently of these things OR it doesn't exist at all...and if it doesn't exist at all THEN we're in real trouble...

NYMOM said...

"And FYI, laws are more damaging than words and posting on blogs. I think you should hold legislators, judges, and lawyers more responsible for the anti-mother damage that's sweeping through the West. This is the reason why I'm staying the hell away from Family Law....it is tainted.

My words never directly enacted any laws as I'm just some blogger, not a politician, not a judge, not a lawyer....yet."


Again you are wrong...words do have effect...the words of MANY women over the last few decades or so gave the Fathers' Rights movement it's intelluctual underpinnings...Actually early feminism's focus on all human behavior, including the mother/child bond, as being nothing but a social construct set the stage for this latest assault on mothers...but it would be wrong to say I was blaming them...I'm not...I'm just setting the record straight.

Ultimately the blame for this rest on the heads of men...for acting upon their selfish and irresponsible impulses...their behavior has set the cause of women back years, as we waste time fighting over the most fundamental right every woman should possess as her birthright, the right to her own children.

The only women in the history of the WORLD to have any rights, the ones in Western Society, and instead of men being happy for us and proud of our achievements, they pull this sh*t...

AND believe me this has the potential to undermine every single OTHER right women have gained...every single one is in jeopardy because of these a@@holes...as if they continue winning court victories and being allowed to hold our children 'hostage' which in the final analysis that is all father custody is...the ability to hold a mothers' children hostage to ensure certain behaviors...

I mean the minor issues are: smoking, dressing, cursing which at ANY point, ANY point can be used as grounds for modification of custody...the major issues are working too many hours or at an unconventional career, dating too much or not dating the right sort of men (as women who attempt to enter into interracial relalationships can lose custody of their children as well)...

The potential is endless here, simply endless for all sorts of behavioral control issues to be played out against the backdrop of 'best interest of the child' anything actually...and back to my original point, many women helped men get in this situation to use custody as a club against their sisters...

AND of course, we can do what you and many other women do: which is opt out of an important component of MOST womens' lives and chose NOT to have children. We CAN protect ourselves this way...however I don't know too many women who are going to want to live a limited life like that where their cat is their best friend...NOR should women have to live like this because men, along with a bunch of addled brained idiot women, have decided to try to push back the civil and legal rights of other women...as soon as they decide to have a kid or two...

I don't want to have to worry that my daughters or my granddaughter are going to someday fall into the hooks of some male vulture and be trapped by this moron as soon as they have a kid or two...

I'm too old for that sh*t...

Pseudo-Adrienne said...

I wasn't talking about the mother/child bond when I was talking about society's view of women being incubators. Of course she's still going to love her kids no matter what, and love them the same way as she would with any other kid. I never said women should love their children less if they are forced to carry the pregnancy to full term against their will, because maternal instincts make that virtually impossible.

Unless she's mentally unstable, which is VERY rare among mothers.

I was talking about society's view of just her. Not her love or bond with her children, because that never changes, not what the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy.

And as for the rest...yes. Some men want to send us back and certainly that's what the men's/fathers' rights folks want. Which is why they are dangerous for the future of women and girls. Those idiots should be ignored in the media and called out on their stupidity, and reminded that men's behavior (not all men) and their violence and irresponsibility are the root of our problems. Not women's behavior.

Just as you don't want your daughters and granddaughter having their rights and liberties taken away by these morons, I don't want my two young neices--too young to even know what's going on around them, to suffer due to some catastrophic legislation being passed because of the intimidation of men's/fathers' rights idiots.

As for the rest...you and I will have to agree and disagree.

The Biscuit Queen said...

NYMOM, Thea was an extremist, a vocal poster on an MRA site I was on. I left that site in part because her presense and posting style was a catylist for many hate filled rants. She would rant on and on, and others would follow. Little rational discussion followed her posting, and the threads were extremist and viscious. I would have a hard time believing she is truly feminist, or even pro-woman. Just a warning.

As I have said before, my expirience has been less than 1% of MRA's want to appeal abortion for political reasons, want to have any control over women's bodies, or want to send women into the kitchen. Most just want an opt out clause, like women have now, which still allows women to have the choices over ther bodies. They want to stay in their kids lives after divorce. They want fair laws. Nothing extrordinary or unreasonable.

The Biscuit Queen said...

Apparently she has not been posting there for a while- I just checked. Still, just keep an eye open.

NYMOM said...

"NYMOM, Thea was an extremist, a vocal poster on an MRA site I was on. I left that site in part because her presense and posting style was a catylist for many hate filled rants. She would rant on and on, and others would follow. Little rational discussion followed her posting, and the threads were extremist and viscious. I would have a hard time believing she is truly feminist, or even pro-woman. Just a warning."


Yes, she was like that when I first met her also, but subsequently she broke off from being affiliated with Mens' Rights Advocates because she saw herself that basically they just hate women.

She started her own blog; but now shares one with Ampersand on Atlas, A Blog (he's a pro feminist, mens rights advocate, gay man, say that 3 times fast LOL). Anyway she's has been doing a pretty good job of that...

Basically the pro-feminist men are a more subtle version of MRAs, they have the same agenda, but not the aggressiveness...

Actually I'm ONLY allowed to respond on HER posts on Atlas, A Blog, after I argued with some feminists there about how much they had in common with Mens' Rights Advocates. They really do if you actually start analyzing their positions, but neither side wants to OWN the other...

Anyway, Theo is about 19 years old or something I think, so at that age you have to expect a certain amount of acting out...She did send me some horrible emails but I let it slide, as I believe a MRA from another site put her up to it...

She subsequently apologized.

Anyway, I do believe in redemption and am always open to forgiving people who sincerely repent if they've done something wrong. And I believe she recognized that the MRAs she was hanging around with were a bad influence on her and now works more closedly with the pro-feminist men...

The Biscuit Queen said...

I would't blame the guys for her behavior. I was there when she stated coming over, there was only one man who was as full of vile hatred as she was coming right out of the gate. That is why she went over so well, it pulled all the extremists out of the woodwork, like extremists will.

Sounds like maybe she is chilling out. Who knows. I will believe it when I see it.

NYMOM said...

But what possible motivation would a young woman like that HAVE for feeling so strongly over an issue such as mens' rights...except the guy in her life is so predisposed...

Generally I have found (and I've been involved with the non-custodial mothers' issue for about 6 years now which led to me observing the mens rights movement and its advocates) that the women who are involved with the mens rights movement are the mothers, wives and girlfriends of men who are involved...

It's very rare for a woman to just come into the mens rights movement on her own...

AND many young women become vicious and passionate advocates BECAUSE THE MEN in their lives are...

I hate to admit this but I read somewhere that women appear to disportionately suffer from the lack of structure and definition/purpose that ensued after the sudden victory of the women's movement. Freedom, as we've seen when we liberate societies that have long been repressed, can be a double-edged sword...I find many woman use their "freedom" to latch unto men and their issues and make them their own...

Perfect example Theo, or as she calls herself now pseudo-Adrienne is now a 'model citizen' of the internet and posts on Atlas, A Blog with NO problems...I, actually am considered more of a radical then her now...she doesn't curse, attack people and writes pretty well for someone her age...Of course, her opinions are still very volatile but you can see how she's molded herself to her surroundings and fits right in with where she is right now...on a pro-feminist mens rights blog...same story, but different chapter...

So yes, I think whatever man was in her life at that time was very influential here...