Series of blasts rocks Indian capital New Delhi
At least 49 killed; terrorists blamed but no claim of responsibility made
NEW DELHI - A series of explosions shook New Delhi on Saturday, tearing through markets jammed with shoppers ahead of an upcoming Hindu festival and killing at least 49 people, officials said.
The initial blast took place in the evening in the main Paharganj market, when it was crowded with shoppers ahead of a major Hindu festival next week, fire officials said. All roads to the scene of the explosion were sealed off by authorities.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9859307/
The thing that struck me throughout the last day or so is that the television coverage of this horror did NOT feature one woman in the background of the streets of India. NOT EVEN ONE.
The last shopping weekend before a major Hindu holiday and where were all the woman who should have been out there shopping?
In short, they had never been permitted to be born.
India, like China, has abused the use of sonogram technology to identify and abort girl children; thus an abundance of men exists in the age group of 15 to 34 years old (probably also the same group more likely to commit crimes and other anti-social acts against their society, including terrorist bombings).
This inbalance according to the article below probably accounts for a shortage of about 30 million women in each country. When will we learn that human rights abuses against women anywhere needs to be addressed, as eventually they threatens all of us everywhere?
Bare Branches:
The Security Implications of Asia's Surplus Male Population.
OGDEN, Utah - Weber State University's Honors Issues Forum will feature author and professor Valerie Hudson presenting "A Surplus of Sons."
Hudson will explore the increasing abundance of males in some Asian countries and the possible consequences it may have on those nations and international stability.
The presentation will be held at 11 a.m. March 11 in Stewart Library Special Collections and is free to the public. Hudson, who teaches political science at Brigham Young University, is the author of "Bare Branches, The Security Implications of Asia's Surplus Male Population."
Historical and sociological evidence gathered for the book predicts that excess males in China, India and Pakistan portend instability and more authoritarian states.
According to a BYU press release, the root of the problem is a growing disparity between the number of boys and girls born in Asian societies, which place a special value on sons.
It's estimated that by 2020, China will have 29 to 33 million surplus males between the ages of 15 and 34 and India will have 28 to 32 million.
Historical research shows societies laden with surplus males were volatile and struggled with increases in crime, unrest and violence. For more information about Hudson's book and research, visit
http://byunews.byu.edu/archive04-Jul-barebranches.aspx
We can see here that much of Asia, through their irresponsible actions, has contributed to the chaos their own countries will be experiencing over the coming decades.
Millions of single men with no prospects for marriage are a source of instability for any society they exist within.
For let's face it in spite of many men and feminists attempts to deny it, women marrying men functions as a stabilizing force which most societies, throughout history, have taken advantage of to their benefit. Not having those millions of women available now in India because they were aborted has probably led in large part to this sort of situation happening.
They are now reaping the bitter harvest they sowed when they terminated the lives of 30 million or so girl children.
You can read the full story in my archives (see link below) to get an idea of the sheer enormity of the human rights crime committed here against women.
http://womenasmothers.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_womenasmothers_archive.html
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Sunday, October 16, 2005
The Empire Strikes Back
Well we can see the direction where the desperate attempts by men, to be in charge of everything again, are heading. Even though men voluntarily turned their backs on being the head of family back in the 60s and 70s, instead choosing to become unmarried Playboys like Hugh Hefner engaging in endless casual sex without marriage. NOW they’ve changed their minds AGAIN.
What to make of it all and where will it all end?
As in most of these situations where men have shot themselves in the foot through their own stupidity, the historic thing to do is blame a woman for it. This has been going on as long as Eve supposedly tricked Adam into taking a bite of the apple. Every time men get in trouble through either their own mistakes or some whimsical behavior on the part of nature, fate, whatever, it traditionally was blamed upon a woman.
No wind for sailing to Troy, murder your daughter; men refusing to get married since it’s more fun being a single Playboy, criminalize a single mother…
Instead of men acknowledging their own mistakes, twists of fate, unpredictable nature, etc., it’s so much easier to blame some hapless woman for what ails them, isn’t it?
In essence, this is what the new ‘crime’ being discussed in Indiana is really all about…
The crime of Unauthorized Reproduction is really about blaming women for the fact that men refusing to get married and/or deciding to do it so late (like David Letterman, for instance, at 51 having a child and STILL not certain if he wants to marry the child’s mother or Stephen Bing, 37 years old, father of two illegitimate children one from Liz Hurley and another from Lisa Bonder, marrying NEITHER); thus this sort of very common behavior today leaves many ordinary women with little choice except to just stop taking the pill and/or artificial reproduction or adoption if they wish to have children at ALL.
It’s that simple. Fertility for women starts declining around 27 or 28 years old…then continues that decline until menopause. Women, simply due to our biological time clock, cannot afford to wait until 37 or 51 years old before deciding to get married and trying to have children. Sorry but that’s the facts. Allowing single women the choice to use these reproductive technologies enables women to have families in spite of men’s determination to wait long past the time our fertility starts running on empty.
Supposedly, this bill was inspired by a horrific event where a mentally unstable man almost got twin infants through use of a surrogate mother. Only the quick thinking of a pediatric nurse in the hospital, who noticed the guy coming to the hospital with a live bird in his pocket and covered with bird droppings, averted a potential tragedy.
YET men using surrogate mothers are a small group.
Most of those who use artificial reproduction methods are ordinary women looking to be mothers. Some few in number are lesbians, but for the most part it’s just run-of-the-mill everyday women who just never met the right man or met him and he didn’t want to be married until he was 40 (and/or traveled the world, had sex with at least a dozen more women and/or watched taped reruns of Monday Football every night for another dozen more years or so) very typical of many of the men we, women today, all know.
Thus, there was no need to take a shotgun when a fly swatter would have done to resolve the issues involved here. Some small tinkering with the laws regarding surrogacy would have resolved most problems. As many have said before follow the money and everything will become clear. So just outlawing the payments involved in surrogacy or limiting them to the point that it would not be financially rewarding, as surrogacy should NEVER be able to be a steady income for someone, would have been sufficient.
This would have limited it to women who were really ONLY interested in helping someone have a child for ethical reasons. NOT someone so anti-social, disturbed or just plain stupid that they would look upon surrogating as a way to make income regularly and not realize the rest of the community would be disturbed by it. NOT to mention that I bet it ultimately cost the taxpayers money as well when these surrogates became pregnant, since public benefits are eligible for all pregnant women depending upon their income, not how they got pregnant. Food stamps, subsidized housing, possibly taxpayer funded medical care, other benefits while out of work, etc., all of these can and probably are available to surrogate mothers at their community’s expense.
Mothers let’s THINK here, please…
Anyway, even through the Indiana law has been tabled for now, MARK MY WORDS, it will be back. This is only a temporary respite. As after being reworked in committee it will result in legislative action, which will eventually pass in Indiana and will eventually pass (or some form of it) in most states and/or even at the Federal level.
Just as the Federal government did with child support guidelines and enforcement, this will be the same thing.
Nevertheless, the law supposedly with irresponsibility surrogacy as the target is really a smokescreen. As the real target of it is the many women who have decided to continue leading useful, productive lives WITH CHILDREN in spite of the decision by our men to continue behaving like irresponsible chowder heads. Women simply do NOT have the time that men do to play these irresponsible games. Our reproductive lifespan is just too short to do that. Thus passing this law will result in more of the women in our society who are the “cream of the crop” (by every objective standard they are the most educated, highest income, etc.,) going childless or having to rush into marriage with inappropriate men and increasing the cycle of divorce, child custody fight/abduction that we see going on today.
The Crime of "Unauthorized Reproduction”
"Unauthorized reproduction":Law requires marriage for motherhood
by Uncle Ho
(Why Jerry Springer would adopt a persona named Uncle Ho is probably a whole new article for another day?????????)
Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 06:51:34 AM EST
Republican lawmakers are drafting new legislation that will make marriage a requirement for motherhood in the state of Indiana, including specific criminal penalties for unmarried women who do become pregnant "by means other than sexual intercourse."
According to a draft of the recommended change in state law, every woman in Indiana seeking to become a mother through assisted reproduction therapy such as in vitro fertilization, sperm donation and egg donation must first file for a "petition for parentage" in their local county probate court.
Only women who are married will be considered for the "gestational certificate" that must be presented to any doctor who facilitates the pregnancy. Further, the "gestational certificate" will only be given to married couples that successfully complete the same screening process currently required by law of adoptive parents.
As the draft of the new law reads now, an intended parent "who knowingly or willingly participates in an artificial reproduction procedure" without court approval, "commits unauthorized reproduction, a Class B misdemeanor."
The criminal charges will be the same for physicians who commit "unauthorized practice of artificial reproduction."
http://www.springerontheradio.com/story/2005/10/6/65134/8436
To continue:
We can see that this is a two-pronged attack against women in their role as mothers by reviewing the story below. A woman, who already had two children of her own, deciding to be a surrogate for a third child (for a payment of $5,000) has just lost custody of her first two children.
Her husband decided to divorce her and the Judge awarded him temporary sole custody citing this woman’s decision to act as a surrogate as partial grounds for his ruling. Clearly it was a somewhat biased ruling as the Judge allowed the father’s character witnesses AGAINST this mother to run on for over 4 and ½ hours. While the mother’s witnesses were allowed only 10 minutes each and one of them was the children’s teacher, (as opposed to her ex’s family). So obviously a teacher, as a witness for this mother, was one of the most unbiased witnesses there. YET her testimony carried less weight then a father’s family, who are clearly going to side with him.
So the temporary custody decision was quite biased.
Nevertheless, I am still of two minds on this situation.
I do happen to think there are some underlying emotional problems that exist within women who decide to act as surrogates for money. Sorry, but it is simply going so far against what we know of biology, history and the normal behaviors of MOST other women, that unless the surrogate has a strong motivation for doing something like this ie., helping a sister or her best friend have children, I see it as a sign of either extremely anti-social behavior (no matter how well it is hidden), excessive greed for money or a lack of good judgment and/or plain common sense.
It’s just so darn foolish in the era of 50% of marriages ending in divorce and a custody fight these days being a very standard part of every divorce involving children. Mothers, you don’t pull stunts like this when you have your kids at stake especially when many courts at the county level have become infested with father’s rights supporters. Sure at the appellate levels courts might still talk the talk and walk the walk defending mothers, but how many mothers can afford to appeal an unfair decision made at the county level where most custody decisions are made. Short answer: very few.
So in spite of the unfair and biased means that this Judge used to arrive as his decision, even a temporary one, (since unless there is unfitness involved on the part of the custodial parent MOST temporary custody decisions morph into permanent) it appears likely that this mother has sealed her fate and will be the non-custodial parent of her children going forward. AND perhaps she deserves it. Personally I have mixed feelings about the whole thing as I normally would support a mother having custody of her children, unless abuse or neglect was involved but women selling off babies to make money is a serious breech of social trust I guess I would call it and does need to be stopped.
To sum up, the social sanctioning against mothers who act against the standard norms that favor most men (as men who will bother being fathers through surrogacy are a small group, thus MOST other men will benefit by sanctioning mothers who deviate from the norms) will now be the second prong of this attack against women in their role as mothers; along with the legal restrictions enacted (the Unauthorized Reproduction Act in Indiana) against women who try to be single mothers without a man acting as overseer of her and any children she might bear.
It appears that this is a very effective strategy devised by men to attack ALL women by using small deviant groups of women to paint the rest of us with a broad brush. Then convincing the public to enact laws that negatively impact all women because of the bad behavior of a deviant few.
Surrogate carrying novelist's baby loses custody of her children
Liberty, Kentucky
A surrogate mother carrying the child of a best-selling novelist has temporarily lost custody of her own two children.
A judge handed custody of Arletta Bendschneider's two children to her husband, Jack Bendschneider. The couple are in the middle of a divorce.
Bendschneider is carrying the child of novelist Jacquelyn Mitchard and her husband Christopher Brent. Mitchard lives in Massachusetts and is best known for her 1996 novel -- "The Deep End of the Ocean."
Casey County Circuit Judge James Weddle says that Bendschneider's decision to carry a surrogate is not in the best interest of her own children. Weddle says he would wait to rule on permanent custody until after the child is born. The baby is due in about two weeks.
http://www.wkyt.com/Global/story.asp?S=3966137&nav=4CAL
What to make of it all and where will it all end?
As in most of these situations where men have shot themselves in the foot through their own stupidity, the historic thing to do is blame a woman for it. This has been going on as long as Eve supposedly tricked Adam into taking a bite of the apple. Every time men get in trouble through either their own mistakes or some whimsical behavior on the part of nature, fate, whatever, it traditionally was blamed upon a woman.
No wind for sailing to Troy, murder your daughter; men refusing to get married since it’s more fun being a single Playboy, criminalize a single mother…
Instead of men acknowledging their own mistakes, twists of fate, unpredictable nature, etc., it’s so much easier to blame some hapless woman for what ails them, isn’t it?
In essence, this is what the new ‘crime’ being discussed in Indiana is really all about…
The crime of Unauthorized Reproduction is really about blaming women for the fact that men refusing to get married and/or deciding to do it so late (like David Letterman, for instance, at 51 having a child and STILL not certain if he wants to marry the child’s mother or Stephen Bing, 37 years old, father of two illegitimate children one from Liz Hurley and another from Lisa Bonder, marrying NEITHER); thus this sort of very common behavior today leaves many ordinary women with little choice except to just stop taking the pill and/or artificial reproduction or adoption if they wish to have children at ALL.
It’s that simple. Fertility for women starts declining around 27 or 28 years old…then continues that decline until menopause. Women, simply due to our biological time clock, cannot afford to wait until 37 or 51 years old before deciding to get married and trying to have children. Sorry but that’s the facts. Allowing single women the choice to use these reproductive technologies enables women to have families in spite of men’s determination to wait long past the time our fertility starts running on empty.
Supposedly, this bill was inspired by a horrific event where a mentally unstable man almost got twin infants through use of a surrogate mother. Only the quick thinking of a pediatric nurse in the hospital, who noticed the guy coming to the hospital with a live bird in his pocket and covered with bird droppings, averted a potential tragedy.
YET men using surrogate mothers are a small group.
Most of those who use artificial reproduction methods are ordinary women looking to be mothers. Some few in number are lesbians, but for the most part it’s just run-of-the-mill everyday women who just never met the right man or met him and he didn’t want to be married until he was 40 (and/or traveled the world, had sex with at least a dozen more women and/or watched taped reruns of Monday Football every night for another dozen more years or so) very typical of many of the men we, women today, all know.
Thus, there was no need to take a shotgun when a fly swatter would have done to resolve the issues involved here. Some small tinkering with the laws regarding surrogacy would have resolved most problems. As many have said before follow the money and everything will become clear. So just outlawing the payments involved in surrogacy or limiting them to the point that it would not be financially rewarding, as surrogacy should NEVER be able to be a steady income for someone, would have been sufficient.
This would have limited it to women who were really ONLY interested in helping someone have a child for ethical reasons. NOT someone so anti-social, disturbed or just plain stupid that they would look upon surrogating as a way to make income regularly and not realize the rest of the community would be disturbed by it. NOT to mention that I bet it ultimately cost the taxpayers money as well when these surrogates became pregnant, since public benefits are eligible for all pregnant women depending upon their income, not how they got pregnant. Food stamps, subsidized housing, possibly taxpayer funded medical care, other benefits while out of work, etc., all of these can and probably are available to surrogate mothers at their community’s expense.
Mothers let’s THINK here, please…
Anyway, even through the Indiana law has been tabled for now, MARK MY WORDS, it will be back. This is only a temporary respite. As after being reworked in committee it will result in legislative action, which will eventually pass in Indiana and will eventually pass (or some form of it) in most states and/or even at the Federal level.
Just as the Federal government did with child support guidelines and enforcement, this will be the same thing.
Nevertheless, the law supposedly with irresponsibility surrogacy as the target is really a smokescreen. As the real target of it is the many women who have decided to continue leading useful, productive lives WITH CHILDREN in spite of the decision by our men to continue behaving like irresponsible chowder heads. Women simply do NOT have the time that men do to play these irresponsible games. Our reproductive lifespan is just too short to do that. Thus passing this law will result in more of the women in our society who are the “cream of the crop” (by every objective standard they are the most educated, highest income, etc.,) going childless or having to rush into marriage with inappropriate men and increasing the cycle of divorce, child custody fight/abduction that we see going on today.
The Crime of "Unauthorized Reproduction”
"Unauthorized reproduction":Law requires marriage for motherhood
by Uncle Ho
(Why Jerry Springer would adopt a persona named Uncle Ho is probably a whole new article for another day?????????)
Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 06:51:34 AM EST
Republican lawmakers are drafting new legislation that will make marriage a requirement for motherhood in the state of Indiana, including specific criminal penalties for unmarried women who do become pregnant "by means other than sexual intercourse."
According to a draft of the recommended change in state law, every woman in Indiana seeking to become a mother through assisted reproduction therapy such as in vitro fertilization, sperm donation and egg donation must first file for a "petition for parentage" in their local county probate court.
Only women who are married will be considered for the "gestational certificate" that must be presented to any doctor who facilitates the pregnancy. Further, the "gestational certificate" will only be given to married couples that successfully complete the same screening process currently required by law of adoptive parents.
As the draft of the new law reads now, an intended parent "who knowingly or willingly participates in an artificial reproduction procedure" without court approval, "commits unauthorized reproduction, a Class B misdemeanor."
The criminal charges will be the same for physicians who commit "unauthorized practice of artificial reproduction."
http://www.springerontheradio.com/story/2005/10/6/65134/8436
To continue:
We can see that this is a two-pronged attack against women in their role as mothers by reviewing the story below. A woman, who already had two children of her own, deciding to be a surrogate for a third child (for a payment of $5,000) has just lost custody of her first two children.
Her husband decided to divorce her and the Judge awarded him temporary sole custody citing this woman’s decision to act as a surrogate as partial grounds for his ruling. Clearly it was a somewhat biased ruling as the Judge allowed the father’s character witnesses AGAINST this mother to run on for over 4 and ½ hours. While the mother’s witnesses were allowed only 10 minutes each and one of them was the children’s teacher, (as opposed to her ex’s family). So obviously a teacher, as a witness for this mother, was one of the most unbiased witnesses there. YET her testimony carried less weight then a father’s family, who are clearly going to side with him.
So the temporary custody decision was quite biased.
Nevertheless, I am still of two minds on this situation.
I do happen to think there are some underlying emotional problems that exist within women who decide to act as surrogates for money. Sorry, but it is simply going so far against what we know of biology, history and the normal behaviors of MOST other women, that unless the surrogate has a strong motivation for doing something like this ie., helping a sister or her best friend have children, I see it as a sign of either extremely anti-social behavior (no matter how well it is hidden), excessive greed for money or a lack of good judgment and/or plain common sense.
It’s just so darn foolish in the era of 50% of marriages ending in divorce and a custody fight these days being a very standard part of every divorce involving children. Mothers, you don’t pull stunts like this when you have your kids at stake especially when many courts at the county level have become infested with father’s rights supporters. Sure at the appellate levels courts might still talk the talk and walk the walk defending mothers, but how many mothers can afford to appeal an unfair decision made at the county level where most custody decisions are made. Short answer: very few.
So in spite of the unfair and biased means that this Judge used to arrive as his decision, even a temporary one, (since unless there is unfitness involved on the part of the custodial parent MOST temporary custody decisions morph into permanent) it appears likely that this mother has sealed her fate and will be the non-custodial parent of her children going forward. AND perhaps she deserves it. Personally I have mixed feelings about the whole thing as I normally would support a mother having custody of her children, unless abuse or neglect was involved but women selling off babies to make money is a serious breech of social trust I guess I would call it and does need to be stopped.
To sum up, the social sanctioning against mothers who act against the standard norms that favor most men (as men who will bother being fathers through surrogacy are a small group, thus MOST other men will benefit by sanctioning mothers who deviate from the norms) will now be the second prong of this attack against women in their role as mothers; along with the legal restrictions enacted (the Unauthorized Reproduction Act in Indiana) against women who try to be single mothers without a man acting as overseer of her and any children she might bear.
It appears that this is a very effective strategy devised by men to attack ALL women by using small deviant groups of women to paint the rest of us with a broad brush. Then convincing the public to enact laws that negatively impact all women because of the bad behavior of a deviant few.
Surrogate carrying novelist's baby loses custody of her children
Liberty, Kentucky
A surrogate mother carrying the child of a best-selling novelist has temporarily lost custody of her own two children.
A judge handed custody of Arletta Bendschneider's two children to her husband, Jack Bendschneider. The couple are in the middle of a divorce.
Bendschneider is carrying the child of novelist Jacquelyn Mitchard and her husband Christopher Brent. Mitchard lives in Massachusetts and is best known for her 1996 novel -- "The Deep End of the Ocean."
Casey County Circuit Judge James Weddle says that Bendschneider's decision to carry a surrogate is not in the best interest of her own children. Weddle says he would wait to rule on permanent custody until after the child is born. The baby is due in about two weeks.
http://www.wkyt.com/Global/story.asp?S=3966137&nav=4CAL
Sunday, October 02, 2005
More Gender Neutralized Feminist Nonsense
THE NATION
Subject to Debate/Posted September 29, 2005 (October 17, 2005 issue)
Desperate Housewives of the Ivy League?
Katha Pollitt
September 20's prime target for press critics, social scientists and feminists was the New York Times front-page story "Many Women at Elite Colleges Set Career Path to Motherhood," by Louise Story (Yale '03). Through interviews and a questionnaire e-mailed to freshmen and senior women residents of two Yale colleges (dorms), Story claims to have found that 60 percent of these brainy and energetic young women plan to park their expensive diplomas in the bassinet and become stay-home mothers. Over at Slate, Jack Shafer slapped the Times for using weasel words ("many," "seems") to make a trend out of anecdotes and vague impressions: In fact, Story presents no evidence that more Ivy League undergrads today are planning to retire at 30 to the playground than ten, twenty or thirty years ago. Simultaneously, an armada of bloggers shredded her questionnaire as biased (hint: If you begin with "When you have children," you've already skewed your results) and denounced her interpretation of the answers as hype. What she actually found, as the writer Robin Herman noted in a crisp letter to the Times, was that 70 percent of those who answered planned to keep working full or part time through motherhood. Even by Judith Miller standards, the Story story was pretty flimsy. So great was the outcry that the author had to defend her methods in a follow-up on the Times website three days later.
With all that excellent insta-critiquing, I feared I'd lumber into print too late to add a new pebble to the sling. But I did find one place where the article is still Topic No. 1: Yale. "I sense that she had a story to tell, and she only wanted to tell it one way," Mary Miller, master of Saybrook, one of Story's targeted colleges, told me. Miller said Story met with whole suites of students and weeded out the women who didn't fit her thesis. Even among the ones she focused on, "I haven't found that the students' views are as hard and fast as Story portrayed them." (In a phone call Story defended her research methods, which she said her critics misunderstood, and referred me to her explanation on the web.) One supposed future homemaker of America posted an anonymous dissection of Story's piece at www.mediabistro.com. Another told me in an e-mail that while the article quoted her accurately, it "definitely did not turn out the way I thought it would after numerous conversations with Louise." That young person may be sadder but wiser--she declined to let me interview her or use her name--but history professor Cynthia Russett, quoted as saying that women are "turning realistic," is happy to go public with her outrage. Says Russett, "I may have used the word, but it was in the context of a harsh or forced realism that I deplored. She made it sound like this was a trend of which I approved. In fact, the first I heard of it was from Story, and I'm not convinced it exists." In two days of interviewing professors, grad students and undergrads, I didn't find one person who felt Story fairly represented women at Yale. Instead, I learned of women who had thrown Story's questionnaire away in disgust, heard a lot of complaints about Yale's lack of affordable childcare and read numerous scathing unpublished letters to the Times, including a particularly erudite one from a group of sociology graduate students. Physics professor Megan Urry had perhaps the best riposte: She polled her class of 120, using "clickers" (electronic polling devices used as a teaching tool). Of forty-five female students, how many said they planned "to be stay-at-home primary parent"? Two. Twenty-six, or 58 percent, said they planned to "work full time, share home responsibilities with partner"--and good luck to them, because 33 percent of the men said they wanted stay-home wives.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051017/pollitt
As usual, whenever gender neutralized feminists are challenged on their many fallacies regarding basic human nature; they immediately respond by attacking the messenger. The New York Times front-page story "Many Women at Elite Colleges Set Career Path to Motherhood," by Louise Story (Yale '03) is a perfect example of this tendency in action. Ms. Story supposedly ONLY took the responses that were favorable to her thesis: that women would stop working once they had children, and tossed out the other replies from women who felt they would continue working and share the child rearing burden with their husbands.
Whether or not she did or didn’t is probably a moot issue anyway; however, as I believe all of them are missing the main event here: which is that men (that critical other half of the equation that gender neutralized feminist always like to ignore), do not appear willing to marry and/or bear children with 30/35ish something career women. Thus it could be beside the point whether or not these women wish to stay home and/or work after they have children. The more important issue appears to be can they get men who appear willing to marry them after they have wasted the critical period when they were at the height of female attractiveness to the opposite sex? Once that happens then they can move on to the next stage, which is having children and deciding whether or not to stay home with them. But unless and until they first find the requisite interested male, the whole issue of staying at home versus continuing to work is a moot one.
Clearly the things that attract women to men do not work in reverse and translate into attracting men to women. Economic stability, ensuring that his children will be adequately cared for, appears to be something that most normal men can provide for themselves. So a man with a good income can and usually does look for other qualities in a woman.
Looking at it realistically most women probably wouldn’t want the beta male losers who would need to look for this anyway because they cannot provide it for themselves. As men who appear unable to reach at least one of the lower but still comfortable rungs on the American economic ladder (which is very, very, broad with plenty of room on it for newcomers) are probably the men who suffer from other lacks in their lives as well. For instance, they could be suffering from serious personality disorders, making it impossible for them to get along with their peers. Or even more severe lacks, either mental or physical, which might be passed along to any subsequent children they father.
Thus, we return to the irrefutable fact that most men appear to still be looking for the age-old standards of youth, beauty, peak physical condition, overall health (both physical and emotional), etc., which men have always looked for in their wives and the future mothers of their children. So whether or not a woman has reached the peak of her career potential, as the most powerful lawyer, politician, newsreporter, etc., does not appear to enhance her attractiveness to men or give her any additional access to the more accomplished male gene pool. Actually, it gains her nothing in that respect. If anything it appear to do the opposite and decrease a woman’s potential to get a mate, at least if Kay Bailey Hutchingson and Maureen Dowd are any example. Kay Bailey Hutchingson was reduced to having to do a single parent adoption of a Chinese orphan in order to have a family; and Maureen Dowd is still single and furious over it. Blaming it on the apparent tendency of men to look for less accomplished (and probably younger) women when looking for wives.
Again I think one thing that has become clear after the last four decades or so of continued attacks by gender neutralized feminists on the essential nature of humanity. That social engineering is not quite as easy to accomplished as they originally thought. AND that’s a good thing.
Subject to Debate/Posted September 29, 2005 (October 17, 2005 issue)
Desperate Housewives of the Ivy League?
Katha Pollitt
September 20's prime target for press critics, social scientists and feminists was the New York Times front-page story "Many Women at Elite Colleges Set Career Path to Motherhood," by Louise Story (Yale '03). Through interviews and a questionnaire e-mailed to freshmen and senior women residents of two Yale colleges (dorms), Story claims to have found that 60 percent of these brainy and energetic young women plan to park their expensive diplomas in the bassinet and become stay-home mothers. Over at Slate, Jack Shafer slapped the Times for using weasel words ("many," "seems") to make a trend out of anecdotes and vague impressions: In fact, Story presents no evidence that more Ivy League undergrads today are planning to retire at 30 to the playground than ten, twenty or thirty years ago. Simultaneously, an armada of bloggers shredded her questionnaire as biased (hint: If you begin with "When you have children," you've already skewed your results) and denounced her interpretation of the answers as hype. What she actually found, as the writer Robin Herman noted in a crisp letter to the Times, was that 70 percent of those who answered planned to keep working full or part time through motherhood. Even by Judith Miller standards, the Story story was pretty flimsy. So great was the outcry that the author had to defend her methods in a follow-up on the Times website three days later.
With all that excellent insta-critiquing, I feared I'd lumber into print too late to add a new pebble to the sling. But I did find one place where the article is still Topic No. 1: Yale. "I sense that she had a story to tell, and she only wanted to tell it one way," Mary Miller, master of Saybrook, one of Story's targeted colleges, told me. Miller said Story met with whole suites of students and weeded out the women who didn't fit her thesis. Even among the ones she focused on, "I haven't found that the students' views are as hard and fast as Story portrayed them." (In a phone call Story defended her research methods, which she said her critics misunderstood, and referred me to her explanation on the web.) One supposed future homemaker of America posted an anonymous dissection of Story's piece at www.mediabistro.com. Another told me in an e-mail that while the article quoted her accurately, it "definitely did not turn out the way I thought it would after numerous conversations with Louise." That young person may be sadder but wiser--she declined to let me interview her or use her name--but history professor Cynthia Russett, quoted as saying that women are "turning realistic," is happy to go public with her outrage. Says Russett, "I may have used the word, but it was in the context of a harsh or forced realism that I deplored. She made it sound like this was a trend of which I approved. In fact, the first I heard of it was from Story, and I'm not convinced it exists." In two days of interviewing professors, grad students and undergrads, I didn't find one person who felt Story fairly represented women at Yale. Instead, I learned of women who had thrown Story's questionnaire away in disgust, heard a lot of complaints about Yale's lack of affordable childcare and read numerous scathing unpublished letters to the Times, including a particularly erudite one from a group of sociology graduate students. Physics professor Megan Urry had perhaps the best riposte: She polled her class of 120, using "clickers" (electronic polling devices used as a teaching tool). Of forty-five female students, how many said they planned "to be stay-at-home primary parent"? Two. Twenty-six, or 58 percent, said they planned to "work full time, share home responsibilities with partner"--and good luck to them, because 33 percent of the men said they wanted stay-home wives.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051017/pollitt
As usual, whenever gender neutralized feminists are challenged on their many fallacies regarding basic human nature; they immediately respond by attacking the messenger. The New York Times front-page story "Many Women at Elite Colleges Set Career Path to Motherhood," by Louise Story (Yale '03) is a perfect example of this tendency in action. Ms. Story supposedly ONLY took the responses that were favorable to her thesis: that women would stop working once they had children, and tossed out the other replies from women who felt they would continue working and share the child rearing burden with their husbands.
Whether or not she did or didn’t is probably a moot issue anyway; however, as I believe all of them are missing the main event here: which is that men (that critical other half of the equation that gender neutralized feminist always like to ignore), do not appear willing to marry and/or bear children with 30/35ish something career women. Thus it could be beside the point whether or not these women wish to stay home and/or work after they have children. The more important issue appears to be can they get men who appear willing to marry them after they have wasted the critical period when they were at the height of female attractiveness to the opposite sex? Once that happens then they can move on to the next stage, which is having children and deciding whether or not to stay home with them. But unless and until they first find the requisite interested male, the whole issue of staying at home versus continuing to work is a moot one.
Clearly the things that attract women to men do not work in reverse and translate into attracting men to women. Economic stability, ensuring that his children will be adequately cared for, appears to be something that most normal men can provide for themselves. So a man with a good income can and usually does look for other qualities in a woman.
Looking at it realistically most women probably wouldn’t want the beta male losers who would need to look for this anyway because they cannot provide it for themselves. As men who appear unable to reach at least one of the lower but still comfortable rungs on the American economic ladder (which is very, very, broad with plenty of room on it for newcomers) are probably the men who suffer from other lacks in their lives as well. For instance, they could be suffering from serious personality disorders, making it impossible for them to get along with their peers. Or even more severe lacks, either mental or physical, which might be passed along to any subsequent children they father.
Thus, we return to the irrefutable fact that most men appear to still be looking for the age-old standards of youth, beauty, peak physical condition, overall health (both physical and emotional), etc., which men have always looked for in their wives and the future mothers of their children. So whether or not a woman has reached the peak of her career potential, as the most powerful lawyer, politician, newsreporter, etc., does not appear to enhance her attractiveness to men or give her any additional access to the more accomplished male gene pool. Actually, it gains her nothing in that respect. If anything it appear to do the opposite and decrease a woman’s potential to get a mate, at least if Kay Bailey Hutchingson and Maureen Dowd are any example. Kay Bailey Hutchingson was reduced to having to do a single parent adoption of a Chinese orphan in order to have a family; and Maureen Dowd is still single and furious over it. Blaming it on the apparent tendency of men to look for less accomplished (and probably younger) women when looking for wives.
Again I think one thing that has become clear after the last four decades or so of continued attacks by gender neutralized feminists on the essential nature of humanity. That social engineering is not quite as easy to accomplished as they originally thought. AND that’s a good thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)