← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Walter Yannis
Thread ID: 16288 | Posts: 36 | Started: 2005-01-13
2005-01-13 08:24 | User Profile
Hey, look at this. Maureen Dowd just discovered evolutionary psychology!
I wonder if she's just whining, or whether she actually gets it now?
Walter
[URL=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/13/opinion/13dowd.html?th]New York Times[/URL]
Men Just Want Mommy By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: January 13, 2005 Go to Complete List
WASHINGTON
A few years ago at a White House Correspondents' dinner, I met a very beautiful actress. Within moments, she blurted out: "I can't believe I'm 46 and not married. Men only want to marry their personal assistants or P.R. women."
I'd been noticing a trend along these lines, as famous and powerful men took up with the young women whose job it was to tend to them and care for them in some way: their secretaries, assistants, nannies, caterers, flight attendants, researchers and fact-checkers.
Women in staff support are the new sirens because, as a guy I know put it, they look upon the men they work for as "the moon, the sun and the stars." It's all about orbiting, serving and salaaming their Sun Gods.
In all those great Tracy/Hepburn movies more than a half-century ago, it was the snap and crackle of a romance between equals that was so exciting. Moviemakers these days seem far more interested in the soothing aura of romances between unequals.
In James Brooks's "Spanglish," Adam Sandler, as a Los Angeles chef, falls for his hot Mexican maid. The maid, who cleans up after Mr. Sandler without being able to speak English, is presented as the ideal woman. The wife, played by Téa Leoni, is repellent: a jangly, yakking, overachieving, overexercised, unfaithful, shallow she-monster who has just lost her job with a commercial design firm. Picture Faye Dunaway in "Network" if she'd had to stay home, or Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction" without the charm.
The same attraction of unequals animated Richard Curtis's "Love Actually," a 2003 holiday hit. The witty and sophisticated British prime minister, played by Hugh Grant, falls for the chubby girl who wheels the tea and scones into his office. A businessman married to the substantial Emma Thompson falls for his sultry secretary. A writer falls for his maid, who speaks only Portuguese.
(I wonder if the trend in making maids who don't speak English heroines is related to the trend of guys who like to watch Kelly Ripa in the morning with the sound turned off?)
Art is imitating life, turning women who seek equality into selfish narcissists and objects of rejection, rather than affection.
As John Schwartz of The New York Times wrote recently, "Men would rather marry their secretaries than their bosses, and evolution may be to blame."
A new study by psychology researchers at the University of Michigan, using college undergraduates, suggests that men going for long-term relationships would rather marry women in subordinate jobs than women who are supervisors.
As Dr. Stephanie Brown, the lead author of the study, summed it up for reporters: "Powerful women are at a disadvantage in the marriage market because men may prefer to marry less-accomplished women." Men think that women with important jobs are more likely to cheat on them.
"The hypothesis," Dr. Brown said, "is that there are evolutionary pressures on males to take steps to minimize the risk of raising offspring that are not their own." Women, by contrast, did not show a marked difference in their attraction to men who might work above or below them. And men did not show a preference when it came to one-night stands.
A second study, which was by researchers at four British universities and reported last week, suggested that smart men with demanding jobs would rather have old-fashioned wives, like their mums, than equals. The study found that a high I.Q. hampers a woman's chance to get married, while it is a plus for men. The prospect for marriage increased by 35 percent for guys for each 16-point increase in I.Q.; for women, there is a 40 percent drop for each 16-point rise.
So was the feminist movement some sort of cruel hoax? The more women achieve, the less desirable they are? Women want to be in a relationship with guys they can seriously talk to - unfortunately, a lot of those guys want to be in relationships with women they don't have to talk to.
I asked the actress and writer Carrie Fisher, on the East Coast to promote her novel "The Best Awful," who confirmed that women who challenge men are in trouble.
"I haven't dated in 12 million years," she said drily. "I gave up on dating powerful men because they wanted to date women in the service professions. So I decided to date guys in the service professions. But then I found out that kings want to be treated like kings, and consorts want to be treated like kings, too."
E-mail: [email]liberties@nytimes.com[/email]
2005-01-13 08:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE]So was the feminist movement some sort of cruel hoax?[/QUOTE]
Yes, Maureen, it was. And it was dreamt up by the same Jews you're working for at the NYT. The whole point of the exercise was to damage gentile society by filling white women with a lot of nonsense and promoting their dissatisfaction with the lot Nature and Nature's God assigned them. Feminism was the strategiv pivot of the Jewish [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0759672229/qid=1105605809/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/002-9965927-4647262]Culture of Critique's [/URL] attack on the gentile family, the cornerstone of all society. By weakening the family, the Jews enhanced the state and their own privileged position in it (see The [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226296660/qid=1105605747/sr=2-3/ref=pd_ka_b_2_3/002-9965927-4647262]Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State[/URL]).
Feminism encouraged women to turn not only on themselves and their men, but on their very own children. It succeeded in inducing women to the ultimate treason - the abortion of countless millions of their own children.
A cruel hoax is precisely what it was.
[QUOTE]The more women achieve, the less desirable they are? [/QUOTE]
No shit?
Figured that one out finally, darlin'?
[QUOTE]Women want to be in a relationship with guys they can seriously talk to - unfortunately, a lot of those guys want to be in relationships with women they don't have to talk to.[/QUOTE]
Duh!
As if this is some sort of major revelation.
Read Geoffrey Miller's "[URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/038549517X/qid=1105605881/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/002-9965927-4647262]The Mating Mind[/URL]." It's all there.
2005-01-13 13:14 | User Profile
Walter,
I've seen a few high-powered feminazis married to little wimpy house husbands. I know three or four such as this in my workplace, and there was one like this in my church (who, by the way, my church had to expel because of her unethical behavior.)
The husbands of these feminazis often come across as effeminate little boys who could never survive on their own. They can't hold down jobs. They are emasculated. And they are totally helpless when their female husbands decide to berate and abuse them. As such, it seems to be a sick symbiotic relationship. The male wimp needs someone to feed and clothe him. The feminazi needs a male to abuse and to whom she can assign domestic chores.
2005-01-13 13:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robert]Walter,
I've seen a few high-powered feminazis married to little wimpy house husbands. I know three or four such as this in my workplace, and there was one like this in my church (who, by the way, my church had to expel because of her unethical behavior.)
The husbands of these feminazis often come across as effeminate little boys who could never survive on their own. They can't hold down jobs. They are emasculated. And they are totally helpless when their female husbands decide to berate and abuse them. As such, it seems to be a sick symbiotic relationship. The male wimp needs someone to feed and clothe him. The feminazi needs a male to abuse and to whom she can assign domestic chores.[/QUOTE]
Robert:
I think that these women are doing horrible violence to themselves. The great majority of women want a masculine man, but feminism taught them that these desires were bad, and that they should lie to themselves that they prefer to be "equals" with their husbands.
Of course, in a sexual sense most women want to feel possessed, and so these women live lives of sexual frustration.
The men are also miserable, but they deserve it more than the women, since they're in fact just being spiritually lazy, whereas the women are really working very hard and applying to themselves a terrible psychic discipline trying to convince themselves they desire something every cell in their body rejects. Their internal rigor is the stuff of Carmelite nuns, but in the service of a very bad, self-destructive cause.
Feminism is such an evil force. I pity the poor women who are its victims.
2005-01-13 14:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] I think that these women are doing horrible violence to themselves. The great majority of women want a masculine man, but feminism taught them that these desires were bad, and that they should lie to themselves that they prefer to be "equals" with their husbands.[/QUOTE] This is absolutely true. Women with wimpy husbands abuse the husbands so badly for two reasons. Firstly, because they don't respect them. Secondly, I think they have a subconscious belief that if they push the wimpy husband hard enough, he will finally stand up for himself. So, in this sense, their bitchiness is almost a cry for help.
2005-01-13 18:18 | User Profile
The article is speculative BS based on dubious-at-best science. And the commentary on it here was facile. I am disappointed by the comments made here. Those things which we argue set white people apart as the most desirable are most fully developed in highly intelligent, refined, educated women (white). The fact that most of these women could be written off (caricatured) as feminist bitches only wimpy liberal men could tolerate, suggests the problem might lie with some paleo-con men. Yes these women demand much more, but it is only commensurate with their more highly developed minds and consequent actions. I imagine such a woman would be undesirable to the average American male who spends his free time watching the NBA, desires any woman he can have sex with (unless he's some evangelical then it's any women he can have lots of kids with) and thinks we should've gone to war "against Saddam" because he attacked us on 9-11 and proud his boy is over in Iraq every time he hears Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA".
But for those men who value European Christendom and realize that it was the zenith of civilization because of the people who made up this land and culture, then he would cherish that characteristic in people which sets it apart from all others. It was said here that only wimpy males go for those feminist bitch types. If this is so then perhaps these wimpy men embody the true spirit of Eurocentric paleo-conservatism, albeit unwittingly, for they value highly-refined women in spite of the higher standards they demand, which runs directly counter to all the animalistic, primitive behavior we abhor in the muds.
And isn't it interesting that it is rare to see these well-bred women (elite private schools into elite colleges into elite neighborhoods) with anything other than white men (that includes non-white women with elite backgrounds). While having recently moved from a "blue state" area (i.e., rich, educated) to a totally "red state" area (i.e., redneck area) I can assure you that miscegenation is much more common among rednecks (something that is, at first blush, counter-intuitive). This ties into one of the conspicuous signs of the stupidity of Nazism/nazism, white racialism, etc., and helps highlight why these philosophies are antipodal to true paleo-conservatism. They are focused on form rather than substance, so they would view a beautiful Aryan specimen such as Hiedi Klum as the near-Platonic form of women, while viewing a radical leftist specimen such as Katrina Vanden Heuval (editor of The Nation and summa cum laude graduate of Princeton) as the embodiment of why Western civilization is collapsing. And the unrefined former example goes off and marries Seal (and apparently without much vexed decision-making given the brief courtship), and the latter (and all her radical friends) have never had it cross their minds to date outside their narrow sphere of bookish, neo-hippie-ish white males (aka "wimpy males").
2005-01-13 18:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Robert:
I think that these women are doing horrible violence to themselves. The great majority of women want a masculine man, but feminism taught them that these desires were bad, and that they should lie to themselves that they prefer to be "equals" with their husbands.
Of course, in a sexual sense most women want to feel possessed, and so these women live lives of sexual frustration.
The men are also miserable, but they deserve it more than the women, since they're in fact just being spiritually lazy, whereas the women are really working very hard and applying to themselves a terrible psychic discipline trying to convince themselves they desire something every cell in their body rejects. Their internal rigor is the stuff of Carmelite nuns, but in the service of a very bad, self-destructive cause.
Feminism is such an evil force. I pity the poor women who are its victims.[/QUOTE] Who's more masculine, the rugged construction worker or the ectomorph bookish, professional male? Which one is closer to the traditional notion of male as protector? What if the latter designs missle systems, and it so happens that this missle system is the only means of protecting this country and millions of Americans from a bizarre and deadly surprise attack? Or he is a microbiologist at NIH and his work is vital in shutting down a bio-terrorist outbreak that is starting to devastate human populations. On the macro-level-- i.e., getting beyond the animalistic level-- the construction worker is no longer able to be a protector and on the macro level he is reduced to the equivalent of a fright-frozen female as the house is broken into and family members killed (dialing 911 is not an option at the macro level, only at the lower animalistic level where the construction worker can act as protector). We paleo-cons are paleo-cons because we look at the world on the grand scale.
2005-01-13 18:57 | User Profile
Yes, Maureen Dowd is the walking dead, and I feel very sorry for her because it sounds like she is beginning to realize it. A 100 year-old man on his deathbed can throw his genes into the future, but for post-menopausal Dowd it is game-over and she is facing the next 20 or 30 years suspecting this to be the case. The day she dies it will be as if she had never lived. Unfortunately for her, she might be bright enough to understand this. I cannot think of a crueler fate.
2005-01-13 19:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE] "I haven't dated in 12 million years," she said drily. "I gave up on dating powerful men because they wanted to date women in the service professions. So I decided to date guys in the service professions. But then I found out that kings want to be treated like kings, and consorts want to be treated like kings, too." [/QUOTE]Some of us prarie muffins figured this out a long time ago. Books like The [url="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743204441/qid=1105642772/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-4629978-9840939?v=glance&s=books&n=507846"]Surrendered Wife[/url] must make her nose bleed. Women who compete with men will always lose. Always.
2005-01-13 19:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]On the macro-level-- i.e., getting beyond the animalistic level-- the construction worker is no longer able to be a protector and on the macro level he is reduced to the equivalent of a fright-frozen female as the house is broken into and family members killed (dialing 911 is not an option at the macro level, only at the lower animalistic level where the construction worker can act as protector). We paleo-cons are paleo-cons because we look at the world on the grand scale.[/QUOTE]I respectfully disagree. It seems to me that paleo-cons, of which I count myself a member, are "traditional" because we recognize that human nature is adamantine. It is fixed, eternal, and must be worked with or directly addressed in order to bring about social harmony. Technology may change, but the human animal does not. It may be that a bookish male is better situated versus a brawny male in today's economy to be a better provider for a female, BUT he better act like a dominant male to his female or she will respond, either by taking advantage of him or by seeking greener pastures. This it has always been and will be. People, male and female, who act like they can take on human nature and win end up being very unhappy.
2005-01-13 19:10 | User Profile
Cassidy, you have a good point.
Let me tell you from the bowels of the NYC middle-class dating world that before I got married, I dated an advertising executive and after that a flight attendant/stewardess and while neither relationship lasted more than 1 year, the lower IQ stewardess was just a total bore and airhead (pun intended), completely unreliable. The advert exec chick was smart IQ wise and converstations were plentiful although her street smarts were seriously lacking. One thing I can tell you is that career chicks only want to be career chicks until they get married. They look for men that make [I]beaucoup[/I] $$$$$$ so they can get out of their "wonderful" careers [I]tout de suite[/I].
The real problem with women (and a few men) today is that they believe way too much in romantic fantasies and gauge men on their ability to make those fantasies come true. These corrosive ideas are reinforced on women by Oprah, Hollywood, TV, magazines, etc. Many, many women, regardless of their status, fall victim to those unrealistic dreams. Those are the ones you MUST stay away from.
2005-01-13 19:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]The article is speculative BS based on dubious-at-best science. And the commentary on it here was facile. I am disappointed by the comments made here. Those things which we argue set white people apart as the most desirable are most fully developed in highly intelligent, refined, educated women (white). Goodness, Jack, you have thrown yourself into quite a tizzy. I never made any remarks maligning 'intelligent, refined, educated women.' The fact that you consider bossy, childless, feminist bitch synonymous with 'intelligent, refined, educated' woman seems to indicate that you have swallowed a lot more liberalism than you may care to admit.
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]The fact that most of these women could be written off (caricatured) as feminist bitches only wimpy liberal men could tolerate, suggests the problem might lie with some paleo-con men. Or, it could suggest that they are feminist bitches only wimpy liberal men could tolerate.
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]Yes these women demand much more, but it is only commensurate with their more highly developed minds and consequent actions. Explain to me exactly how misandry, henpecking, selfishness, careerism, and refusal to continue their race are indicative of 'more highly developed minds'? My original comment was valid. A woman will not respect a man who will not stand up for himself, period, regardless of his level of 'sensitivity' or intelligence.
2005-01-13 19:26 | User Profile
Because a woman is smart and has a career doesn't make her an automatic feminazi bitch. I assure you, these women [B]love[/B] to be dominated.
2005-01-13 20:37 | User Profile
The same attraction of unequals animated Richard Curtis's "Love Actually," a 2003 holiday hit. The witty and sophisticated British prime minister, played by Hugh Grant, falls for the chubby girl who wheels the tea and scones into his office. A businessman married to the substantial Emma Thompson falls for his sultry secretary. A writer falls for his maid, who speaks only Portuguese.
(I wonder if the trend in making maids who don't speak English heroines is related to the trend of guys who like to watch Kelly Ripa in the morning with the sound turned off?)
I think Hollywood will be making more and more movies with white guys marrying almost white women or non-white women.
White men wanted to sow their wild oats; therefore leaving many white women without husbands.
Most men wanted their wives to go to work in the eighties so they could still buy their play toys.
" Men think that women with important jobs are more likely to cheat on them.
Many men cheat on their stay at home a wives; that is why they are so worried about working women.
2005-01-13 20:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Many men cheat on their stay at home a wives; that is why they are so worried about working women.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter. Stay-at-home women have all day to bang the cable guy if they want. Everybody is tempted. Wisdom and happiness comes from not giving in to it.
2005-01-13 21:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]Who's more masculine, the rugged construction worker or the ectomorph bookish, professional male? Which one is closer to the traditional notion of male as protector? What if the latter designs missle systems, and it so happens that this missle system is the only means of protecting this country and millions of Americans from a bizarre and deadly surprise attack? Or he is a microbiologist at NIH and his work is vital in shutting down a bio-terrorist outbreak that is starting to devastate human populations. On the macro-level-- i.e., getting beyond the animalistic level-- the construction worker is no longer able to be a protector and on the macro level he is reduced to the equivalent of a fright-frozen female as the house is broken into and family members killed (dialing 911 is not an option at the macro level, only at the lower animalistic level where the construction worker can act as protector). We paleo-cons are paleo-cons because we look at the world on the grand scale.[/QUOTE]
The point is that there is human nature and that denying it doesn't make it go away. We can't will ourselves feelings we just don't have.
It might well be that the economy is very favorable to those with a sharp mind over those with a strong back, but that doesn't mean the suburban wife of a highly paid, milquetoast Lockheed engineer won't get all moist and tingly gazing at the beefcake wage slaves laying bricks at the new school next door. We are what we are, and we ain't what we ain't.
Same for men. There's not a middle aged lawyer that I know who doesn't secretly lust after some young court reporter, no matter how lovingly loyal he is to his wife of 25 years. Our natures are facts of life. We have to deal with them as they are.
The issue is not whether we should succumb to all our natural urges (we shouldn't). We must not allow ourselves to be slaves to the whims of our animal natures. The point is that any sane society will look at these facts of human sexual psychology - male and female - frankly admit them, and then arrange society around them. But feminism does just the opposite. It insanely attempts to arrange human psychology around the economy, instead of the economy around our natures, as Catholic social teaching would have it.
I'm saying that feminism is destructive because it attempts precisely this perversity. If Gloria Steinem were a cobbler she'd hack on your feet until they fit her shoes. Feminism teaches women (and men) to believe that they can change their natural desires through proper ideological indoctrination. Feminism is brainwashing. It conditions in women (and men) reflexes of shame and anger at any suggestion that the sexes are not wholly fungible in everything except the most fundamental biological aspects of reproduction (although feminism seeks even to elimate those differences).
It was indeed a cruel hoax.
I'm a real old fashioned kind of guy. I really don't like seeing women in the office or in the court rooms. As cops or probation officers. As corporate directors of public officials. It's just not where they belong. They do belong home with the kids. Maybe teaching school or tending to the sick, to the extent it doesn't interfere with their basic and most vital homemaking function. Other than that, they need to be home barefoot and pregnant.
Walter
2005-01-13 21:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Amaara]I respectfully disagree. It seems to me that paleo-cons, of which I count myself a member, are "traditional" because we recognize that human nature is adamantine. It is fixed, eternal, and must be worked with or directly addressed in order to bring about social harmony. Technology may change, but the human animal does not. It may be that a bookish male is better situated versus a brawny male in today's economy to be a better provider for a female, BUT he better act like a dominant male to his female or she will respond, either by taking advantage of him or by seeking greener pastures. This it has always been and will be. People, male and female, who act like they can take on human nature and win end up being very unhappy.[/QUOTE]
Very well put.
2005-01-13 21:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]It doesn't matter. Stay-at-home women have all day to bang the cable guy if they want. Everybody is tempted. Wisdom and happiness comes from not giving in to it.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. It doesn't feel that way some days, to be sure. But that's exactly right.
2005-01-14 03:51 | User Profile
Walter, Quantrill, and Amaara,
I enjoyed reading your insights. Your comments gave me material for thought.
I would like to give one specific example of a dominant female/subordinate male relationship. My wife's sister is married to a guy who comes from a family of high/over achievers. The father is a family doctor. The elder son is a radiologist, the daughter is some sort of business exec., and my wife's brother-in-law, the youngest, is a high-paid stock fund manager. Although all three siblings are intelligent and high-achievers, each one is an emotional mess.
Anyway, the business exec daughter is the oldest of the three. She was married to an alcoholic who claimed to be a real estate agent. He was a passive, soft-natured individual. He was actually rather likeable. But you could easily tell that the wife gave the orders and he took them. As cover, he kept a few real estate signs in the garage, so that he could claim to be a bona fide real estate agent. However, I doubt that he ever sold a single property. Together, they had three children, which he looked after while the wife worked. They lived in a beautiful, spacious home, paid for with her salary.
The stress of the dysfuntional relationship must have beat him down because his drinking problem grew ever worse. There were occassions where his drinking endangered the childrens' safety. In time, the wife grew bored with him and kicked him out, so that she could marry her boss from work. Her second marriage, though, was fairly brief and soon ended in divorce.
The real losers in all of this are the three children. They have a father who's a drunk and a loser, and they have a mother with absolutely no maternal instinct. It will take an act of divine intervention for these kids to grow up to be happy, well-adjusted adults.
2005-01-14 18:20 | User Profile
Jack Cassidy,
Great Post.
2005-01-14 18:36 | User Profile
Amaara,
Great post.
[QUOTE]Yes, Maureen Dowd is the walking dead, and I feel very sorry for her because it sounds like she is beginning to realize it. A 100 year-old man on his deathbed can throw his genes into the future, but for post-menopausal Dowd it is game-over and she is facing the next 20 or 30 years suspecting this to be the case. The day she dies it will be as if she had never lived. Unfortunately for her, she might be bright enough to understand this. I cannot think of a crueler fate.[/QUOTE]
Maureen Dowd (born January 14, 1952)
Pictures:
[url]http://www.amherst.edu/~daschaich/images/quizdowd.jpg[/url]
[url]http://www.peacearchive.org/images/dowd.jpg[/url]
[url]http://www.nyodn.org/about/17.%20Dowd,%20berg,%20Quindlan.jpg[/url]
2005-01-15 10:07 | User Profile
Close on the heels of the above Maureen Dowd ("MoDo") piece, we get this article from the NYT's David Brooks, that I cut and paste immediately below. Note the reference to "human capital" (aka "social capital") at the end of the article, coupled with a frank admission that the SSI and Medicare crises relate directly to American women (especially it is hinted educated American women) having far too few children. This whole concept of social captial seems to be trickling from academia down to the pundit level. I tried to spark discussion of it over on the Distributism forum, some of you may recall. Social capital is fast becoming the social science buzzword de jure.
The fact that it showed up in the NYT raises my eyebrow.
Walter
Empty Nests, and Hearts By DAVID BROOKS
Published: January 15, 2005
Over the past 30 years, the fraction of women over 40 who have no children has nearly doubled, to about a fifth. According to the Gallup Organization, 70 percent of these women regret that they have no kids.
It's possible that some of these women regret not having children in the way they regret not taking more time off after college. But for others, this longing for the kids they did not have is a profound, soul-encompassing sadness.
And it is part of a large pattern. Most American still tell pollsters that the ideal family has two or three children. But fewer and fewer Americans get to live in that kind of family.
Why?
For some, it's a question of never finding the right person to have kids with. Others thought they'd found the right mates, but the relationships didn't work out. Others became occupied with careers, and the child-rearing part of their lives never got put together.
But there is also one big problem that stretches across these possibilities: Women now have more choices over what kind of lives they want to lead, but they do not have more choices over how they want to sequence their lives.
For example, consider a common life sequence for an educated woman. She grows up and goes to college. Perhaps she goes to graduate school. Then, during her most fertile years, when she has the most energy for child-rearing, she gets a job. Then, sometime after age 30, she marries. Then, in her mid-30's, when she has acquired the maturity and character to make intelligent career choices, she takes time off to raise her kids.
Several years hence, she seeks to re-enter the labor force. She may or may not be still interested in the field she was trained for (two decades earlier). Nonetheless, she finds a job, works for 15 years or so, then spends her final 20 years in retirement.
This is not necessarily the sequence she would choose if she were starting from scratch. For example, it might make more sense to go to college, make a greater effort to marry early and have children. Then, if she, rather than her spouse, wants to stay home, she could raise children from age 25 to 35. Then at 35 (now that she knows herself better) she could select a flexible graduate program specifically designed for parents. Then she could work in one uninterrupted stint from, say, 40 to 70.
This option would allow her to raise kids during her most fertile years and work during her mature ones, and the trade-off between family and career might be less onerous.
But the fact is that right now, there are few social institutions that are friendly to this way of living. Social custom flows in the opposite direction.
Neil Gilbert observes in the current issue of The Public Interest that as women have entered the work force, they have adopted the male model, jumping directly into careers. Instead, he suggests, it would be better to make decisions based on what he calls the "life-course perspective." It's possible that women should sequence their lives differently from men, and that women may need a broader diversity of sequence options.
Gilbert, who is a professor of social welfare at Berkeley, points out that right now our social policies are friendly toward this straight-to-work sequence and discourage other options. Programs like day care and flexible leave help parents work and raise kids simultaneously. That's fine for some, but others may prefer policies that help them do these things sequentially.
It might make sense, for example, to give means-tested tax credits or tuition credits to stay-at-home parents. That would subsidize child-rearing, but in a way that leaves it up to families to figure out how to use it. The government spends trillions on retirees, but very little on young families.
I suspect that if more people had the chance to focus exclusively on child-rearing before training for and launching a career, fertility rates would rise. [B]That would be good for the country, for as Phillip Longman, author of "The Empty Cradle," has argued, we are consuming more human capital than we are producing - or to put it another way, we don't have enough young people to support our old people. (That's what the current Social Security debate and the coming Medicare debate are all about.)[/B] It would also be good for those many millions of Americans who hit their mid-40's and regret not having kids, or not having as many as they would like. As it says somewhere, to everything, there is a season.
2005-01-15 15:24 | User Profile
[COLOR=Indigo][B] - "And it was dreamt up by the same Jews you're working for at the NYT. The whole point of the exercise was to damage gentile society by filling white women with a lot of nonsense and promoting their dissatisfaction with the lot Nature and Nature's God assigned them. "[/B][/COLOR]
An excellent thread, but once again, I don't think we can blame Jews alone for feminism, for such an attitude stands in the way of healthy self-criticism, and prevents us from fully realizing how we came to this mess in the first place, a bit like "blame Whitey" attitude prevents Blacks confronting their own inadequacies.
Ever heard of [B]the suffragettes[/B]? They got started off without Jews. European women may simply have certain sense of independence in their genes that Jews were later able to exploit.
Already by the time of Vikings, Nordic women had a great sense of independence - I recall reading some story about some Arab ambassador who was sent to the north, and how he was allowed to talk to some wife of Viking chieftain in private.
The ambassador became nervous and asked her whether her husband wouldn't become jealous to him for talking alone with his wife like that - but the wife answered, more or less, that in their country, women stayed with their husbands only as long as it pleased them, and when they would please them no longer, they would find new husbands!
(I think that the Arab ambassador was named Al-Ghazali - has anyone else read this story?)
[url]http://ks.essortment.com/vikingwoman_rbsn.htm[/url]
[COLOR=DarkRed][I]"A wife could divorce their husband if their husband mistreated them or their children, was lazy or not a good provider or insulted her family. The process of divorce was quite simple and all the wife had to do was call some witnesses and proclaim she was divorced from her husband at the front door and at their bed."
"The Viking woman had more rights than any other woman in Europe at the time. Everything a woman brought into a Viking marriage was hers, and did not become the property of her husband's estate." [/I] [/COLOR]
Petr
2005-01-15 19:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]The point is that there is human nature and that denying it doesn't make it go away. We can't will ourselves feelings we just don't have.
It might well be that the economy is very favorable to those with a sharp mind over those with a strong back, but that doesn't mean the suburban wife of a highly paid, milquetoast Lockheed engineer won't get all moist and tingly gazing at the beefcake wage slaves laying bricks at the new school next door. We are what we are, and we ain't what we ain't.
Same for men. There's not a middle aged lawyer that I know who doesn't secretly lust after some young court reporter, no matter how lovingly loyal he is to his wife of 25 years. Our natures are facts of life. We have to deal with them as they are.
The issue is not whether we should succumb to all our natural urges (we shouldn't). We must not allow ourselves to be slaves to the whims of our animal natures. The point is that any sane society will look at these facts of human sexual psychology - male and female - frankly admit them, and then arrange society around them. But feminism does just the opposite. It insanely attempts to arrange human psychology around the economy, instead of the economy around our natures, as Catholic social teaching would have it.
I'm saying that feminism is destructive because it attempts precisely this perversity. If Gloria Steinem were a cobbler she'd hack on your feet until they fit her shoes. Feminism teaches women (and men) to believe that they can change their natural desires through proper ideological indoctrination. Feminism is brainwashing. It conditions in women (and men) reflexes of shame and anger at any suggestion that the sexes are not wholly fungible in everything except the most fundamental biological aspects of reproduction (although feminism seeks even to elimate those differences).
It was indeed a cruel hoax.
I'm a real old fashioned kind of guy. I really don't like seeing women in the office or in the court rooms. As cops or probation officers. As corporate directors of public officials. It's just not where they belong. They do belong home with the kids. Maybe teaching school or tending to the sick, to the extent it doesn't interfere with their basic and most vital homemaking function. Other than that, they need to be home barefoot and pregnant.
Walter[/QUOTE] The discussion here on this article has been disappointing to me. The breakdown of womanhood in modern Western society is not a product of the smart, loud-mouthed, Mount Holyoke and Wellesley types that fill the ranks of the so-called "feminist bitches", although it is understandable many people would think this (especially when the feminist types, for whatever reason, don't seem concerned about disabusing people of this perception). What is destroying modern Western womenhood is the Stepford wife types you hear on Rush Limbaugh, "Mega dittoes, Rush, from a proud Marine mom whose son is fighting in Iraq protecting America..."
We as paleo-cons cherish Western European Christian culture, and in this culture at its zenith-- or most refined, i.e., aristocracy-- these women (from St. Catherine of Siena and Joan of Arc to George Eliot and Edith Wharton) would more so approximate "feminist bitches" than the loathsome hawk females you hear on Hannity or Limbaugh. I dare say that if every young woman were to be inculcated with feminist ideology you would have less of the societally destructive behaviors (teenage/out-of-wedlock pregnancy, drugs and alcoholism, miscegenation, divorce, academic failure, et al.). I'm not a fan of feminism, it holds moral positions antithetical to my own (especially abortion). There is not antidote to this inexorable death of Western civilization, but when know feminism is not to blame for she in her present form wasn't around at the time of the poisoning (circa the Protestant Reformation).
2005-01-15 19:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE][Jack Cassidy] What is destroying modern Western womenhood is the Stepford wife types you hear on Rush Limbaugh, "Mega dittoes, Rush, from a proud Marine mom whose son is fighting in Iraq protecting America..." [/QUOTE]
The problem is that too many people have the right to vote. We should return to the way we worked things in the early 19th century, where only white men of reputable character (never convicted of a felony) and property (owners, say, of a 40 acre homestead or whatever equivalent that would have today) should be allowed to vote. I believe that honorable military service should also be a prerequisite for the franchise.
Women have no business in running the world, their place should limited to the home where they should rule by right as queens. St. Paul wouldn't even let them speak in church, and rightly so, but he also pointed out their dignity and cosmic value in performing their functions as wifes and mothers.
In the same way blacks, browns and any other outsiders should have no political power. The poor shouldn't be allowed to vote. Criminals shouldn't be allowed to vote. Civil servants or those on public assistance shouldn't have the franchise, at least for as long as they serve or feed from the public trough.
This is our country, our home, and we must reassert mastery of our own house.
[QUOTE]There is not antidote to this inexorable death of Western civilization, but when know feminism is not to blame for she in her present form wasn't around at the time of the poisoning (circa the Protestant Reformation).[/QUOTE]
I'm not letting white men off the hook. The fault is entirely ours. Nobody did anything to us that we didn't allow to happen out of pure laziness and indeed in some instances cowardice (but mostly laziness).
The antidote is for white men to stop being lazy and shoulder their responsibilities. That means being master of their homes, and extending from that with other white men of good character and property to assert mastery over their communities and nation.
It's our civilization. My land, my house, my wife, my kids, my dog, my car. Until we can start saying that and seriously backing it up with actions, we deserve to lose.
Feminism is but a symptom of our own spinelessness, along with the kosher regime that gave it to us.
2005-01-16 05:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]The problem is that too many people have the right to vote. We should return to the way we worked things in the early 19th century, where only white men of reputable character (never convicted of a felony) and property (owners, say, of a 40 acre homestead or whatever equivalent that would have today) should be allowed to vote. I believe that honorable military service should also be a prerequisite for the franchise.
Women have no business in running the world, their place should limited to the home where they should rule by right as queens. St. Paul wouldn't even let them speak in church, and rightly so, but he also pointed out their dignity and cosmic value in performing their functions as wifes and mothers.[/QUOTE]I couldn't agree with you more. It isn't that women don't have business running the world, in that it is true that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. However, the business of politics is best suited to older, wiser men who have the stomach for it. Unfortunately, democracy decays to pandering to self-interested grubbing minorities and "my kids' Mom"-types who feel that "Mean People Suck" bumper stickers are pithy political commentary.
2005-01-16 05:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]The discussion here on this article has been disappointing to me. The breakdown of womanhood in modern Western society is not a product of the smart, loud-mouthed, Mount Holyoke and Wellesley types that fill the ranks of the so-called "feminist bitches", although it is understandable many people would think this (especially when the feminist types, for whatever reason, don't seem concerned about disabusing people of this perception). What is destroying modern Western womenhood is the Stepford wife types you hear on Rush Limbaugh, "Mega dittoes, Rush, from a proud Marine mom whose son is fighting in Iraq protecting America..."
We as paleo-cons cherish Western European Christian culture, and in this culture at its zenith-- or most refined, i.e., aristocracy-- these women (from St. Catherine of Siena and Joan of Arc to George Eliot and Edith Wharton) would more so approximate "feminist bitches" than the loathsome hawk females you hear on Hannity or Limbaugh. I dare say that if every young woman were to be inculcated with feminist ideology you would have less of the societally destructive behaviors (teenage/out-of-wedlock pregnancy, drugs and alcoholism, miscegenation, divorce, academic failure, et al.). I'm not a fan of feminism, it holds moral positions antithetical to my own (especially abortion). There is not antidote to this inexorable death of Western civilization, but when know feminism is not to blame for she in her present form wasn't around at the time of the poisoning (circa the Protestant Reformation).[/QUOTE]I don't think anyone here is opposed to strong women, but, in my opinion, feminism is antithetical to strong women. Pop feminism is exemplified by the charming slogan so often seen: "Girlz Rule, Boys Drool." It inculcates in young girls a sense that they are entitled to everything they desire, and if they don't get it, someone (not themselves) is to blame. This produces not strong but weak and vengeful women.
I must admit I am surprised at your hostility towards the mothers of our servicemen. What on Earth do your expect their attitudes to be? I cannot imagine the cold horror that runs through them at the merest hint that this war might be for naught. These women deserve your pity, not contempt. They are offering up their sons and praying that the sacrifice is worth it. This war has to mean something. It HAS to. Otherwise, their whole world comes to a screeching halt.
I do understand your frustration, knowing that married people with children put Arbusto back in office for four more years. However, you are blaming the wrong people. Blaming mothers for being chauvenists towards their warrior sons is like blaming the sun for being hot. Blame the puppetmasters who are sending these boys to fight and die for an unjust war.
2005-01-16 17:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Amaara]I don't think anyone here is opposed to strong women, but, in my opinion, feminism is antithetical to strong women. Pop feminism is exemplified by the charming slogan so often seen: "Girlz Rule, Boys Drool." It inculcates in young girls a sense that they are entitled to everything they desire, and if they don't get it, someone (not themselves) is to blame. This produces not strong but weak and vengeful women. [/QUOTE]
Pop feminism is also exemplified by the notion that "every female is a [B]diva[/B] "; witness the countless T-shirts, handbags and other paraphenalia with "Princess", "Diva", "Queen" written on them. It's funny how the Establishment doesn't exploit males in that respect, and that is a good thing. For every time you hear some women complaining about "stereotyping", "exploitation of women", ad nauseum, all you have to do is look at the aforementioned items and see how stereotyping, pigeon-holing, and exploitation of women is done on a daily basis.
2005-01-16 21:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Indigo][B] - "And it was dreamt up by the same Jews you're working for at the NYT. The whole point of the exercise was to damage gentile society by filling white women with a lot of nonsense and promoting their dissatisfaction with the lot Nature and Nature's God assigned them. "[/B][/COLOR]
An excellent thread, but once again, I don't think we can blame Jews alone for feminism, for such an attitude stands in the way of healthy self-criticism, and prevents us from fully realizing how we came to this mess in the first place, a bit like "blame Whitey" attitude prevents Blacks confronting their own inadequacies.
Ever heard of [B]the suffragettes[/B]? They got started off without Jews. European women may simply have certain sense of independence in their genes that Jews were later able to exploit.
Already by the time of Vikings, Nordic women had a great sense of independence - I recall reading some story about some Arab ambassador who was sent to the north, and how he was allowed to talk to some wife of Viking chieftain in private. [/QUOTE]Certainly western man's, and especially women's individualistic natures can be exploited and subverted. MacDonald describes this mechanism as follows:
[QUOTE]Another critical component of the evolutionary basis of individualism is the elaboration of the human affectional system as an individualistic pair-bonding system, the system that seemed so strange that it was theorized to be a thin veneer overlaying a deep psychopathology to a generation of Jewish intellectuals emerging from the ghetto (Cuddihy 1974, 71). This system is individualistic in the sense that it is based not on external, group-based social controls or familial dictate but, rather, on the intrinsically motivated role of romantic love in cementing reproductive relationships (see pp. 136--139). The issue is important because Western cultures are typically characterized as relatively individualistic compared to other societies (Triandis 1995), and there is reason to suppose that the affectional system is conceptually linked to individualism; that is, it is a system that tends toward nuclear rather than extended family organization. Triandis (1990) finds that individualistic societies emphasize romantic love to a greater extent than do collectivist societies, and Western cultures have indeed emphasized romantic love more than other cultures (see PTSDA, 236-245; MacDonald 1995b,c; Money 1980). This system is highly elaborated in Western cultures in both men and women, and it is psychometrically linked with empathy, altruism, and nurturance. Individuals who are very high on this system--predominantly females--are pathologically prone to altruistic, nurturant and dependent behavior (see MacDonald 1995a). On an evolutionary account, the relatively greater elaboration of this system in females is to be expected, given the greater female role in nurturance and as a discriminating mechanism in relationships of pair bonding. Such a perspective also accounts for the much-commented-on gender gap in political behavior in which females are more prone to voting for political candidates favoring liberal positions on social issues. Women more than men also endorse political stances that equalize rather than accentuate differences between individuals and groups (Pratto, Stallworth & Sidanius 1997).
In ancestral environments this system was highly adaptive, resulting in a tendency toward pair bonding and high-investment parenting, as well as intrinsically motivated relationships of close friendship and trust. This system continues to be adaptive in the modern world in its role in underlying high-investment parenting, but it is easy to see that the relative hypertrophy of this system may result in maladaptive behavior if a system designed for empathy, altruism, and nurturance of family members and others in a closely related group becomes directed to the world outside the family.
The implication is that Western societies are subject to invasion by non-Western cultures able to manipulate Western tendencies toward reciprocity, egalitarianism, and close affectional relationships in a manner that results in maladaptive behavior for the European-derived peoples who remain at the core of all Western societies.
The mechanism of feminist subversion of society is definitively described by MacDonald in his section on the Frankfurt School. Radical feminism, directly derived from the Frankfurt School works like Reich's [I]Sexual Politics[/I], after all certainly is a strongly jewish movement as a perfunctory check of the names - Gloria Steinem, Betty Frieden, etc. - shows.
2005-01-17 05:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Amaara]I don't think anyone here is opposed to strong women, but, in my opinion, feminism is antithetical to strong women. Pop feminism is exemplified by the charming slogan so often seen: "Girlz Rule, Boys Drool." It inculcates in young girls a sense that they are entitled to everything they desire, and if they don't get it, someone (not themselves) is to blame. This produces not strong but weak and vengeful women.
I must admit I am surprised at your hostility towards the mothers of our servicemen. What on Earth do your expect their attitudes to be? I cannot imagine the cold horror that runs through them at the merest hint that this war might be for naught. These women deserve your pity, not contempt. They are offering up their sons and praying that the sacrifice is worth it. This war has to mean something. It HAS to. Otherwise, their whole world comes to a screeching halt.
I do understand your frustration, knowing that married people with children put Arbusto back in office for four more years. However, you are blaming the wrong people. Blaming mothers for being chauvenists towards their warrior sons is like blaming the sun for being hot. Blame the puppetmasters who are sending these boys to fight and die for an unjust war.[/QUOTE] I'm not referring to the MTV-esque, psuedo-feminism where you would see such a tenny-bopperish bumper sticker ("Girlz rule, boys drool"). This lower/middle class white trash feminism is radically different from the feminism this thread is referring to, and has its roots in the devolution of culture in suburbia and exurbia and not in anything Gloria Steinham or Naomi Wolfe wrote.
As for the rest of your comments, well, sorry if it came off critical of U.S. servicemen or their families. I support them and I pray for them several times each day. I am against this recent phenomenon of professional military people and their families rallying around military service or this or that military branch with all the giddiness and cheerleading of a sports fan. My dad and my mom's uncle saw combat in war. If I had decided to join the Marines or Army instead of or before going to college my mom would've accepted this with somber resignation, whether at war or not, and thus I know for certain she would not be sporting a "Marine Mom" bumper sticker and all the rest.
2005-01-18 19:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE]And it was dreamt up by the same Jews you're working for at the NYT.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Radical feminism, directly derived from the Frankfurt School works like Reich's Sexual Politics, after all certainly is a strongly jewish movement as a perfunctory check of the names - Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, etc. - shows.[/QUOTE] We often see references to the supposedly non-Jewish 19th century women's movement, but preliminary results show one of the first "big three" feminists to have been Jewish:
[url]http://www.brandeis.edu/centers/wsrc/Ernestine_Rose_Website/ERhomepage.html[/url]
Susan B. Anthony recognized Ernestine Rose as one of the three foremothers of the 19th century women's rights movement in the United States. "....Mary Wollstonecraft and then Frances Wright and Ernestine Rose...All spoke about women's rights before Lucretia Mott, Stanton, and others." Anthony kept a large photo of Rose on the wall of her study and described her as "that noble worker for the cause of women's rights." Anthony and Rose probably first met in 1852 when Anthony attended her first Woman's Rights Convention. Rose had been advocating for women's rights in the U.S. since 1836.
[url]http://www.brandeis.edu/centers/wsrc/Ernestine_Rose_Website/Shortbio.html[/url]
Born January 13, 1810 in Piotrkow, Poland, Ernestine Susmond Potowski, grew into an intellectually precocious young woman. As a rabbi's daughter, she was offered more education than women commonly received at that time. She studied Hebrew scriptures and Talmud with her father.
2005-01-18 20:03 | User Profile
[url]http://www.fau.edu/library/brody21.htm[/url]
[QUOTE]For 30 years, she took an active role in the National Women's Suffrage Association. [B]If Susan B. Anthony was the "soul," then Ernestine L. Rose was the "brain" of the suffrage movement.[/B] She petitioned the New York State Legislature to give married women equal rights with their husbands in property ownership and in the guardianship of children. Her initial effort failed, but she kept up the struggle until, in 1848, these reforms became law.
In 1850, Rose helped to organize the first National Woman's Rights Convention, which met in Massachusetts. As a result, she became acquainted with such feminists and abolitionists as Ralph Waldo Emerson, William Lloyd Garrison, Lucretia Mott, Susan B. Anthony and others. When the Territory of Wyoming's legislature became the first to grant women the right to vote, it was a great personal victory for her.
Rose, who was considered to be one of the more radical leaders of the feminist movement, attacked the 14th and 15th Amendments which emancipated blacks but did not include women's rights. However, she never seemed to attach any importance to her Jewish background until 1863, when she had a published debate with Horace Seaver, the abolitionist editor of the Boston Investigator, whom she accused of being anti-Semitic. [/QUOTE]
2005-01-19 04:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]We often see references to the supposedly non-Jewish 19th century women's movement, but preliminary results show one of the first "big three" feminists to have been Jewish:
[url]http://www.brandeis.edu/centers/wsrc/Ernestine_Rose_Website/ERhomepage.html[/url]
Susan B. Anthony recognized Ernestine Rose as one of the three foremothers of the 19th century women's rights movement in the United States. "....Mary Wollstonecraft and then Frances Wright and Ernestine Rose...All spoke about women's rights before Lucretia Mott, Stanton, and others." [/QUOTE] Good work MW. Glad someone has time to study the woman's movement.
Although interestingly enough, I remember reading how Emma Goldman I think thought giving woman the right to vote was a big mistake.
2005-01-19 05:07 | User Profile
I wrote about the suffragette movement since I am European, and at least in here it sure did not seem to require Jews to get started - the very first nations to legislate an universal suffrage were New Zealand and then Finland, my own country...
:huh:
Petr
2005-01-19 05:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]I wrote about the suffragette movement since I am European, and at least in here it sure did not seem to require Jews to get started - the very first nations to legislate an universal suffrage were New Zealand and then Finland, my own country...
:huh:
Petr[/QUOTE]And look where it got you Petr .
The example of your country is just one more proof of the wisdom of Napolean - "Let the Women Knit" or the traditional German view for socially adjusted women "Kinder, Kirch, and Kutchen". :lol:
2005-01-19 23:35 | User Profile
Maureen Down is such an idiot. Men don't want "mommy," they simply want a woman who actually reminds them of a woman, as opposed to some swaggering, suit-wearing, bitchy sort of mannish thing with a (largely disused) vagina and a (cobweb-enshrouded) womb. That doesn't mean men have some sort of pathetic attatchment to their childhood maternal caregiver, but rather that most of them are, in point of fact, heterosexual.
Besides, this whole article is insincere; its just Ms. Dowd's lame attempt to troll for dates via her column. She's clearly hoping some sensitive, Alan Aldaesque type will email her about how HE's not "afraid of strong women," or some such drivel. Speaking of strong women, my mom could wallop Marueen Dowd without so much as losing her breath....