The Course of the Future

For John, BLUF:  If women are not having children, from where will the next generration come?♠  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The New York Times sure is pushing hard on the narrative of the middle-aged, childless, single-woman lifestyle.  Why?

From Not the Bee, by Blogger Planet Moron, 3 June 2024.

Here is the lede plus one:

I have a theory about happy people. Happy people feel remarkably uncompelled to point out to other people how very happy they are. It's unnecessary. Rather, they just go about their day, you know, being happy.

With that in mind, permit me to introduce you to Glynnis MacNicol, guest Opinion Essayist for The New York Times.

In her essay, she details three things she believes it's very important for you to know:

1. She is very very happy being single, childless, and almost 50. Really, It's like a "fantasy."  She's enjoying her age, she's enjoying her choices, she's enjoying herself, she's enjoying her enjoyment and she doesn't need you to approve of it which is why she's so desperate to convince you it's true through repetition.
2. Men are terrified of her for being happy and enjoying her fantasy life even though they don't know she exists.
3. ‘80s sitcoms were the height of feminist triumph.  Or something.

I applaud Ms Glynnis MacNicol for her success in life and her ability to do it on her own.

However, what about her responsibility to posterity?  Not that I am looking for another Reporter McNicNicol loose in Journalism.  But, what about the generation of the people who will sustain Glynnis MacNicol in her old age?  Nature says it takes about 2.1 births for every female to sustain a population.  Who does Ms MacNicol have producing the lost 2.1 babies, since she is not producing any children?  Maybe that is what President Biden is trying to fix with his open borders.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  This reminds one of South Koreas 4Bs Movement.

What is a Woman?

For John, BLUF:  the theme iw thaat the Left has denied women has a nature given nature and it has only hurt women.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Leftist policies have driven women mad

From American Thinker, by Ms Andrea Widburg, 6 November 2022.

Here is the lede plus three:

At the forefront of the BLM riots in 2020 were women—screaming, hysterical, angry, irrational women, seemingly college-educated, and both Black and White. These women were obviously broken, and a poll now confirms that observation. The left, by denying these women their biological mission, is destroying them. However, those women who embrace that mission may save America.

For the past 60 years, especially in academia, leftists have told the vulnerable young women in their charge “You are a victim. If you are White, you’re not only victim of the patriarchy, by virtue of your skin color, you’re also a victimizer and undeserving beneficiary of systemic racism. If you are Black, no matter your ability or accomplishments, you will always be a victim, whether as a woman or as a Black person.”

It’s impossible to imagine more toxic messages, whether by creating unsustainable cognitive dissonance in young White women (“you’re both victim and victimizer”) or demeaning Black women beyond all reason (“no matter what you do, you’ll always fail”). Leftists didn’t stop there, though. They also attacked the very nature of being a woman.

For decades, young women have been taught that motherhood is devoid of meaning and purpose, erasing a woman’s natural intelligence and ability. The secret to fulfillment, young women are told, is a career. Moreover, if you want to ride that career to the top of corporate power, you’d better be all-in for abortion because those babies will get in your way.

Are we, as humans, driven by millenia-long evolution, to feel part of a process for perpetuating our existence?  It would seem so, and the Democrats are losing voters because they have taken the unnatural path and tried to bring womanhood along with it.  Are there women who feel mis-gendered?  At least as far back as Christine Jorgensen.  Today we seem to be taking the normal emotional sorting out of yooung people growing to maturity and creating permanent changes based on temporary moods.  We are ignoring the insight into the need for maturity that causes us to not give drivers licenses before sixteen or sell alcohol before twenty-one.

Yes, we have to absolutely open up opportunities for women.  It is one of the underlyiung principles of our Republic.  That said, we need to have a variety of paths, so we do noot end up stifflying the dreams and aspirations of women who would like a different path.  And we should not discourage continued repopulation of our nation and the planet.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

A Good Pact

For John, BLUF:  If I could I would create a law that said the Father must support the Mother and Child.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Leftist women discover traditional marriage

From Twitter, by Common Sense Extremists, 6 Jul 62022, 8:55 PM.

Here is the lede plus one:

Common Sense Extremists
@crushmarxismnow
Leftist women discover traditional marriage

Me and some of my girlfriends did a retreat this weekend to help us cope with the monumental serback in human rights.  By the end of it, we had moved from sad to ANGRY.  We all agreed to a pact not having sex with any man, until he had proven himself a capable provider, and until that man had signed a contract, written on paper, agreeing to stay with us and support us if we get pregnant.  We started drafting an actual contract, and we're planning on sending it to a lawyer to make sure it is legit.  At this point I am completely done with men who want to hook up and leave, its high time for American men to STEP UP.

The way it should be!

I have always thought that having sex carried a covenant that if pregnancy resulted, marriage followed.  Forget about your "career", being a husband and father was your new priority.  I hope that American women step up to this new (old) standard.  That would be real feminism.  That would be real self-respect.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Grow Up

For John, BLUF:  We have, as a society, evolved to the point that we do not hold peple responsible for their actions, from petty crime to pregnancy.  There will be long term consequences.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Comment Of The Day (on) “Comment Of The Day:  ‘Sunday Morning Ethics Warm-Up… Dobbs Freakout Edition”

From Ethics Alarms, by Mr Jack Marshall, 30 June 2022.

Here is the lede plus four:

“We seek power and equality in society, and then we continually play the victim”.

Agreed.  I saw a meme the other day (yes memes are reductionist) that captured a part of this whole debacle.  It said something about being able to wear a mask for two years but not being able to wear a condom for 48 seconds.

Aren’t strong women supposed to be able to say ‘no’ to sex with men they don’t want babies with?  Aren’t they able to practice self-care by taking care of their bodies during sex?  Aren’t they smart enough to know that abortion carries risk and do what is necessary to not put themselves in that situation in the first place?

Apparently not.  Apparently it’s men’s fault or the fault of the patriarchy or Trump or Catholics on the Supreme Court.  It’s never a woman’s fault for making terrible disembodied choices that end a life.

You can’t be a strong woman if you won’t value yourself enough to stop sleeping with jerks.  You can’t be a resilient woman if you refuse to take responsibility for your body before pregnancy (or STI’s).  And you can’t be very smart if you deny basic biology in how pregnancies happen.

This is the other side of the Abortion argument.  Not that it should happen, but that if women took charge of their own bodies it would be, in the words of President Bill Clinton, "rare".

I am of the view that every act of sex is an implied contract, which executes upon conception.  If a baby is conceived, it is the Mother and the Father who should commit to each other and the child, the way nature intended it.  Oregnancy does not mean abortion,.  It means marriage.  If one is not in a position to accept that reality, one needs to find an alternative form of sexual gratification.  Actions have consequences, or at least should have consequences.

In the long term the failure of a society to hold its members to responsibilities and consequences will result in the undermining of that society.

Regards  —  Cliff

What is Key to Feminism?

For John, BLUF:  zthe suthor asks some of the hard questions about responsibility.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Hill to Die On

From The Chhicago Boyz, by Sgt. Mom, 20 June 2022.

Here is the lede plus one:

I swear, I have never been able to understand how the loud and proud Capital-F official feminists made the ready availability of abortion the hill (for the pre-born fetal humans, mostly) to die on.  Yes, I’ve pondered this in blogposts many a time.  The 19th century suffragettes certainly were what we would now cast as pro-life, and so was a modern iteration, IIRC.  (I used to get their newsletter.)  Why that one single aspect, out of all the others which would have a bearing on the lives of females; extended maternal leave and benefits, quality childcare … practically any other concern other than that of abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy could be a rallying ground for those affecting an intense interest in matters of a particularly female orientation.  This, when birth control in so many forms (and for male and female alike) is readily and economically available.  This is not the 19th century anymore, not even the first half of the 20th.  Truly, it is a mystery why this particular cause and no other animates the radical fem-fringe.  I can only surmise that many of the radical and early feminists had abortions, felt horrifically guilty about it all and wished to drag other women into that particular hell with them as a matter of solidarity.

I am myself old enough to have known other women – my peers, mostly – who did for a variety of reasons, decide to take that route.  I understood that they had reasons they felt were valid and I sympathized without approval.  A woman who is pregnant and for whatever reasons, emphatically does not want to be – has a problem, a problem for which all the solutions are painful.  I did not judge then – but did feel the weight of their decision to go with whatever they felt to be the least painful.  No matter how you slice it, with abortion, you are cutting off a potential life – a viable heartbeat, little fingers and toes, a tiny face with eyelashes and a decided character, even in the womb.  So I have always approved of and supported those various enterprises which reached out a helping hand to the inconveniently-pregnant; anyone or any office which offered medical help, moral and actual support and encouragement to a woman who was inconveniently pregnant.  That was putting good intentions where they mattered; into actions which would offer an alternative to abortion.

A part of the power of pregnancy is the responsibility to be responsible.  The idea that abortion is a form of birth control does not appeal to me.  It is right up there with Eugenics as a wrong reason for abortion.

Is the purpose of Feminism to keep women in the workplace and not pregnant?  How will that work out in the long run?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Resisting Diversity

For John, BLUF:  The next step will be to define tradwives as fascists.  Inherently fascist.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Housewives of White Supremacy

From The Old Gray Lady, by Ms Annie Kelly, 1 June 2018.♠

In this article Ms Kelly examines the "traditional wife" (tradwife), apparently an artifact of the right side of the political spectrum.

Ms Kelly sees this vision of the tradwife as including a traditional, 1950s, lifestyle, "all supported by a single income".  The funny thing is, I see a lot of Democratic Party writing that also talks about how it would be better if families could be supported on a single income.  Not upper middle class families, of course, but those in the lower economic strata.

Hat tip to the Althouse blog.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Ms. Kelly is a Ph.D. student researching the impact of digital cultures on anti-feminism and the far right.

Selective Feminism

For John, BLUF:  Including in our own partisan General Court.  Shame!  Shame!  Shame!  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The anti-woman violence feminists are afraid to confront

From The New York Post, by Ms Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 24 May 2018.

She knows of what she speaks.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The ERA is Back?

TRIGGER WARNING:  In which I reference an article that suggests an ERA might not be good for women.

For John, BLUF:  Yes Equal means no preferences.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Equal Rights Amendment:  Back for an Encore Performance?  Well...Performance, Yes, But Actual Constitution-Making, Probably Not.

Here is the sub-headline:

The last thing left-leaning feminists want is a constitutional amendment that would jeopardize such things as preferential treatment for woman-owned businesses.

From The Volokh Conspiracy, by Law Prof Gail Heriot, 1 May 2018.

Here is the lede:

Who would have thought the Equal Rights Amendment would stage a comeback?  Yet at least on the surface, that might seem to be happening.  Nevada ratified the amendment in 2017.  A few weeks ago the Illinois Senate did the same.  Some of the ERA's cheerleaders argue that only two more states should be needed.

Yes, if it passes the litigation will go on for a very long time.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

We Are Doing It Wrong?

For John, BLUF:    Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Penetration is Rape

Always!

At least amongst humans.

From the Blog Radical Wind, a post from way back on 15 December 2013.

Here is the second paragraph:

This is a developed recap from what I’ve been saying in various comments here and there in the last two years or so.  [A]s a radfem I’ve always said PIV is rape and I remember being disappointed to discover that so few radical feminists stated it clearly.  How can you possibly see it otherwise?  Intercourse is the very means through which men oppress us, from which we are not allowed to escape, yet some instances of or PIV and intercourse may be chosen and free?  That makes no sense at all.

You ask, how does one get pregnant and the author rightly points out you don't need penetration for those aggressive little sperm to make it to the point of fertilization.♠

On the other hand, this takes the position that [some] women just aren't smart enough, or actualized enough, to understand that they are not enjoying sex, but rather are being repressed.

Here is the last paragraph:

Lastly, from a structural point of view, as a class oppressed by men, we are not in any position of freedom to negotiate what men do to us collectively and individually within the heterocage.  Men, by whom we are possessed, colonised and held captive, are the sole agents and organisers of PIV.  Men dominate us precisely so we can’t opt out of sexual abuse by them; intercourse is the very means through which men subordinate us, the very purpose of their domination, to control human reproduction.

So, whether it is Ms Hillary Clinton or the RadFem Author of the Radical Wind Blog, we are finding women who think that large numbers of women are ignorant and can't be trusted to do anything but what they are told to do by nearby male figure authorities.♥  This forms a puzzle for those of us who grew up thinking that women were strong individuals and capable of making their own decisions.♦  Are we now left to think that women, or at least large numbers of women, need protection and guidance.  I hope not.  I hope Mrs Clinton is wrong.

And what are we going to do about all those animals on farms and out in the wild?  Are we going to create more veterinarians, so that all animal procreation is by artificial insemination?  Then how do we control the randy males of each species?  This is a mess.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  I had a college classmate get his girlfriend (later, wife) pregnant without penetration and through her panties.
♥  Ms Clinton's formulation in India, mentioning Husbands and Sons makes it sound almost Sharia-like.
♦  I still remember Susan Sawyer being the strongest person in Fourth Grade, able to open ink bottles the rest of us couldn't cope with.

Toxic Masculinity Examined

For John, BLUF:  Seeking a perfect world is destroying the one we have, which is quite good.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Making of Toxic Masculinity

From Pajama Media, by Ms Writer Sarah Hoyt, 29 March 2018.

Here is the lede plus four:

Screaming against masculinity and “toxic masculinity” is much in the news these days.  Some colleges have courses with that title, in which they devote their time to yelling at men for being men.

Some idiot or sociologist has created this concept that masculinity is “toxic” to civilized environments.

By the time I was in college, in the early eighties, we were inundated with texts on how men were not created for civilized life, how women were so much better as office workers, etc, and how men were “obsolete.”

This is by the way of being an idiocy on a par with the academic whom I heard state that biological gender didn’t exist.  (And before you get lost in the weeds of gender isn’t sex, yeah, because arguing over words has got us so far.  Also in English, there are two genders that apply to human beings, period.  So stow it.)  It might make some sense to say that psychological gender/sex doesn’t exist, that the amazing variety of gender behavior we see is all the result of gender conditioning and social.  Not that it makes sense per se and even the left obviously can’t square that circle.  But, by definition, you can lie with impunity about things that are inside people’s heads and invisible.  It’s much, much harder to deny the biology.  Biologically there are males and females, which for our species (but not all of them) are XY and XX.  Yes, sure there are intersex individuals, but claiming that because of a birth defect there is no biological sex/gender, is the same as arguing that because some kids are born without hands, it’s not normal for humans to have hands.  Defects don’t deny the matrix.

Why do I say even the left doesn’t believe it?  Because if the left believed that males and females are exactly alike, they would be horrified and offended by transgenders.  After all, why would you go through all the trouble of changing your body shape if it would be enough to behave however you wanted to?  How could your brain be a different sex from your body if all brains were alike?

And it goes on from there.  Yes, Ms Hoyt doesn't take much to the idea that the people who brought us civilization (men) are ruining civilization because of their toxic masculinity.♠

But, that doesn't mean that these projects against males will end, at least any time soon.  What Ms Hoyt thinks, however, is:

I don’t think there’s a happy ending.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  I tend to think that in Western Culture, at least, woman have played strong roles, even if only from the sidelines.  You don't get a Queen Boadicea from some woman without a sense of who she is.

Progressives Against Women

For John, BLUF:  Feminism is for Progressives.  Conservative women are just male enablers and thus are non-persons.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

What Conservative Women Can Learn About Liberals From the Way They Treat Dana Loesch

From Town Hall, by Mr John Hawkins, 10 March 2018.

A bit harsh toward Progressives, but on the other hand, they are being a little harsh themselves.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Stay at Home, Men

For John, BLUF:  If we don't explore then we become a totally different culture.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The patriarchal race to colonize Mars is just another example of male entitlement

Here is the sub-headline:

The presumed right to use and abuse something and then walk away to conquer something new is a hallmark of colonialism

From NBC News, by Ms Marcie Bianco, 21 February 2018.

To quote from the Instapundit post where I found the above:

…this does serve as a clear illustration of Camille Paglia’s observation that if women ran the world, we’d still be living in grass huts.  Well, if feminist women ran the world, anyway.

The comment seems a little overboard, but the idea of Ms Bianco that we should not venture beyond LEO seems well over the top.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff
-1, Mon 2.0

Rights For Me, But Not For Thee

For John, BLUF:  Once you start picking who gets civil rights you are in trouble.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Gloria Steinem offers unlikely praise for Charlie Baker

There is not much to say here.  I was going to praise Ms Steinem praise to see that we need leadership to pull both parties back from the edge, but then she blathers on in a manner that makes obvious that she does not really believe in civil rights and justice for all  Just those she favors.

It makes me sad.

Regards  —  Cliff

No Compromise

For John, BLUF:  Agree or be shunned.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

When Every Republican Is a Crypto-Nazi

From National Review, by Reporter Elliot Kaufman, 21 August 2017.

In which the writer goes after Old Gray Lady Opinionator Lindy West.  Apparently, compromise is something you do, not something she does.

It appears there is no place for Conservatives in the future.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Watch Your Citations

TRIGGER WARNINGS :  Is this all science or just "soft" sciences?

For John, BLUF:  Do you have enough embalmers who are people of color, are of various genders and sexual orientations, or are you just looking for good workers?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Professors Want Academia To Stop Citing Straight White Men

This is by Mr Tom Knighton, today, 17 July 2017, in PJ Media.

The lede:

If you're writing an academic paper on any given subject, you need to do your research and get your facts straight. No, I don't mean about the topic you're writing about. You see, you're not a good academic if you don't discover who the authors referenced in your footnotes like to sleep with.

There is actually an on-line APP for showing how often one is cited.  I followed it for a month or so, but it was depressing, so I stopped.

Regards  —  Cliff

Empowering Women

For John, BLUF:  I think we are better off with our Western values.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Muslim Husband Chops Off Wife's Fingers Because She Won't Drop Out of College

From PJ Media, by Reporter Tom Knighton, on 12 July 2017.

Here is the lede:

A woman is recovering after having her fingers chopped off by her husband in Bangladesh, a majority Muslim nation.  One of the husband's relatives then threw her fingers in the trash so they couldn't be reattached by surgeons.

The Husband, Mr Islam, is a migrant worker in the United Arab Emirates, was on home leave.

The Reporter, Mr Knighton, turned into an OpEd writer with this paragraph:

Meanwhile, progressive "feminists" in the United States -- led by their Jew-hating, Sharia-supporting, Saudi Arabia-shilling, jihad-declaring hero Linda Sarsour -- claim that the United States under Trump is becoming just like the totalitarian society depicted in The Handmaid's Tale because Trump doesn't think taxpayers should be forced to pay for their abortions.

I think that nails it, except for the part where Ms Sarsour says she is against assimilation.  What does she have in mind?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Mutilating Young Female Children

For John, BLUF:  People need to speak out against this practice.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

NYT Refuses To Use Term ‘Female Genital Mutilation’ Because It’s ‘Culturally Loaded’

It is The Daily Caller and Reporter Amber Randall.

Here is a key sentence:

“There’s a gulf between the Western (and some African) advocates who campaign against the practice and the people who follow the rite, and I felt the language used widened that chasm,” NYT science and health editor Celia Dugger explained Friday.

There has been a couple of recent prosecutions of Female Genital Mutilation in the United States, including one in Michigan.

So there is a gulf, but are we going to try to bridge the gulf in the United States with some sort of compromise?  Would we allow it for the young girls of parent who are immigrants from areas where this is practiced?  What about the granddaughters?

No, this is a practice that we should not compromise on.  If it is important to the individuals, let them move to an area where FGM is an acceptable custom and legal.  But not here.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Killing the Children

For John, BLUF:   You don't remember, but President Truman was pretty indignant when some Newspaper Music Critic criticized his Daughter, Margaret.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The woman must be destroyed

A woman with a business is subject to special rules.  Political rules.  And if she does not hew to them, she must be destroyed.  By a gang of women.  You know how women help women?  They don't.  They expect women to hit a higher standard.  Backwards in high heels.  And if she looks pretty dancing backwards in those high heels, we'll actively trip her and laugh when she falls.

Are people trying to turn Ann Althouse into a Trump fan?

Do the Progressives understand they are just ginning up support for the President?

Hat tip to the Althouse blog.

Regards  —  Cliff