New Movie on Chappaquiddick

For John, BLUF:  If ticket sales are a signal, don't go see it.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

NYT Op-Ed:  ‘Chappaquiddick’ Movie Is ‘Character Assassination’

From The Daily Caller and Ms Amber Athey, Media Reporter, 6 April 2018.

Here is the lede plus wo:

A New York Times contributor insisted in a Friday opinion piece that “Chappaquiddick” unfairly assassinates the character of former Senator Ted Kennedy.

The movie, which hits theaters on Friday, depicts the event surrounding the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, who drowned after Kennedy drove his car into a pond.  Kennedy failed to report the incident to police for ten hours.

Neil Gabler, who is writing a biography on Ted Kennedy, chose not to address the circumstances surrounding Kopechne’s death or Kennedy’s involvement in The New York Times.  Instead, Gabler flatly claimed that the movie is “outright character assassination.”

I will cut to the chase.  Unlikely to go to see the movie, which didn't need to be made.  Whose interest is served by dredging this up at this point?♠

Senator Edward (Ted) Kennedy did some good things in his life.  He was for the F-35 Engine Second Source, which was being manufactured out of Lynn.  When the Boston Busing decision came down he said it was the right thing to do and he said it to the crowd assembled to protest the decision by Federal Judge W. Arthur Garrity Jr.

On the other hand, he was notorious amongst women working on Capitol Hill as one of three Senators not to get into an elevator with, alone.♥  That should say something.  He colluded with the Russians during the end of President Jimmy Carter's first (and only) term.  Not a good thing.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Unless you subscribe to the view that you don't care what they say about you, as long as they spell the name correctly.
♥  Intel picked up from my Cousin, EE, who was at the time an Air Force Major working in the Pentagon.

Lack of Understanding

For John, BLUF:  Progressive women want to shame other women into voting the way the progressive women think they should vote.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

'Roseanne' Star Sandra Bernhard: Women Who Support Trump Unable To Think For Themselves

From Real Clear Politics, posted by Mr Ian Schwartz, 28 March 2018.

Here is the lede plus two:

Sandra Bernhard talks to MSNBC's Ari Melber about reprising her role as Nancy Bartlett Thomas on the reboot of popular sitcom 'Roseanne' and the role Trump plays in dividing the family.  Bernhard said a lot of women have "compromised" and "given in" by getting married and unfortunately "don't have the luxury to think for themselves."  She said these women must be "under the thumb" of their husbands.

When asked about "white women for Trump," Bernhard is stumped and said she "can't understand it."

She said women Trump voters must have felt "inadequate" compared to someone as "educated" as Hillary Clinton and just couldn't have brought themselves to vote for someone superior to them.  Bernhard said all that Hillary has accomplished is "threatening" to a lot of women which turned them off to such a person.

So, the theory of Ms Sandra Bernhard, and Ms Hillary Clinton, is that if you are a woman and you voted for Mr Trump you aren't really an adult.  Sad, very sad.  That is, this kind of thinking.  Women who voted for Mr Trump were doing so to send a signal to the Democrats that those Democrats had lost their way.  Way too progressive.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Lack of Interest in US Senate

For John, BLUF:  We have our collective head in the sand over the differences between Islam and our Anglo-Saxon traditions of the rights of individuals (the Rights of Englishmen).  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Kamala Harris, Speak Up. Don’t Be Silent on Women’s Rights.

From the Opinion Pages of The Old Gray Lady, an item by Ms Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ms Asra Q Nomani, on 22 June 2017.

Here is the lede plus three:

Last week, Senator Kamala Harris, a Democrat from California, made headlines when Republican senators interrupted her at a hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee while she interrogated Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The clip of the exchange went viral; journalists, politicians and everyday Americans debated what the shushing signified about our still sexist culture.

The very next day, Senator Harris took her seat in front of us as a member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. We were there to testify about the ideology of political Islam, or Islamism.

Both of us were on edge. Earlier that day, across the Potomac River, a man had shot a Republican lawmaker and others on a baseball diamond in Alexandria, Va. And just moments before the hearing began, a man wearing a Muslim prayer cap had stood up and heckled us, putting Capitol police officers on high alert. We were girding ourselves for tough questions.

But they never came. The Democrats on the panel, including Senator Harris and three other Democratic female senators — North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp, New Hampshire’s Maggie Hassan and Missouri’s Claire McCaskill — did not ask either of us a single question.

Basically, Women in the Democratic Party don't wish to explore discrimination against women (by our American Standards) within Islam.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

A Different View of The Women's March

For John, BLUF:  Read the whole article, it agrees with you.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

On This ‘Day Without a Woman,’ Don’t Leave Women Oppressed by Sharia Law Behind

Sub-headline:

Too many feminists in the West are reluctant to condemn cultural practices that clearly harm women.

The source is The Daily Beast and the author is Ms Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who knows of what she speaks.

Here is the lede plus three:

Wednesday is International Women’s Day, and the organizers of the Women’s March are holding another protest.  This one is called A Day Without a Woman, in solidarity with those women who have lower wages and experience greater inequalities.

The protest encourages women to take the day off work, avoid shopping other than in small women- and minority-owned stores, and wear red.

The problems being protested against Wednesday—inequality, vulnerability to discrimination, sexual harassment, and job insecurity—are all too real for many disadvantaged women, but the legal protections for them are in place here in the United States.  Women who are unfairly treated at work or discriminated against can stand up, speak out, protest in the streets, and take legal action.  Not so for many women in other parts of the world for whom the hashtag #daywithoutawoman is all too apt.

Around the world women are subjected to “honor violence” and lack legal protections and access to health and social services.  According to Amnesty International’s recent annual report, throughout the Middle East and North Africa, women and girls are denied equal status with men in law and are subject to gender-based violence, including sexual violence and killings perpetrated in the name of “honor.”

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Keeping Women Safe

TRIGGER WARNING:  A real person, with different views.
For John, BLUF:  I sure wish Marisa DeFranco was on the Republican Team.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From today's Lowell Sun and the "Focus Section", Lawyer Marisa DeFranco writes "Matters of Life and Death".♠  It is a well written and cogent argument that we are missing a crisis and that crisis is women being murdered.  Women being unsafe in any location and from a random selection of murderers.  She has the statistics to prove her case.

We should listen.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  On line the headline is "Women are being murdered and there's not enough concern".  Both work for me.

Europe and Immigration

For John, BLUF:  Cue the Horst Wessel Song.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Columnist Ross Douthat, writing in the "Week in Review" section of The New York Times gives us "Germany on the Brink".  This is a review of the situation in Germany, and in Europe, given the mass immigration of people, mostly young men, from North Africa and the Middle East.

Mr Douthat shows he has been doing some reading in that he touches on the idea of Eurabia, which brings to mind the writings of the late Ms Oriana Fallaci. who warned of a European culture destroyed by immigration from outside Europe.

He also mentions French Author Michel Houellebecq and his best selling 2015 dystopian novel Submission.  Here is the link to the Kindle edition in English.  I read the book so you don't have to.  In the end the Europeans lose.

And that is Mr Douthat's point.  Europe, if it doesn't develop a plan for the assimilation of immigrants will soon see its culture change, from one of openness to new ideas and equal rights for all to one of a more limited openness and the idea that women have few rights and those only under the protection of their Husband, Father or other Male Relative.

The flip side of this is a Europe that fights back for the way things were and that this sees the rise of, the return of, what we characterize as "the right".  If you didn't like Jean-Marie Le Pen, do you like his less militant daughter, Marine, any better?

To avoid problems further on, Mr Douthat thinks that the German Chancellor, Ms Angela Merkel, must go.  His Bottom Line:

It means that Angela Merkel must go — so that her country, and the continent it bestrides, can avoid paying too high a price for her high-minded folly.

Frankly, we face no such crisis in these United States.  However, it is possible that we can, with our history of assimilation, set a standard for Europe.

Regards  —  Cliff

Name Changing

For John, BLUF:  Japan is still a little rigid, culturally.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

If you like your name you can keep your name, except in Japan.  From The Old Gray Lady we have this item—"Japan’s Top Court Upholds Law Requiring Spouses to Share Surname".

There is a lot of freedom for people in these United States.  Not perfect, but better than many places.

Regards  —  Cliff

Gun Rights Supporters

For John, BLUF:  It makes sense.  Guns for protection.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

I know it is Brietbart, but still, it is worth considering.  For both Progressives (Dems) and us true Liberals (GOP).  "Women are a Driving Force in Nation's Shift From Gun Control to Gun Rights.  The lede:

Women have emerged as one of the fastest-growing demographics of new gun buyers and concealed carry permit holders in the country, and in the process, they have become a driving force in the shift in American attitudes from pro-gun control to pro-gun rights.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Purchase of Birth Control for Women

For John, BLUF:  Republicans can't please Progressive Women no matter what they do.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From The Hill Ms Sarah Ferris writes about a proposed bill on birth control pills.  "GOP senators call for over-the-counter birth control".  Sort of the way it works for me.♠ 

“Most other drugs with such a long history of safe and routine use are available for purchase over the counter, and contraception should join them,” Gardner wrote in a statement.  He said his bill would benefit women in rural and underserved areas, while also saving people money and time by “increasing competition and availability.”

The Colorado Republican’s push to make birth control available over-the-counter is not winning him more allies among women’s reproductive health groups, however.

Groups like Planned Parenthood have opposed the idea, which they argue could drive up contraception prices.

Per the InstaPundit

Actually they’re unhappy because it threatens their gatekeeper status.

I believe it is the case that if the Republicans went out on the steps of the Capitol one sunny day and said the sky is blue, certain folks would say that, No, it was green and besides calling it blue is all part of the GOP war on women.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Sure, artificial birth control is a sin, but this is America and if women want birth control that is their right.  The US Supreme Court says so.  We countenance a lot of sin here in America.

Equal Pay for Equal Work

For John, BLUF:  Isn't there an Equal Pay Act already out there?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Washington Examiner has a comment on the State of the Union Speech concerning the wage disparity between men and women.  It notes that "President Obama gives up 77 cent wage gap statistic".♠  Here is the lede and following:

In his State of the Union address, President Obama tried to continue the myth that women are paid drastically less than men, but there’s a catch — he didn’t repeat the debunked claim that women earn 77 cents to the dollar that men earn. . . .

But Obama’s speech is missing any mention of just how differently men and women are paid.  Perhaps this is because the Bureau of Labor Statistics pointed out that it’s not Congress but women’s own choices that result in the supposed wage gap.

And maybe it’s because the White House knows this to be true, as Betsey Stevenson, member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, admitted last April.

Even with the false statistic removed, Obama does a disservice to women by continuing to tell them they’re all victims.

I wonder what the disparity is between men and women with regard to lost time accidents and deaths on the job?

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  To me that reads funny, but I know what they mean.  It is 77 cents for a woman for every dollar for a man.  I guess, in my mind it is 77%.

Hard to Get Respect

For John, BLUF:  Young Luke is just 29, so maybe we should cut him some slack.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

So the new US Senator from Iowa is Iowa National Guard Lieutenant Colonel Joni Ernst.  She also happens to be a farmer, raising pigs.  Which leads MSNBC Reporter Luke Russert to tweet the following:

Joni Ernst's meteoric rise continues.  This time last year she was an unknown pig farmer, on Tues she will deliver GOP SOTU response.

If she were a Democrat she would be on her way to being a Presidential Candidate in 2020.  Based on samples from recent history.

Good shooting, Luke.

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Women in the House[s]

For John, BLUF:  Both Houses, that is.  The GOP is upping its game with women.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

"New GOP women will have to walk a fine line"

That is the headline from a Washington Examiner article by Reporter Ashe Schow yesterday.

It’s tough to be a woman in the GOP. Republican women who want to be outspoken members of their party, defying the narrative that the GOP is the party of old, white men, risk heightened scrutiny from a mainstream media dead-set on proving that the GOP is the party of old, white men.

It is like Reporter Schow thinks that the media♠ sees a Sarah Palin inside each Republican woman, like if they were real women they would be Democrats.  And, the media are looking for a new Tina Fey to bring it to life.

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Maybe not all the media.

Vulnerability to Sexual Assault

For John, BLUF:  Teaching both sons and daughters about proper sexual behavior is an important step in limiting sexual assault.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

My Middle Brother, Lance, and I have been batting back and forth the issue of rape on campus.  We both have daughters who went to College.  As is often the case, the lens we view things through often distorts reality.  The recent article in Rolling Stone, now discredited, on gang rape at UVA, and the California Assembly passing a "Yes means Yes" bill makes it look like Rape is a Collegiate issue.

This Opinion Piece in The International New York Times, by Ms Callie Marie Rennisondec, "Privilege, Among Rape Victims:  Who Suffers Most From Rape and Sexual Assault in America?" looks at some such assumptions.

LATELY, people have been bombarded with the notion that universities and colleges are hotbeds of sexual violence. Parents fear that sending their teenagers to school is equivalent to shipping them off to be sexually victimized.

But the truth is, young women who don’t go to college are more likely to be raped.  Lynn A. Addington at American University and I recently published a study based on the Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey data from 1995 to 2011.  We found that the estimated rate of sexual assault and rape of female college students, ages 18 to 24, was 6.1 per 1,000 students.  This is nothing to be proud of, but it is significantly lower than the rate experienced by women that age who don’t attend college — eight per 1,000.  In other words, these women are victims of sexual violence at a rate around 30 percent greater than their more educated counterparts.

As an aside, as Law Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds frequently points out, it is not just the parents of young women who have concerns.  The parents of young men should be very concerned about the extrajudicial proceedings dealing with campus sexual assault.  Your son could be thrown out of college based on an accusation that was not ventilated by the standards of justice we would expect to be given to the lowest reprobate.

The statistics show a different picture.

Women in the lowest income bracket, with annual household incomes of less than $7,500, are sexually victimized at 3.7 times the rate of women with household incomes of $35,000 to $49,999, and at about six times the rate of women in the highest income bracket (households earning $75,000 or more annually).  Homeownership is another example of how economic advantage serves to protect women from sexual violence.  Woman living in rented properties are sexually victimized at 3.2 times the rate of women living in homes that they or a family member own.

Married women are less likely to be raped, and interestingly enough, women without children are less likely to be raped that those with children. Then there is education.  (Of course, education is correlated with family income, home ownership and other factors.)

Finally, we can look at educational attainment and the risk of sexual violence.  Women without a high school diploma are sexually victimized at a rate 53 percent greater than women with a high school diploma or some college, and more than 400 percent greater than those with a bachelor’s degree or more.

Like a lot of social issues, sexual assault is a complicated issue.

Regards  —  Cliff

War on Women Reexamined

For John, BLUF:  It takes more than one brick to build a building, but some bricks are bigger than others.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

At the Blog Ace of Spades is a short discussion of the "war on women" meme.  The question asked is "Did The "War on Women" Campaign Actually Kinda Work?"  The answer is yes, but in a narrow, focused sort of way.

In 2012 single women in Colorado went for President Obama 61/36.  This year they went for Incumbent Senator Mark Udall 66/30.  And, apparently, they were a larger segment of the total voting public.  On the other hand, Senator Udall did lose to his Republican opponent, Rep Cory Gardner.

This is something to pay attention to.  As Ace says,

It could be that their message merely needs tweaking -- perhaps they just have to be less overtly, obnoxiously single-issue/single-constituency in the future.  Or perhaps they just need to dog whistle these appeals to Single Ladies, rather than being so crudely, stupidly explicit about them.

Maybe, for the dog whistle the Democrats could go with "Republicans want abortion laws like they have in Europe, and leave it at that.  Let Wikipedia do the rest.

Hat tip to Maggie's Farm.

Regards  —  Cliff

What Do Women Want

For John, BLUF:  Broad culture or narrow?  I say go with a little broader.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Monday Law Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds had a column in USA Today, talking about a recent video of men making catcalls to women on the streets of New York City:  "Catcalling a two-way street:  Video of 'street harassment' shows white feminist values, but societal values are broader."

Here is the lede, with a link to the video:

Last week there was a bit of a kerfuffle over a video of a woman walking the streets of New York and being catcalled by guys.  Most of the catcalls were comparatively tame, though not all were, and the result was a predictable storm of attention on the Internet via Twitter and other social media, exactly as the video's producers — an outfit called ihollaback.org — intended.  But then some things departed from the script.

Ah, departure from the script.  That could be a problem.  The guys doing the catcalling were Black and Latino and working class.  A notable absence of Caucasians (what Professor Reynolds should have meant to say when he said "white").

And whether or not it deserves the charges of outright racism and classism, or even comparisons to The Birth of a Nation, that it got from some minority critics, that's indisputably what it is.

I have always believed that becoming an American has always meant moving toward the WASP model.  Not that everyone should become an Episcopalians or Presbyterian, but that a certain rectitude and sense of responsibility, a certain belief in free enterprise and striving to be the best was expected.♠  It WASP seems narrow, I go with Gene Autry.

But, back to the video, and the newspaper column.  The thing is if we are going to have an inclusive culture we can't be slapping back at those whose culture is a little different.  And we definitely can't be criminalizing those cultural differences.

Read the whole column.

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Well, maybe it isn't about being a WASP, but about being a cowboy.  Gene Autry says it here, along with Hopalong Cassidy and a couple of others.

The Political Woman Gap

For John, BLUF:  Not everything the Democrats tell us about women voters is well centered.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Reporter and opinionator Ms Mona Charen talks about "What women want", in an article in The Washington Examiner.

Here is the paragraph out of the article that is most interesting:

If Americans were marrying at the same rate as they did in the past, this increase in the percentage of women voters wouldn’t help Democrats, because married women tend to vote Republican. Fifty-three percent of married women voted for Mitt Romney, for example, and 51 percent supported Ken Cuccinelli in the 2013 Virginia governor’s race. But marriage is declining. Whereas 65 percent of American adults were married in 1980, just 51 percent of adults were married in 2012. Among the 20- to 34-year-old cohort, 57 percent never married.

I wonder what local Lawyer Renee Aste would make of this?

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Going to the Well Once Too Often

For John, BLUF:  Most women I know think about more than birth control.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Earlier I mentioned Ms Tina Brown on MSNBC and her evaluation of President Obama and his impact on the Congressional races.

Now along comes blogger and Law Professor Ann Althouse with a piece playing off a piece in Politico:

Manu Raju has a piece Politico called "Obama’s standing with women hurts Senate Dems," which studiously loads the blame on Obama for the flagging power of the old war-on-women politics:

Here is what Reporter Raju writes:

In battleground states across the country, Obama is underwater with female voters — especially women unaffiliated with a political party — and it’s making it harder for Democrats to take advantage of the gender gap, according to public polling and Democratic strategists....

"Take advantage of the gender gap"?  Is this the war on women meme?  Professor Althouse, who presents as a woman, refers to it as "hammering on the female organs".

After a decent discussion, Professor Althouse ends thusly:

What worked before might not work again, and when it seems not to be working, doing it more and harder might make it worse.  We may see your desperation, see what you are trying to do, and that's exactly what will make it not work.  Women have a full range of interests, not just the interest in maintaining control over our reproductive function, and once you've made it obvious that you think you can have us because we do care about that, we might find your approach insulting and offensive.

Oh, and Professor Althouse notes that the emphasis on "women's issues" in Colorado has resulted in Senator Mark Udall being mocked as Senator Mark Uterus.  That can't be good.

Hat tip to Ann Althouse.

Regards  —  Cliff

Freezing Eggs

For John, BLUF:  What DO women want?  No one knows?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Over at the Althouse blog we have comments on an article titled "Egg Freezing as a Work Benefit?  Some Women See Darker Message."  The Reporter is Ms Claire Cain Miller, of The New York Times.

Professor Althouse leads off:

I hadn't quite yet gotten around to blogging about this new work benefit, which we've just heard is getting under way at Apple and Facebook, and already "some women" have not only detected a "darker message," they've gotten their message out to the general public.  "Some women" are always getting the jump on me.  I had my perceptions — not dark, but optimistic — and I voiced them, within the confines of this house, and I can't believe that even as I blog so consistently and so earnestly and I'm ever-ready to catch new issues like this and put my opinions instantly right out there on the internet, that "some women" beat me to the punch... if one is allowed to use that expression in this woman-friendly world anymore.

Reporter Miller writes and Professor Althouse quotes:

For women whose circumstances have made it unrealistic to have a baby and who are considering egg freezing, the new benefit is likely to be a highly welcome surprise — even if in some sense it may seem a logical extension of employee-sponsored health plans that already cover pregnancy, childbirth and some infertility treatments.

Yet workplaces could be seen as paying women to put off childbearing.

Here is the nut of the problem as laid out by Reporter Miller:

Yet by paying for women to delay pregnancy, are employers helping them achieve that balance — or avoiding policies that experts agree would greatly help solve the problem, like paid family leave, child care and flexible work arrangements?

“Egg freezing seems to put a Band-Aid on the problem of how difficult it is for women to have a career and raise a family concurrently,” Seema Mohapatra, a health care law and bioethics expert, wrote in August in a Harvard Law & Policy Review article titled “Using Egg Freezing to Extend the Biological Clock: Fertility Insurance or False Hope?”

Professor Althouse asks:

Isn't that what the required coverage of birth control also does? Or is the coverage of birth control not really an incentive to put off childbearing, but a trick to ease women unwittingly into a life of childlessness? I hadn't thought so.  And if women need to use the young part of their lives to get educated and to advance their careers without sidetracks and distractions, then egg-freezing is exactly the benefit that supports workplace equality.

Women who choose to have babies earlier could be stigmatized as uncommitted to their careers.  Just as tech company benefits like free food and dry cleaning serve to keep employees at the office longer, so could egg freezing, by delaying maternity leave and child-care responsibilities.

But this stigma is already there to the extent that it is, and birth control (not to mention abortion) empowers women to show their commitment to their career by putting off pregnancy.

We need some consistence here.  What do women want?

Hat tip to Ann Althouse.

Regards  —  Cliff

Birth Control Pills Over The Counter

For John, BLUF:  Some would rather have the issue than the solution.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Over at Bloomberg View we have Columnist Megan McArdle writing that we should "Sell Birth Control Over-the-Counter".

The problem is, the Democrats seem to see this as part of the "war on women".

Oh well.

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Women and Men

For John, BLUF:  Your theory is correct.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Here is something that Ms Renee Astee, from Christian Hill, might like.

The Washington Post has an article by W Bradford Wilcox and Robin Fretwell Wilson, "One way to end violence against women?  Married dads."  The second headline is "The data show that #yesallwomen would be safer with fewer boyfriends around their kids."

The dramatic social media response to the UC-Santa Barbara shooting, captured by the hashtag #YesAllWomen, underlined an important and unpleasant truth: across the United States, millions of girls and women have been abused, assaulted, or raped by men, and even more females fear that they will be subject to such an attack.  As Sarah Kliff wrote in Vox:  a “national survey of American women found that a slight majority (51.9 percent) reported experiencing physical violence at some point in their life.”

This social media outpouring makes it clear that some men pose a real threat to the physical and psychic welfare of women and girls.  But obscured in the public conversation about the violence against women is the fact that some other men are more likely to protect women, directly and indirectly, from the threat of male violence: married biological fathers.  The bottom line is this:  Married women are notably safer than their unmarried peers, and girls raised in a home with their married father are markedly less likely to be abused or assaulted than children living without their own father.

The point of all this is that our culture and our social welfare system are working against the institution of marriage, which tends to work to the advantage of women.  While it is probably sexist to say this, but when I was young people actually said that part of the job of marriage was to allow women to help tame men.

The charts at the article are interesting.  One thing they say is children with their natural parents are better off, but we knew that, did we not?

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

The Instapundit, in posting this, references a book by a Dr Helen Smith—Men on Strike:  Why Men are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood and the American Dream, and Why It Matters.

Regards  —  Cliff