Archive for September, 2009
Why Are Women Unhappier Than Men? An Answer
Monday, September 21st, 2009It’s statements like these that get my co-blogger John Hawkins in trouble:
It’s not choices that are causing problems for women, it’s expectations.
Women are no longer merely expect to act like women. Now, feminism, liberalism, and Hollywood says they’ve got to be able to do everything women used to do AND everything that men still do, and then some.
The old feminine ideal was the woman who got married to a good man, stayed home, took care of their house, took care of the kids, and took pride in making the whole family function.
Now, look at the messages women get from popular culture: Dress like a fashion model, cat around like the women from Sex in the City, get married, have a beatiful house, have 2.5 kids, have a career that’s every bit as successful and fulfilling as your husband’s, and still look like a professional actress, even when you’re 60 years old.
There are only so many hours in a day, days in a week, and weeks in a year and there just isn’t time for most women to do all that. Granted, there are a few who manage to pull it off — or at least seem to do it to the outside world.
But, the reality is that most people have skills, abilities, desires, and wants that they never fulfill — women, in part because of their emotional natures, are just made to feel worse about not living up to the hype of what modern feminism says a woman should be.
Oh boy.
Where I agree: Yes, women have more expectations now and that can make life difficult. That is, women both internally and societally are expected to do the whole female progenitor life-cycle thing within the male-defined work-cycle. A woman who doesn’t “work” is often viewed with suspicion both by modern men and women who work outside the home.
As a working, professional woman, I can tell you that the expectations grate. I’ve had women judge me for working (a female patient said to me once, as I was taking the practice for my husband who had sprained his ankle), “You’re not leaving your children at home, are you?” I’ve had women judge me when I took time to take care of my babies and then, home school my children one year. Men, too.
So the nearly impossible standards applied culturally–Oprah, Martha Stewart, Rachel Ray–can make a woman feel “less than” no matter what she decides to do.
Where I disagree: This statement rather breezily dismisses the untapped potential of women: ” the reality is that most people have skills, abilities, desires, and wants that they never fulfill”.
Really? Without the biological imperative, men have a freer time of fulfilling their skills, abilities, and desires. What are they denied? Gestating, birthing and nursing a baby is what they’re denied. That’s a huge trade-off, one, as a woman, I would never give away. Still, the reality is this: since I value myself and my children, and how I’m wired and made, I decided to focus on my children for a few years. That, by necessity, slowed my career roll during what would be considered peak professionally creative years. Ten years later, I’m jumping in with both feet while still balancing my child raising concerns–working around a school schedule and cutting hours to be with my pre-school age child. Childhood is fleeting, and I want to be there for it.
Still, I do not have the dichotomy that only a stay-at-home mother can be a good mother. That’s just patently false. Both fathers and mothers can parent a child, even a baby. There are wonderful care-givers who raise children even better than parents. For generations, children have had nannies, grand-parents and other care-givers and most survive just fine. I am not, however, a fan of huge day care centers, but there are even good versions of those.
This all being said, a woman with talents and gifts does NOT have to subsume them to motherhood in order to be a good woman, or a good Christian woman. That is just nonsense. It should be an affront to all men and women that a woman’s talents, gifts and desires can be dismissed as an acceptable trade for a housewife life.
Many women find a way to incorporate their gifts into their family life. Having stayed at home, I can testify to the challenge of managing a house and kids. It is no lie when people say it’s the most difficult job and so many elements of it are beyond a person’s control. That is, a child may cry inconsolably, the house is perpetually being “undone”, dirty laundry self-generates, and all of these things are out of a person’s control. And in today’s society, a woman is alone at home. She can be socially disconnected. The internet has been a huge gift to stay-at-home parents. It’s a connection.
Social isolation and lack of control contribute to unhappiness. Read up on psychologist Seligman’s work in this regard. That’s a stay-at-home parent’s whole lot in life. There is a good reason women at home might be unhappy and the unhappiness increases the more kids a woman has. More kids equals less control. Also, she may be frustrated at her unused talents.
Before the post-war generation, women often worked with men–in the fields, in the tavern, in the store, etc. A woman was not June Cleaver. The industrial age changed a woman’s role. Tasks became divided. A man changed the oil and mowed the lawn. A woman cooked and cleaned. Exclusively.
In this new generation, women are working and rearing kids and doing many things. They may be unhappier than men, but that in no indicates that a woman should be only in the kitchen. Now, if that role fulfills her (and I know that for many women, this is the case) she will contribute mightily to the household.
More women these days are like me. Moving in and out of the workforce around children and going back to work when the kids reach school age. Is it more challenging? Maybe. Not maybe. Absolutely, it is. But would women trade this? I can only speak for myself, but the answer is a resounding “no”.
I have the pleasure of writing, doctoring and being an online activist while also being a mother. I love it all. And many women embrace the freedom to choose these roles.
It should also be noted that with loosening societal strictures, men, too, are becoming more involved in the household tasks and child rearing. That’s all to the good. This too, is not a new phenomenon. In the pre-industrial world, kids knew what dad did because at a certain age, kids helped dad do the work. Kids bond with fathers just as surely as they bond with mothers. It has a different quality, of course, but it’s just as real and necessary.
This is a lot of words to say that I think it’s wrong to dismiss the loss to the individual woman and to society when a woman doesn’t use her gifts and talents just as I think it is a loss to the individual man and to society when a man doesn’t involve himself with his child’s life.
That men would discourage women from using their gifts is patently wrong. That women would discourage men from child-involvement is patently wrong.
If there is one gift the feminist movement gave to society, it’s this: women have the freedom to pursue developing their talents. This societal shift forced men to become more involved (or, it put more burdens on women who don’t hold a man’s feet to the fire). Both men and women have benefited.
Violence Serves The Left
Monday, September 21st, 2009The Left already enjoys a reputation for being whack-a-doodles. One only needs to visit Zombietime to see how leftists, or what is now being called neo-liberals, roll. Since conservatives don’t really protest, generally, watching the Teaparty movement unfold is fascinating.
For all the talk of violent mobs, crazies, Nazis, terrorists and the rest of the nasty rhetoric, TeaPartiers are a rather benign bunch. Oh yes, there’s an errant sign here or there, but perspective is in order. When you get over a million folks together, there’s bound to be a crazy. The key is to exert peer pressure to keep the crazy in check. Conservatives have been wise to exert that pressure.
The only people it serves if some deluded individual goes nutty is the neo-liberal left. They would love nothing more to point to one nutter and paint the whole movement with those actions while they enjoy a positive agitating reputation even with real terrorists in their midst. Yes, the hypocrisy is galling.
Matt Lewis addresses this hypocrisy:
.. While I would never suggest such a thing, logic seems to dictate that if Panetta believes Cheney’s warnings mean he is “wishing” for a terrorist attack, then Pelosi’s warnings might also mean she is “wishing” for violence. After all, it is reasonable to assume that Democrats would benefit from her being proven right. (Again, this according to Panetta’s logic — not mine).
The truth is that if anyone has incentive to avoid political violence — particularly anything specifically aimed at the president — it is conservatives. As Glenn Beck recently said, “just one lunatic, like Timothy McVeigh, could ruin everything that everyone has worked so hard for, because these people in Washington won’t pass up the use of an emergency. “
Ace wrote a thought-provoking piece last week and I’ve been ruminating on it since. He says:
Nancy Pelosi is being utterly hypocritical here, as she encouraged and cheered the rhetoric of incitement when Bush was President. Win-win for her, I guess she thought — such rhetoric keeps the crazies in a constant state of agitation, and if one should happen to kill Bush… well, bonus, eh?
But her hypocrisy cannot push us away from what we know to be right: Some kind of rhetoric really is fairly dangerous, and, while it won’t put any evil thoughts (or more likely — reinforce evil thoughts already long-present) in the minds of most, it does have the possibility in doing that in a few.
And it’s that few we worry about.
So, although she is a disgusting hypocrite, the definition of a hypocrite is one who takes one position when it’s convenient for her and another when it’s not so convenient, but every hypocrite then does speak for both sides of the issue.
In this particular case — at least regarding the general claim she’s making — she’s right. Extremist rhetoric which has the likelihood of encouraging someone a bit off his trolley to commit an extreme act should be avoided.
Of course, this is self-evident. I agree.
What I wonder is this: What is “extremist rhetoric”? Ironically, almost anything Glenn Beck says is viewed as “extremist rhetoric”. In fact, anyone who disagrees with neo-liberal orthodoxy is considered an extremist.
Carrie Prejean? Extremist gay hater.
Glenn Beck? Extremist Obama hater.
Rush Limbaugh? Extremist race baiting hater.
Mark Steyn? Extremist Muslim hater.
Ann Coulter? Extremist self and women-hating hater.
Michelle Malkin? Extremist illegal alien hater.
Glenn Reynolds? Extremist Tea-Party loving hater.
When center-left Obama-voting Democrats like Ann Althouse are accused of hating, really who isn’t a hater?
I’m sick of the p.c. rhetoric police. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore, and all the whacked out lefty pundits can say anything. The word is a tool and a sword. They wield it with impunity and want the conservatives to stay muzzled.
So, somewhere between psychotic, crazy loud-mouth libs and meek muzzled, passive, submissive conservatives there’s a balance. Incite violence? No. Stir to positive action, yes.
Yes, violence serves the Left. So does a silent majority. They’ve had it both ways for too long.
NEA ABC’s: You Can Help
Monday, September 21st, 2009Is President Obama using official government channels to push his policy agenda? From the NEA wiki (which will be updated continuously):
But, there is even a larger issue that hasn’t yet received much attention in the press. Among the Obama Administration officials on the call were Buffy Wicks, Office of Public Engagement and the lead White House official on the President’s Serve.Gov initiative to promote national service. Also on the call was Nell Abernathy, Director of Outreach for Serve.Gov. One of their main goals on the call, it seems, was to encourage artists to produce works that would reinforce the President’s call for service; specifically through the Serve.Gov web-portal.
As Dana Loesch recently reported at Big Government, the Serve.Gov portal funnels citizens to volunteer or service projects connected with ACORN and other leftist groups. The taxpayer-funded website is evolving into a cyber-recruitment tool for the progressive movement.
So what did happen on that call? Was the NEA coordinating with the White House to push their agenda on a group of artists eager for and reliant upon the NEA for grants, or is the NEA telling the truth that this call “was not a means to promote any legislative agenda”?
Michelle Malkin adds this:
And the Washington Times — which reported earlier this month that “…16 of the groups and affiliated organizations received nearly $2 million in grants from the National Endowment for the Arts in the 150 days before the conference call” — today reveals a partial list of “artists and influencers” on the NEA’s August conference call. One of the participants? Al Gore’s Current TV.
As Michelle notes, the Time’s is crowd-sourcing efforts to get to the bottom of this story. Follow THIS LINK to go to an excel spreadsheet about various individuals and affiliations. The American people need to know the full truth and the American people can get to the truth with some work themselves.
Andrew Breitbart “The Pulitzer Of Our Time”–Updated
Sunday, September 20th, 2009Andrew Breitbart promises a new story from “left field” not related to ACORN when talking to Michael Savage–coming this week:
Via Hotair.com
Also, President Obama, former lawyer for ACORN, says that he’s not aware of ACORN activities. Michelle Malkin has the whole transcript and more, but here’s a snort-worthy snippet:
STEPHANOPOULOS: How about the funding for ACORN?
OBAMA: You know, it’s — frankly, it’s not really something I’ve followed closely. I didn’t even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money.
This man is pathological. There is no reason to lie about the connection at this point. It only makes the story worse, for President Obama. Admit that an ACORN connection existed in the distant past and move on, but no, he has to tell untruths.
Update:
Oh, and don’t believe the lies about the MSM not knowing about ACORN. They knew. More.
Here is my story about the New York Times spiking the ACORN story right before the election from March 19 of this year.
UPDATED Again:
Over in the Greenroom, Patrick Ishmael is doing some guessing. Is it Buffy Wicks?
Patterico wonders if the story is the NEA.
By the way, Breitbart did seem to have it mind to nail the media from the outset; this September 7th column tipped his hand, but no one I know of picked up on his hints.
He warned the media. They ignored the warning.
Kaus says of Breitbart, he ” didn’t realize he’d have the course of events all planned out like Hari Seldon in Foundation. … “. Well. Any less planning and it would get no attention. A random, accurate, insightful story doesn’t penetrate the mainstream media as we’ve all witnessed. They can’t even be bothered to report a well-documented VISUAL story where the evidence is obvious. Why would they note a story not gradually planned?
Best lefty comment found at Sadly No regarding the story:
possible criminal suspicions against Acorn
THERE’S NOTHING THERE YOU FUCKWADS!!!!
*ahem* though that sure as hell didn’t stop them in ‘92.
WHY. THE. FUCK. are we letting these shithead assclown morans run our politics? THEY LOST. They should find a dark corner somewhere and wank off to “Atlas Shrugged” and let the rest of us get on with business.
And I would suggest to the Left, that if President Obama is looking at appointing a Special Prosecutor for this, that there is indeed much more here and that the non-stop investigation will help obscure the truth not reveal it. Jammie Wearing Fool notes: “The left loved Patrick Fitzgerald when he went after Scooter Libby. It would be curious to see their reaction if he were to be the one probing ACORN.”
H/T Don Surber
Podcast: Meghan McCain, Jimmie Carter, Racism, ACORN, And Democrats Taxing The Poor
Thursday, September 17th, 2009What isn’t going wrong in American and the world today?
To subscribe on iTunes, just click here!
Taxing The Poor And Middle Class
Thursday, September 17th, 2009When you add it up, the Obama Administration is sticking it to the poor and and middle class in a huge way. Consider:
Cigarette taxes are overwhelmingly against the poor and middle class as they’re the ones who smoke.
Now, the government is considering taxing Soda pop. Guess who will be harmed by that tax? There is also this point: Since when is it the government’s blankety-blank business to decide what is and is not good for people? But Democrats love coercion and forcing behavior:
The group’s review of research on the topic, appearing in The New England Journal of Medicine, was released on Wednesday, the same day that Senator Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat, made public his health care reform plan, with an estimated cost of $774 billion over 10 years. The Baucus plan would be paid for by an array of taxes and fees on high-end group insurance plans, drug and medical device makers, and other sources, with no mention of any tax on sugary beverages.
The scientific paper found that a beverage tax might not only raise revenue but have significant health effects, lowering consumption of soda and other sweet drinks enough to lead to a small weight loss and reduced health risks among many Americans.
The study cited research on price elasticity for soft drinks that has shown that for every 10 percent rise in price, consumption declines 8 to 10 percent.
The real goal? Tax revenue. Democrats don’t give a rats ass if people die from obesity but they know a fat hog when they see one and they want a piece of that money.
Cap-n-Tax will cost the average American family $1700/year.
Health care under the Baucus plan would cost a family of four $700/month minimum. That’s much more than some pay right now and nearly $9,000 in new taxes. In addition, the Baucus plan has perverse incentives to hurt single people and single parents with children.
Add this all up and the American family could be paying $15,000 more/year than they are now. Remember, the Bush tax cuts are about to be repealed. All in all, average Americans will be burdened.
More than that, this is all during a recession. So that means that less money will be circulated into the economy. The government will control American purse strings. With less money, job creation will come to a halt. Temporary jobs and lower income jobs will be eliminated. Again, the poor, working class and middle class will be affected most. These plans will create more wards of the state.
But of course, this is all common sense. The population is aging, there are fewer workers and more obligations. The only choice is to reduce obligations or increase taxation on producers. The solution, Democrat-style is to always increase taxation.
And the poor and middle class always get screwed first. Always.
Obama = Weak UPDATED
Thursday, September 17th, 2009President Obama signaled to the world that dictatorial regimes have carte blanc while struggling Democracies will be left to defend themselves. Today, on the 70th anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Poland, the President announced that there will be no defense shield in Europe. Poland, Europe, is on their own.
Russia is the same. It’s the United States that has changed. Well, that’s what President Obama promised, but it’s not good changes that he’s delivering.
Meanwhile, Venezuela signs agreements with China while building up militarily. And China is building up too:
“In fact, when considering the military-modernization programs of countries like China, we should be concerned less with their potential ability to challenge the US symmetrically — fighter to fighter or ship to ship — and more with their ability to disrupt our freedom of movement and narrow our strategic options,” Gates said in a speech to the Air Force Association.
“Investments in cyber and anti-satellite warfare, anti-air and anti-ship weaponry, and ballistic missiles could threaten America’s primary way to project power and help allies in the Pacific — in particular our forward air bases and carrier strike groups,” Gates said in National Harbor, Maryland.
The new threats meant long-range military aircraft would take on greater importance as the latest weaponry would “degrade the effectiveness of short-range fighters and put more of a premium on being able to strike from over the horizon — whatever form that capability might take,” he said.
Defense analysts have warned that the US military will soon lose its dominance on the high seas, in space and in cyberspace as China and other emerging powers obtain sophisticated weaponry and missiles.
Whether it is sending the wrong message to Iran, abandoning Honduras, abandoning Poland, putting tariffs on Chinese goods, or all the rest of it, President Obama signals weakness around the world.
And he wants to increase debt with health care at the time when America is drowning in debt. What happens when those debts are called in?
Why do Democrats like projecting and being weak on the world stage while dominating and enslaving average Americans with oppressive taxation? It’s like they don’t recognize an enemy when they see one.
UPDATED:
Kim Priestap has a must-read piece. She also says:
I believe Obama’s decision to abandon the missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republican is nearly as bad as Carter’s decision to abandon the Shah of Iran. Radical Islam grew as a result of Carter’s decision. A new Soviet style Putinian Russia will grow as a result of Obama’s decision.
Bookworm calls President Obama a “very bad man“:
“He’s a bad man. He’s a very, very bad man.”
That’s all I could think of when I read that today, on the 70th Anniversary of Poland’s invasion by the Nazis, Barack Obama made the decision to leave Poland and the Czech Republic vulnerable to Putin’s tender ministrations. The former Soviet Union may be in demographic decline, but that clearly hasn’t stopped Putin’s dreams of grandeur — and what better way to use up former military stock, regain your former imperial glory, and augment your dying population, than by engaging in a little empire building. Nor do I buy Obama’s claim that he’s just replacing a standing defense system with something more “agile.”
Obama Gets High Approval On Iraq, Lowest On Deficits
Thursday, September 17th, 2009Hmmmm….
The troops aren’t home yet. President Obama continues with Bush’s plans. The country approves, according to Gallup:
Of the seven specific issue approval ratings measured in a Sept. 11-13 USA Today/Gallup poll, President Obama gets his highest rating (56%) on his handling of Iraq, and his lowest (38%) on the federal deficit. Obama’s approval ratings on handling the economy and healthcare, at 46% and 43%, respectively, are little changed over the past two months.
And a majority 57% disapprove of Health care. Hmmmm…. again.
A couple thoughts:
1. Did the Press talk down the Iraq War and drive President Bush’s Iraq numbers down? You know, body counts, incessant nattering about torture, etc.?
2. Did the American people actually want the wars just didn’t like the prosecution, the methods?
3. Are President Obama’s numbers so bad elsewhere, people want to be nice about something?
President Obam Changed Speech To Schoolkids And The Press Helped Him
Wednesday, September 16th, 2009Ace is talking about the buried lede from the Washington Post:
When critics lashed out at President Obama for scheduling a speech to public school students this month, accusing him of wanting to indoctrinate children to his politics, his advisers quickly scrubbed his planned comments for potentially problematic wording. They then reached out to progressive Web sites such as the Huffington Post, liberal bloggers and Democratic pundits to make their case to a friendly audience.
So, what is more troublesome? The scrubbing? No, that’s good. The speech was rife with b.s. as it was…it could have been worse. No, it’s the cozy relationship the White House has with the press–like the Washington Post.
Please. Using Huffington Post and bloggers and pundits as a shield. Really, now. Why doesn’t the Washington Post just come out with it and explain why they were so helpful to the President during the Education talk debate?
Wow
Wednesday, September 16th, 2009Panoramic photo from Teaparty in D.C. from top of the Capital building. There’s like 10 people, tops.
Via @allahpundit
