Catholic Women have more Sex and that Sex is more Satisfying

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 26th, 2014

Week in Review

The Democrats get the youth vote.  Because the Democrats aren’t these kids’ parents.  After a lifetime (i.e., high school) of their parents telling them ‘no’ after they turn 18 they turn on their parents.  And start voting Democrat.  Wait until you’re married before having sex?  I think not, Mom & Dad.  Because there isn’t anything wrong with having cheap meaningless sex with a bunch of different people.  The Democrats understand this.  And provide these young women with birth control and access to abortion so they can have a lot of casual sex without any consequences.  Of course, a lot of this sex won’t be very good (see Devout Catholics Have Better Sex, Study Says by Elizabeth Flock posted 7/17/2013 on US News and World Report—an older article appearing in their Twitter feed this past week).

Devout, married Catholics have the best sex of any demographic group, the Family Research Council said at an event Wednesday, pointing to a collection of studies from the last several decades.

The socially conservative Christian group relied heavily on statistics from the University of Chicago’s last National Health and Social Life Survey, conducted in 1992, which found the most enjoyable and most frequent sex occurring among married people, those who attended church weekly – any church, whether Catholic or not – and people who had the least sexual partners…

The notion that Catholics have better sex isn’t a new one, especially coming from Catholics. In 1994, Andrew Greeley, a Catholic sociologist and priest, published “Sex: The Catholic Experience,” which released a litany of new statistics: 68 percent of Catholics professed to have sex at least once a week versus 56 percent of non-Catholics; 30 percent of Catholics had bought erotic underwear versus 20 percent non-Catholics; and 80 percent of devout Catholic women approved of having sex for pleasure alone.

Girls go to parties where guys ply them with alcohol.  To get them drunk enough to lower their inhibitions.  A Girl may want to be relaxed enough to be with a guy she likes.  While a guy may just want to get her drunk so she can’t say ‘no’.  One thing for sure, though, whatever happens won’t be the subject of any romance novel.  It could be a scene in a porn movie.  But it sure won’t end up on the big screen in a love story.

Let’s face it, any sex where being inebriated is a prerequisite just isn’t going to be that good.  Or memorable.  Further, it is likely to leave a woman filled with shame or regret.  As she worries about what she did.  With whom she did it with.  And then the questions to fret over.  Did she take any precautions?  Is she pregnant?  Did she catch a sexually transmitted disease?  Did someone make a video of her while she was passed out and naked?  Doing things to her?  Is she going to see herself on the Internet?  Will her friends and her family see her on the Internet?  Her professors?  Her boss?  Will this come up should she decide to run for public office?

To have the same frequency of sex married women have may leave her with more feelings of shame and regret.  And an emptiness.  For while she is having sex a married woman is making love.  For a married woman doesn’t have to get drunk to lower her inhibitions.  For there are no inhibitions to lower.  She doesn’t have to worry about catching an STD.  And if she gets pregnant it may be because she wanted to get pregnant.  Also, there is no shame and regret the day after.  For a married woman is not coming home disheveled the following morning.  Where her neighbors can see her wearing the same clothes she had on the night before.  And see her underwear fall out of her purse while digging out her keys.

For a married woman sex is about love-making.  Sharing intimate moments with the person she loves.  Someone she wants to please.  Just as her husband wants to please her.  As well as honor her and protect her.  He won’t be posting any videos of her passed out and naked on the Internet.  Sure, they may leave the bathroom door open, but there’s honor and protection.  As well as an active sex life spiced up with things like erotic underwear.

So what are the Democrats really doing to our young women by being anti-parents?  Opening them up to a lot of shame and regret.  And worse.  Democrats are ruining their sex lives.  For using birth control and abortion to stay unmarried only makes their sex lives less fulfilling.  At least according to this study.  And it’s rather ironic that the women who oppose birth control and abortion (i.e., Catholics) are having better sex lives than those who don’t.  So once again their parents were right.  Even when it comes to waiting until marriage to have sex.  For if you do it will apparently blow your socks off.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Postponing Motherhood may be good for Busy Women but not for their Children

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 17th, 2014

Week in Review

Once upon a time I was having a conversation with a consultant.  He was bald.  And not in the best of shape.  He looked older than he was.  He started a family later in life.  And one of the worst days of his life was when a waitress said how cute his grandson was.  Because he looked like a grandfather.  Even though he was only a father.

I had a coworker who died from a heart attack while on vacation.  Running around with his grade-school-aged children.  Another father who started his family later in life.  It was not a problem for him.  For men don’t have a biological clock ticking.  So they can start a family as late as they want to in their life.  But they may not live to see their children graduate from high school.  Which is a horrible thing for a child.

This was something women were spared.  Because they have a biological clock ticking.  And couldn’t put off becoming a mother until they were ‘grandmother age’.  Until now, that is (see Later, Baby: Will Freezing Your Eggs Free Your Career? by Emma Rosenblum posted 4/17/2014 on BloombergBusinessweek Technology).

LaJoie fits the typical profile of an egg freezer: They’re great at their jobs, they make a ton of money, and they’ve followed all of Sheryl Sandberg’s advice. But the husband and baby haven’t materialized, and they can recite the stats about their rapidly decreasing fertility as a depressing party trick. For LaJoie, now 45, it was demoralizing to see friend after friend get married and have kids, while she was stuck at the hospital without romantic prospects.

“You feel bad about yourself, like you’re the odd man out, and somehow you’ve messed up on your path,” says Sarah Elizabeth Richards, who spent $50,000 freezing several rounds of eggs in 2006 to 2008 and wrote a book about the experience, Motherhood, Rescheduled: The New Frontier of Egg Freezing and the Women Who Tried It. “By freezing, you’ve done something about it. You’re walking taller; your head is held higher. And that can pay off in both your work and romantic lives.” Richards, now 43, is dating someone promising and says she’d like to thaw her eggs in the next year or so. She’s also at work on a new book and plans on finishing it before she tries to get pregnant. “Egg freezing gives you the gift of time to start a family, but it’s also, like, here’s how many years I actually have left for my other goals—what can I do with them?”

LaJoie got married soon after she froze (she told her husband about it on their very first date: “I was upfront and said, ‘This is my plan.’ He was, like, ‘OK!’ ”) and had her first baby naturally at 39. A few years later, after briefly trying fertility drugs, she thawed her eggs. The implantation worked, and her second son is 2 years old.

This is great news for women who want to conveniently work in the burden of being a mother somewhere in their busy schedules.  But when you have a child at 43 you will be 51 at that child’s high school graduation.  Old enough to be a grandmother.  While the grandmother may be in a nursing home.  Who may only see her grandchildren on holidays when they reluctantly visit her.  For nursing homes are not places children want to be.

And you could be dead by your child’s graduation.  For a lot of health issues can plague you by the time you turn 51.  Especially when you’re having your children in your 40s.  The risk of breast cancer increases with age.  The risk of hypertension and pre-eclampsia/eclampsia increase with age.  The risk of gestational diabetes increases with age.  The risk of heart disease increases with age.  As does the risk of other cancers, lupus, diabetes, pancreatitis, etc.  Things not that common for women in their 20s and 30s.  But more common for women over 40.

And babies have risks, too, when their mothers give birth when over 40.  The risk of stillbirths and miscarriages increase with age.  As does the risk for birth defects.  So it’s all well and good for the mother to postpone motherhood but it’s not the best thing for her children.  Who deserve young and healthy parents.  Who can run with them while on vacation.  And they deserve healthy grandparents to spoil them.  Things you may not be able to do if you postpone motherhood until after you’re 40.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“Figures don’t Lie, but Liars Figure”

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 5th, 2014

Week in Review

There’s an old saying by Mark Twain that goes like this.  “Figures don’t Lie, but Liars Figure.”  Which basically means you can make statistical figures say anything you want them to say.  For example, here are two statistics that make it sound like black fathers are better parents than white fathers (see Harper’s Index posted April of 2014 pm Harpers Magazine).

Percentage of white live-in fathers who help their children with their homework daily : 28

Of black live-in fathers who do : 41

Almost half of all live-in black fathers help their children with their homework.  While only 28% of white live-in fathers do.  So black fathers are better parents than white fathers.  At least, these statistics would seem to say so.  But it’s what these statistics don’t say that will change the conclusion these two statistics appear to make.

First of all, children who receive more help with their homework will do better in school.  For their children will be doing their homework if their dad is there helping them.  So the homework is getting done.  And if children have trouble understanding something their dad is their clarifying and explaining things.  So these children are going to do better in school.  And a larger percentage of them will graduate from high school.  As students who work hard and do their homework are more likely to graduate than those who don’t.  So, do the statistics for high school graduation rates show that black live-in fathers are doing a better job helping their kids with their homework?  No.  According to data from the National Center for Education Statistics (see National public high school graduation rate at a four-decade high by Lyndsey Layton posted 1/22/2013 on The Washington Post), high school graduation rates were 83% for whites and 66.1% for blacks.

Learning abilities are the same for both blacks and whites.  So you can’t say that whites are smarter than blacks.  So is there something else that can explain the difference in graduation rates?  Yes.  The inability to make kids do their homework.  For if they’re not doing their homework they’re not progressing through high school.  And many just drop out.  But according to the statistics more black live-in fathers are helping their kids with their homework than white live-in fathers.  So how is it that blacks have a lower high school graduation rate?  Because of something the statistics don’t show.

According to Census data (see Social and Economic Characteristics of Currently Unmarried Women With a Recent Birth: 2011 posted on census.gov), the percent of out-of-wedlock births was 29.2% for whites and 67.8% for blacks.  Less than a third of white children are born out-of-wedlock.  While just over two-thirds of black children are born out-of-wedlock.  To single mothers who struggle to both work and raise their children.  Leaving them little time to help them with their homework. And because these mothers are single and working their children may be home alone.  And more likely to get into trouble.  Not do their homework.  And drop out of school.

So the higher rate of children born out-of-wedlock would explain the lower high school graduation rates for black children.  While the percentage of black live-in fathers helping their children is skewed.  For it’s only 41% of the 32.2% (100% – 67.8%) of black fathers who stayed in the home to help raise their children.  While it’s 28% of the larger 70.8% (100% – 29.2%) of white fathers who stayed home to help raise their children.  (Assuming born in-wedlock means the same as live-in father.  Of course a child could be born in-wedlock only to see his parents divorce later making his or her mother a single mother.  However, with child support and alimony payments a percentage of these single mothers would not have to work and thus be able to spend more time with their child.  So a divorced mother probably would not have to struggle as much a single mother who was never married.  Especially if the divorced parents are older when they start their families and the husband has an established career providing the financial resources that allows the divorced mother to stay at home with the children).

Crunching these numbers for 1,000 fathers you get about 131 black fathers and 779 white fathers (blacks are approximately 13.1% of the population and whites are approximately 77.9%).  Of these 131 black fathers about 42 (32.2%) are live-in.  And of these 779 white fathers about 552 (70.8%) are live-in.  Bringing us to approximately 17 (41%) black live-in fathers who help their children with their homework.  And approximately 154 (28%) white fathers who help their children with their homework.

So, if you look at the total number of live-in fathers helping their children with their homework (17 and 154) the number of white live-in fathers doing so is approximately 793% greater than black live-in fathers.  Or for every black live-in father helping his child with his or her homework there are about 9 white live-in fathers helping their children.  Which sounds like white fathers are spending more time helping their children with their homework.  Which they are because there are more white fathers than black fathers.  In a random sample of 1000 fathers there would be approximately 6 white fathers for every black father.  Based on the demographics of the population.

So we have looked at statistics in numerous ways.  Proving once again that “figures don’t lie, but liars figure.”  Or that you can make statistics say anything you want them to say.  So you should always be suspect when people use statistics to support their argument.  Because there is a lot of interpretation the number crunchers make with the data.  A lot of assumptions.  And are often a selective and subjective in their use of the data.  Especially when it’s the government uses those statistics to justify new spending, new taxes, new regulations, etc.  Because these are the people who truly figure with the numbers.  They did it in the days of Mark Twain.  And they still do it today.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Feminists want no Restrictions on Abortion unless a Woman Aborts a Boy because she wants a Girl

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 1st, 2014

Week in Review

Conservatives and liberals see abortion differently.  Conservatives sees it as killing a human life.  Liberals don’t.  To them a fetus is not a human life.  It’s just an inanimate lump of cells.  With a heartbeat. That’s why liberals, and feminists, say a woman can do anything she wants to this blob of tissue.  Because it’s her body. Unless, of course, that blob is being aborted solely because it will become a baby girl (see DOMINIC LAWSON: This is the liberal legacy: killing baby girls in the womb, no questions asked by Dominic Lawson posted 1/20/2014

Ministers were much more exercised about last week’s revelations by The Independent about sex-selective abortions. A spokesman for the Department of Health told the newspaper: ‘Abortion on the grounds of sex selection is against the law and  completely unacceptable…’

What we are seeing here is an echo of the much wider ‘gendercide’ that has been taking place on the subcontinent. Over the past 20 years it is estimated that about ten million female embryos have been selectively aborted in India…

The fact that a form of anti-female discrimination is involved in such terminations has led many self-professed feminists to denounce this practice and claim it is illegal. Their argument can be summed up as follows: abortion is a woman’s absolute right and concerns her alone — but not if the reason for termination is that she wants her next child to be a boy…

Their original position had been that it is ridiculous to ascribe intrinsic value to the life of the unborn child, unless it is ‘wanted’. But if he or she has no moral status during the temporary period of total dependency on the mother, why should one reason for termination be any more legal or illegal  than another..?

That’s what pro-choice means, however much those who framed the law might seek to distance themselves from the consequences. Meanwhile, the Department of Health will continue to deliver lectures on the wickedness of smoking or drinking while pregnant — just in case any harm should be done to the unborn child.

This is more of that imaginary logic liberals use to justify their beliefs and policies when they make no sense.  Liberals oppose any restrictions on abortion.  While at the same time liberals are vehemently opposed to ‘gendercide’ and want to restrict it.  A woman should be able to have an abortion if she just doesn’t feel like having a baby.  But if the fetus is female the government should force her to carry her to term.  This makes no logical sense.  Unless, of course, you use their imaginary logic.

In their convoluted world it would be okay for a mother to abuse her unborn baby by drinking, smoking and doing heroin as long as she chose to have an abortion before the child was born.  But it would be wrong for a woman to abort her baby if it was a girl because she wanted a boy.  Which is probably why they don’t want to discuss this settled issue (thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court making law) anymore.  Because it makes no sense even to them.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Sperm Donor must pay Child Support for Lesbian Couple’s Child

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 26th, 2014

Week in Review

Proponents of same-sex marriage say there is no difference with it and traditional marriage.  And that same-sex couples can be parents just as traditional couples can.  There’s just the matter of getting a child.  As a same-sex couple cannot conceive a child.  But as long as women give up their unwanted babies for adoption instead of aborting them a same-sex couple should be able to adopt a child.  Or a lesbian couple could find a sperm donor (see Court: Marotta is a father, not merely a sperm donor by Steve Fry posted 1/22/2014 on cjonline).

A Topeka man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple is the presumptive father to a baby one of the woman bore and is subject to paying child support, a Shawnee County District Court judge ruled Wednesday.

In her written decision, District Court Judge Mary Mattivi said that because William Marotta and the same-sex couple failed to secure the services of a physician during the artificial insemination process, he wasn’t entitled to the same protections given other sperm donors under Kansas law…

Marotta contended he was only a sperm donor to a same-sex couple seeking a child, but the Kansas Department for Children and Families argued he is a father who owes child support to his daughter. The girl is 4 years old…

The Kansas Department for Children and Families filed the case in October 2012 seeking to have Marotta declared the father of a girl Schreiner bore in 2009.

Marotta opposed the action, saying he didn’t intend to be the child’s father, and that he had signed a contract waiving his parental rights and responsibilities while agreeing to donate sperm in a plastic cup to Schreiner and Angela Bauer, who was then her partner. Marotta contacted the women after they placed a Craigslist ad seeking a sperm donor.

The state has been seeking to have Marotta declared the child’s father so he can be responsible for about $6,000 in public assistance the state provided, as well as future child support.

This makes a good case against same-sex couple adoption.  For without a blood tie to the baby it is apparently easy to walk away from it.  Even if one made a commitment to raise a child together.  Like with this lesbian couple.  The partner to the mother of the baby left.  Without providing for that baby.  So the mother and baby became wards of the state.  Which is why the state went after the sperm donor for child support.  Even though he had an agreement with the lesbian couple that he would have no responsibility for their child.

There are strict guidelines for adopting a baby.  To make sure the child goes to a good home.  With parents who have the financial wherewithal to raise a child.  Apparently there is no such requirement for the donation of sperm.  Which can place a child in a home with parents who do not have the financial wherewithal to raise a child.  At least it would appear so.

A marriage between a man and a woman is about children.  To conceive and bring children into the world.  In a partnership that facilitates the raising of children.  To give them a last name.  A stay-at-home mother gets added to her husband’s employer benefits.  So she can stay at home and work without pay while being covered by her working husband’s benefits.  Where a mother and a father can both raise their children.  Each teaching them what they uniquely can.  Giving them as complete a childhood as possible.  Tied forever to their children by blood.  This is what marriage is for.  Children.  All the employer benefits of marriage.  All the legal advantages of marriage.  All the tax advantages of marriage.  They’re all there for one reason.  To facilitate the raising of children.  So parents raise their children.  And not the state.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Abortion is Good in the United States but Bad in China

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 26th, 2014

Week in Review

Advanced economies with expansive welfare states are incurring large budget deficits and growing national debt.  Why?  Because of birth control.  And abortion.

These massive welfare states were implemented before the Sixties.  When people were having more babies than they are now.  Following World War II there was a baby boom.  Following the baby boom, though, there was a baby bust.  Fast forward to today and a lot of those baby boomers are leaving the workforce and collecting taxpayer-financed benefits in retirement.  While the smaller baby bust generation is paying the taxes for those benefits.  Resulting in less money going into the welfare state than is going out in benefits.  Giving those deficits.  And that growing national debt.

A declining birthrate is the death knell of a welfare state.  So if you want a healthy welfare state you need people to have more babies.  So each generation is bigger than the one before it.  So there is always more money going into the welfare state than is going out.  Allowing the state to pay for those generous benefits without going bankrupt.

So birth control and abortion can bankrupt advanced economies with generous welfare states.  But abortion can do something else (see One-Child Policy Is One Big Problem for China by Susan Scutti posted 1/23/2014 on Newsweek).

Late last year, China’s National People’s Congress eased the one-child policy. The government didn’t exactly admit it was a mistake; according to Chinese officials, the guidelines helped avert 400 million births and in so doing, accelerated modernization…

Enforcement of the one-child policy during the early 1980s was controversial not only in China but around the globe. Early stories emerging from the rural villages focused on coercive practices, including forced late-term abortions and involuntary sterilization, as well as the “neighborly” snitching on pregnant couples who dared to conceive a second child…

…In China, there are currently 32 million more boys under the age of 20 than girls.

Medical advancements and technology have played a key role in creating this surplus of boys. “The Chinese government contracted with GE to provide cart-mounted ultrasound that could be run on generators so that the most obscure village had access to fetal sex determination,” said Hudson. Given the ability to know the sex of their unborn children, many parents aborted female fetuses…

It appears that the outraged cries from within and without have been heard. The Chinese government has spent millions of dollars in recent years to fund research into the implications of this radical skew in gender population numbers.

Having more men than women has led to a lot of single men who want to marry but can’t.  As there are not enough women to match up with men.  Which has caused a lot of these men to turn to prostitutes.  Something human traffickers are more than happy to supply them with.  Sending women there from neighboring countries to work in the sex industry.

The world is outraged over the number of aborted female fetuses in China.  Including the American left.  Yet they have no problem with abortion.  Aborting female fetuses is wrong.  But aborting male AND female fetuses is fine.  Apparently.  As abortion is sacred to those on the left.  Just mention that you want to revisit Roe v. Wade and see them go apoplectic.  For that is settled law.  And anyone who wants to take away a woman’s right to have an abortion is waging a war on women.  While in China abortion itself is the war on women.  So on the one hand abortion is the great liberator of women (outside of China).  While on the other hand it is the great exterminator of women (inside of China).  So it’s both good and bad.  When you use the imaginary logic of liberals, that is.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Democrat War on Women has given One in Six People Genital Herpes

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 18th, 2014

Week in Review

Liberals say there’s nothing wrong with women being sexually active.  In fact, it’s empowering.  Young women naked on their backs with their legs spread pleasing men.  That’s the way liberals like their women.  Strong.  Independent.  Not enslaved in a marriage.  But out there having fun.  Enjoying life.  And to keep these young naked women on their backs liberals have given them free birth control in Obamacare.  And access to abortion when that fails.  So they can have all the casual sex men want to have with them.  And all of it consequence free (see New genital herpes drug shows promise in trials by Tracy Miller posted 1/16/2014 on the New York Daily News).

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one in six people between the ages of 14 to 49 have an HSV-2, or genital herpes, infection.

The currently approved drugs to treat genital herpes don’t fully eliminate symptoms and only partly reduce the risk of spreading herpes, Dr. Anna Wald, professor of allergy and infectious diseases at the University of Washington School of Public Health, told LiveScience…

The study found no serious side effects associated with this dose of the [new] drug, though previous research found high doses of pritelivir were toxic when given to monkeys, LiveScience reported.

The new drug will undergo more tests and “is still a few years from the market,” Tyring said.

Well, consequence free for five out of six people.  Which means if you’re in a group with three couples one of the six will have genital herpes.  Which isn’t too bad.  Unless you’re the poor bastard that has casual sex with that one.

A 14 year old girl is not thinking about getting married and raising a family.  No.  She’s thinking about empowerment.  At least, one in six is.  Imagine this girl in her twenties.  When she is thinking about getting married and raising a family.  And how much fun that will be trying to meet the father of her future children when she has genital herpes.  That’ll put a damper on her finding her Prince Charming.  And her fairy tale wedding.  Which is the biggest thing in a woman’s life.  As any guy getting married will tell you.  They’d be fine with eloping to Las Vegas.  Not their fiancés.  They want the $4,000 wedding dress.  And the big church wedding.  One thing she never dreamed of having?  Genital herpes.  Which she got thanks to liberals who told her to live life and empower herself.

And yet it’s the Republicans that have a war on women.  Go figure.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Mom and Dad get a Big Assist from MTV in the Battle against Teen Pregnancy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 18th, 2014

Week in Review

Parents can’t tell their kids anything.  For they know everything.  Thankfully for parents they got a little help from MTV.  Who kids will listen to even when they won’t listen to their parents (see Study: US reality shows contributed to record decline in teen pregnancy by Nicholas Tufnell, wired.co.uk, posted 1/13/2014 on ars technica).

A study from Wellesley College and the University of Maryland finds that MTV’s Teen Mom and 16 and Pregnant contributed to a record decline in US teen pregnancy…

In an effort to find the “causal effect of specific media content on teen childbearing rates,” Kearney and Levine began an empirical investigation by studying Nielsen ratings (a US audience measurement system) as well as data, trends and metrics from Google and Twitter. The researchers then examined the impact on teen birth rates using Vital Statistics Natality microdata.

The figures revealed that Teen Mom and 16 and Pregnant often had extremely high ratings and a very dedicated following, causing many to search and discuss the themes explored on the shows. Specifically, searches and tweets on birth control and abortion spiked each time the show was broadcast, particularly in areas where it was popular.

Teen abortion rates also fell over this period, which Levine and Kearney see as further evidence that the shows are partly responsible for a reduction in pregnancies.

How about that?  MTV got something many have failed to do.  To get kids to listen to their parents.  For the fall in teen pregnancies AND the fall in teen abortions means one of two things.  Either kids acting irresponsibly in spreading STDs with active sex lives got more responsible when it came to birth control.  Or they are just having less sex.  Like Mom and Dad would have tried everything within their powers to get them to do.  And here’s a television show that Mom and Dad no doubt couldn’t stand tipping that argument in their favor.  Thank you MTV.  For telling our kids that Mom and Dad were right all along.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

Strong families steeped in Conservative Values and Traditions do Well in America

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 11th, 2014

Week in Review

The Washington Post published an article on 1/22/2013 noting the difference in graduation rates among racial groups.  The graduation rates for Asians, whites and blacks were 93%, 83% and 66.1%, respectively.  Census data (for 2010) shows the impact of this on median family income.  The median family income for people with bachelor’s degrees, a high school diploma only and those who didn’t graduate high school was $90,530, $48,637 and $31,119, respectively.  The median family income for Asians, whites and blacks was $75,027, $62,545 and $38,409, respectively.  And the median family income for a family with a married couple, a male householder with no spouse and a female householder with no spouse was $71,627, $41,501 and $29,770, respectively.  The census data also notes the number of out-of-wedlock births for Asians, whites and blacks as 11.3%, 29.2% and 67.8%, respectively (see High School Graduation Rates, Out-of-Wedlock Births and Median Family Income posted 7/25/2013 on PITHOCRATES for source data).

The people with the highest median family income also have the lowest out-of-wedlock births.  Confirming that the path towards a high-paying job is a high school diploma.  A college education.  Being careful NOT to have any children until you’re married.  And after you graduate from college and establish a career get married and raise a family.

According to the data people who follow this general path through life will do better than those who don’t.  And it all starts with the family.  The stronger the family the greater the success.  The greater the number of out-of-wedlock births the lesser the success.  Which is why very religious people do so well.  Immigrants.  And the immigrant communities they make for future American-born generations.

Immigrants have little but family when they arrive in a strange new world.  And the extended family they find in their immigrant communities. As they become Americans they find comfort in their family and the culture and traditions of the world they left.  As they work hard to fulfill their American dream.  And because they work so hard, put family first and make sure their children do well in school they tend to do very well in life (see Tiger Mom’s New Book Stirs Up Culture Wars by Beth Greenfield posted 1/6/2014 on Yahoo! Shine).

But the reality, notes the book, co-written by Chua’s husband and fellow Yale professor Jed Rubenfeld, is that “uncomfortable as it may be to talk about,” some “religious, ethnic, and national-origin groups are starkly more successful than others.” Those groups, according to the authors, are Mormons, Cuban exiles, Nigerian Americans, Indian Americans, Chinese Americans, American Jews, Iranian Americans and Lebanese Americans. And the reasons they excel, the book declares, is because of a basic “triple package” formula: a superiority complex, insecurity, and impulse control.

A Publishers Weekly review calls the book a “comprehensive, lucid psychological study,” which balances its findings with the downsides of the “triple package.” And the authors address cultural stereotyping early on in the book, explaining, “Throughout this book, we will never make a statement about any group’s economic performance or predominant cultural attitudes unless it is backed up by solid evidence, whether empirical, historical, or sociological. But when there are differences between groups, we will come out and say so.” They add, “Group generalizations turn into invidious stereotypes when they’re false, hateful, or assumed to be true of every group member. No group and no culture is monolithic…”

Many on Twitter, meanwhile, have responded angrily to early coverage of the book.

Some choice phrases on Twitter: “racist,” “awful,” “racist psychopath,” “idiot,” “nonsense,” “race baiting clap trap” and, finally, from the political organization MOMocrats, “Amy Chua trolls us all for college tuition for child number two/book number two. YAWN.”

There may be something to the “triple package.”  I don’t know about the superiority complex.  But I’ll buy the insecurity and impulse control.  As they do tie into hard work (as they may feel they have to work harder to equal their peers who are in a familiar world and know more about that world).  And making short-term sacrifices for long-term goals.  Such as saving your money to buy a house to raise your family in.  And then sacrificing personal consumption to plan for the future.  A college education for your kids.  And retirement for Mom and Dad.

The reason these people do so well has less to do with genes than having the personal philosophy that made America great.  Strong family.  And conservative values and traditions.  They’re not super races.  They just embody the best of America.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Democrats War on Women makes Women Dissatisfied with their Vaginas

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 5th, 2014

Week in Review

Some people with big noses get nose jobs.  To reduce the size of their noses.  Pretty much the first thing you look at when you see someone with a big schnoz.  So one can understand the anxiety some people may suffer after a life of undo attention on their proboscis.  And a lifetime being called ‘big nose’.

Women are especially prone to getting plastic surgery to correct what they view as defects.  A tummy tuck so they look slimmer and more appealing.  Face lifts so they look younger and more appealing.  Boob jobs.  For a bigger rack to give the guys something to look at.  And to look more appealing.  In fact, anything that men see a lot they want to use surgery to make it look more appealing.  Even things that take some disrobing to see (see Designer vaginas are ruining our idea of what women’s bodies should look like, doctors warn by Anna Hodgekiss posted 12/31/2013 on the Daily Mail).

Women are getting increasingly distorted ideas of what their genitalia should look like, with many wrongly thinking their bodies are ‘abnormal’.

New research has found that those who looked at ‘designer vaginas’ were more more [sic] likely to consider them ‘normal’ and ‘ideal’ when later comparing them to unaltered genitalia…

The number of labiaplasties performed by the NHS has risen five-fold since 2001, according to the study’s Australian authors.

The surgery involves reducing the size of a woman’s labia minora to make them more symmetrical and smaller than the labia majora…

Generally, there are no health reasons to have the surgery – it is only for the sake of appearance. So the researchers wanted to know what drives women’s perceptions of what looks good…

‘This is due to airbrushing, lack of exposure to normal women’s genitals, greater genital visibility due to Brazilian and genital waxing and the general taboo around discussing genitals and genital appearance…’

Sarah Calabrese, a clinical psychologist at Yale University, added: ‘[These findings are] especially disconcerting given that for many women, the narrow and unrealistic range of vulvas presented in mainstream U.S. pornography may be the only images that they see,’ she said.

‘The vulva is unlike most other body parts, which remain visible even when clothed; while a woman can look around and see the size and shape of other women’s waists, breasts, and so on, they don’t have the same opportunity to view other women’s vulvas and therefore are less likely to have a realistic sense of the natural diversity of vulvas in the female population.’

The Democrats/liberals keep saying Republicans/conservatives have a war on women.  Because they don’t want to hand out free birth control.  And provide access to abortion.  While Democrats do everything within their power to make it easier for a woman to go out and have a lot of casual sex.  Apparently liberals everywhere are, too.  Turning women into such sexual objects that they watch pornography to see how men want a vagina to look.  And then have surgery to get their vagina to look like what would please a connoisseur of pornography.  Yet it’s Republicans/conservatives that have a war on women.

But the bigger question is why are women trying to make every part of their body so appealing?  Well, who finds women appealing?  That’s right.  Men.  And why do women look their best for men?  To attract a guy.  And it’s just not for a hookup (i.e., casual sex).  For there probably isn’t a guy who would refuse to have sex with a woman after getting her naked regardless of what her vagina looked like.  For if a guy is looking at a woman’s vagina he’s probably thinking it’s the most beautiful thing he’s ever seen.  Because he’s about to have sex.  And nothing short of an earthquake or a tornado is going to get him to say anything that might spoil the mood.

No.  Women try to attract men to find Mr. Right.  For despite the Democrat war on women with their free birth control and access to abortion to keep them free and single women want to get married.  They don’t want to live alone.  Just being sexual objects for men to enjoy.  So desperate to find Mr. Right they will go to any length to make their looks ideal.  Based on pornographic images.  Something else Democrats fight to protect.  For there probably isn’t a pornographer out there that votes Republican.  Yet it’s Republicans/conservatives that have a war on women.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries