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.
Tags: babies, baby, biological clock, child, children, egg freezer, family, father, grandmother, husband, mother, motherhood, pregnant
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.
Tags: adoption, baby, benefits, child, child support, father, lesbian couple, marriage, mother, parents, same-sex couple, same-sex marriage, sperm donor, traditional marriage
Today Men smoke Marlboro Cigarettes to connect to that Rugged Cowboy on the Billboards
If you had parents or grandparents who lived through the Great Depression and World War II you’ve probably noticed something about them. They were a hardy breed. Especially the men. Sure, we all know someone who changed the oil in their own car. But back then it wasn’t uncommon to change the sparkplugs, shock absorbers, exhaust system, brakes, ball joints, etc. They even bought new tires and put them onto the rims themselves. As well as fixing everything that needed repair around the house. From the furnace to the toilet to the garbage disposal to installing a new roof on the house.
And all of this after they got home from work. Or on the weekend after cutting, edging, fertilizing and watering the grass. So the grass was lush and green for the kids to play on with Dad. When he wasn’t teaching them to ride a bike. How to protect themselves in a fight. Or helping them with their science project. Getting so involved that their kids turned in things they knew their teachers must have known they didn’t build themselves. But that’s how it was back then. There was nothing too complex or too difficult that Dad couldn’t roll up his sleeves and do. Sure, there may have been some cuss words. But that rugged can-do attitude forged in the fires of the Great Depression and World War II provided a feeling of safety and comfort in the home whenever Dad was there. As Dad was both provider and protector.
Today men smoke Marlboro cigarettes to connect to that rugged cowboy on the billboards. Back then they were that cowboy. Tough men who volunteered to fight in World War II. The last time that this type of American man was the rule and not the exception. But after the war the size of government grew. With the least manly men of all, liberals, leading the way. Bringing out the softer and more feminine side of men. Men who cry. And explore their feelings. Eating quiche instead of steak. Diluting the manliness in them. As any form of manliness became a socially undesirable trait.
The Left’s Objectification of Women cause Men to Linger in Adolescence instead of Growing Up and Maturing
It started with the Sexual Revolution. When we went from a family-centered society to one that viewed the idea of family itself as oppression. Women were encouraged to be sexual things instead of a wife and mother. Birth control and abortion made it possible to enjoy the sexual favors of a woman without being in a committed relationship. So men did. Using women to satisfy their lust. And only for that. Allowing women to go on to build a career. While men began to degenerate into a state of permanent adolescence. Being that young man who has but one thought on his mind all of the time.
Exit the cowboy. And enter the government. LBJ gave us the Great Society. And Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Giving rise to absentee fathers. And single mothers raising their children alone in government-built public housing. For the provider and protector left the household. As the government stepped in to take over that role. And did a horrible job. Destroying inner-city families. As crime-ridden public housing pushed these fatherless boys into gangs. And drugs. Which migrated to and infected their schools like a cancer. Boys who grew up seeing the new normal. Women are only for sexual pleasure. Not marrying and raising a family with. As their children followed the same path. Growing up without a father. With the state being provider and protector. Poorly, of course.
As men lingered in their adolescence they never fully grew up and matured. The very people who are responsible for this—the liberal left—blamed men for their brutishness. Saying it was the natural state of man. And soon made the very act of responding to the attractiveness of a woman as a form of sexual harassment. The government provides free birth control and access to abortion so women can be as sexually active as possible. The left attacks the censors and pushes the boundaries on television and in the movies. Today broadcast television shows often carry warnings like “Strong Coarse Language” and “Intensely Suggestive Dialogue.” Sexual imagery bombards us. For sex sells. It even sells sex on broadcast television. Such as the Victoria Secret Fashion Show. With beautiful models dressed only in underwear strut across the catwalk for one purpose. To bring attention to their sexual parts that their sexy underwear barely covers. So they can sell their lingerie to spice up sex in the bedroom. They do all of this and yet attack men as being primeval and brutish when they make inappropriate comments to women. Such as “You’re looking lovely today.”
The Archetypical Young Man Today is a bespectacled Man-Boy in a Plaid Pajama Onesie Sipping a Hot Chocolate
It’s a confusing world today. Women are encouraged to look as beautiful as ever while men aren’t supposed to notice. Liberals encourage them to explore their sexuality while they condemn men for wanting to enjoy that sexuality. Pulling them even further away from marriage and family as they turn to the world of online pornography. Further objectifying the already objectified woman. But in cyberspace men know their advances won’t be construed as sexual harassment. Social media even pulls the sexes further apart. Often the only time they get together is for sex. The Japanese young are even turning away from sex. As the cost of living in their nanny state is so great they don’t want to be burdened with the high cost of raising a family. Not surprisingly, life-like sex robots are a reality now in Japan. And elsewhere.
The left has been marginalizing the role of men in today’s society. They get women in as many male roles as possible. Even in the brutal sport of boxing. Which exemplifies man’s brutish nature. But celebrates the advancement of women in a male-dominated society. Even same-sex marriage further and subtly diminishes the role of man as the head of the household and provider and protector of the family. By equating the sexes. A man can have a husband or a wife. And a woman can have a wife or a husband. Advancing the idea of the obsolescence of man in traditional male roles. As President Obama’s Life of Julia showed how the government can be the provider and protector for women from 3 to 67. And the recent ad to get the young invincibles to sign up for Obamacare. Showing what the left considers to be the archetypical young man today. A bespectacled man-boy wearing a plaid pajama onesie while sipping a hot chocolate. A far cry from the rugged manliness of the Marlboro Man.
Is this the ideal man women want? Is this the man that can put a new tire on a rim? Is this the man that can win a world war? Is this man going to make anyone feel safe and protected? For when it comes to raising a family who do you want as father? Bespectacled pajama man-boy? Or the Marlboro Man? Paula Cole put this well in a song during the Nineties (see Where have all the cowboys gone).
Where is my John Wayne
Where is my prairie son
Where is my happy ending
Where have all the cowboys gone…
Where is my Marlboro man
Where is his shiny gun
Where is my lonely ranger
Where have all the cowboys gone
And we have a war on women? Seems more like a war on men if you ask me. And, sadly, it’s one men are losing. Sad for both men and women. And the nation. As real men are now the exception now and not the rule.
Tags: abortion, absentee fathers, birth control, cowboy, family, fatherless boys, Great Depression, liberals, manliness, Marlboro, Marlboro cigarettes, Marlboro Man, mother, Obamacare, obsolescence of man, pajama man-boy, protector, provider, provider and protector, public housing, sexual harassment, single mothers, war on men, war on women, wife, World War II
Week in Review
Boys love their fathers. And it’s tough losing them. Just listen to some Pink Floyd music. During the Roger Waters’ period. Whose concept albums were shaped by his experience growing up without a father who died in World War II. As the children of Britain grew up in a dearth of fathers following World War II. As so many of their fathers died in the war. Waters went on to great success. But he suffered for his art. As all great artists do. Who probably would have preferred to be happy instead of being a great artist.
The bond between child and parent is so strong that the parent doesn’t even have to die to affect the child. Just periods of separation is enough to do damage (see Military deployments tied to teens’ depression by Kathleen Raven posted 11/29/2013 on Reuters).
Adolescents who experience the deployment of a family member in the U.S. military may face an increased risk of depression, suggests a new study.
Ninth- and eleventh-grade students in California public schools with two or more deployment experiences over the past decade were 56 percent more likely to feel sad or hopeless compared with their non-military-family peers, the researchers found.
The same kids were 34 percent more likely to have suicidal thoughts.
So it would follow the more deployments (i.e., the less time the parent spends with their child) the more likely the increased risk of depression, feelings of hopelessness and suicidal thoughts. So the more time one parent stays away the less happy and the more frequent mental health issues a child suffers. With the child no doubt suffering the most should that parent die in a combat zone. Thus being removed from the child’s life forever. Sad. But intuitive. For most probably didn’t need a study to tell them this.
The same can be said about single mothers. And their children. For it is the absence of one parent from their lives that reduces the quality of their lives. Because that father isn’t there to toss the football around with him after school. To attend a tea party with her favorite stuffed animals. To be there to teach them what to do when they lose power during a thunderstorm. And make them feel safe just by being there.
We take a lot of things Dad does—or did—for granted. And the more time we spent with him the more we’re able to do the things he did when he’s no longer there to do them. So the more time we have with Dad the stronger and more able we become. The less time we have the less strong or able we become. And if he’s not there at all it is like a child losing him in a military deployment.
The Democrats attack the Republicans and claim they have a war on women. Because they don’t want to provide free birth control. Abortion. Or an expanding welfare state for single mothers. The left really doesn’t want women to have children. And if they do they want to help mothers raise their children without a father. By having the state replace the father. So women can remain free. Pursue careers. And not be condemned to stay-at-home motherhood. The left does all of these things for women. For it’s what is best for them. Without ever considering what’s best for the child. Two parents. They will do studies to prove this if they can condemn the military for the effect it has on children. But when it’s about women enjoying life to the fullest while treating pregnancy as a disease to avoid it’s a different story. And for those women who become infected with pregnancy? They don’t need a man in their life. As long as there is the reassuring embrace of government to comfort her.
The Republicans don’t have a war on women. But you could say that Democrats have a war on children. As they always put a woman’s happiness over her child’s happiness. For a child would rather grow up in a traditional family than be shuffled back and forth from daycare. Just listen to some Pink Floyd music if you don’t believe that’s true.
Tags: child, children, Democrats, deployment, depression, father, hopeless, military, mother, parent, Pink Floyd, pregnancy, Republicans, Roger Waters, single mothers, suicidal thoughts, war on women, World War II
Week in Review
If someone sees a pregnant woman smoking or drinking coffee they will give her a stern lecture. Explaining what she is doing to her baby. And telling her she must be more responsible now. For it’s just not about her wants and desires now. She is bringing a new life into the world. And she must do what’s best for her child. Yet these same people will say being a single mom is perfectly fine. Or waiting until she is 40 until she has her first child. Or if she wants to have a late-term abortion that’s a decision that should only involve a woman and her doctor. All of a sudden it’s no longer what’s best for the child but what’s best for the woman (see Survey Reveals the “Ideal Age” for Women to Have Children — and It’s Total Nonsense by Monica Bielanko, Babble.com, posted 11/13/2013 on Yahoo! Shine).
As Slate notes, according to a new Gallup poll, most Americans think that women should start having children by age 25…
Do you know what I was doing at 25?
Dancing on bars after 4 too many shots of Jagermeister. Dating as many men as possible to figure out that guys who kick in your car door probably aren’t the marrying kind. Working my way to the top of the journalism food chain, first at FOX in Salt Lake City and later ABC in New York City, both of which involved 10-hour workdays. I was traveling. New York City, Mexico, London, Italy … you get the idea. I was grabbing myself a big ol’ handful of life whilst trying very hard not to create it, because that wouldn’t have been ideal. For me…
These kinds of surveys are so annoying, yet they seem to immediately go viral and do such a disservice to women out their living their lives and making choices based on what’s right for them – decisions that likely already go against the grain of what society/our parents/religion/TV/movies tell us. Decisions like our careers, delaying motherhood, choosing to be a single mom … but that’s exactly what’s wrong with any survey related to the ideal kind of parenting: there are no absolutes. You should do what is best for your circumstances; breastfeed/don’t breastfeed, let your kid cry it out/pick him up every time he sniffles, feed him gluten/don’t fee him gluten … WHATEVER.
Ideal for me was waiting until I was in my 30s. For you, it might mean getting married out of high school and starting a family. For someone else it might mean never having kids. The ideal age to have a child is the age you finally decide you’re emotionally and financially ready to have a child.
Again, it’s all about what is best for the woman. Not her child.
When I was in the 7th grade the school counselor came to my class and asked a boy in that class to come with her. Why? She was there to tell him that his mother had died. The next few years I sweated bullets whenever someone came to my classroom looking for someone to talk to.
A few years later my sister told me about a coworker who took his family on vacation. That vacation included a visit to a National Military Park. His two young sons (5 and 7 or there abouts) were excited. For they were going to see men in period uniforms firing real muskets. As they ran up a hill with their father their father suffered a massive heart attack and died. Right in front of them. My father had just started medication for high blood pressure. Soon thereafter I went on a family vacation. And sweated bullets every time there was a steep hill or multiple flights of stairs to climb.
Losing a parent is devastating to a child. And it’s not what is best for a child. What is best are healthy parents. Fathers that can throw the football around with kids. And run up hills with them without dying. The greatest sight for most children? Coming home from school and seeing their mother waiting for them at the door (not seeing her rush in to pick up her pain-in-the-ass at daycare that made her leave work before she wanted to). This is what’s best for children. Loving, healthy parents. And the longer you wait to have your children the greater the odds a child may lose a parent during childhood. Because as we age the odds of a parent dying from cancer, heart disease, lupus, etc., grow.
Also, the longer we wait to start our families the older our own parents get. So instead of having grandparents around to help young parents older parents may be raising young children while caring for their parents, too. The next best thing to having healthy parents is having a healthy Mee-Maw and Pop-Pop to spoil a child. Not for a child to watch their Mee-Maw or pop-pop die slowly.
So what’s the ideal age to have children? It depends. If you do what’s best for your child probably when parents are under 30. If you do what’s best for you probably later in life. So your little pains-in-the-ass don’t cramp your style.
Tags: baby, best for the child, best for the woman, child, children, father, having children, healthy parent, mother, parent, single mom
Week in Review
Governments everywhere on the left want state-funded daycare. As they want state-funded everything. But state-funded daycare is especially insidious. Many parents can’t raise their families on a single income. Because of high taxation in an advanced economy with a nanny state. Which has to keep raising tax rates and adding new taxes to pay for the expanding welfare state. Which is why both parents have to work. And the left’s solution to this is even more taxation to pay for state-funded daycare. When if they just shrunk the size of the welfare state parents could raise their children on a single income. And fewer things like this would happen (see Listeria found in Toronto daycare where child died posted 9/2/2013 on CBC News).
Food in the kitchen of a private daycare north of Toronto where a two-year-old girl died in July tested positive for the potentially deadly food bacteria listeria, according to an inspector’s report.
The York Region Public Health inspection also found expired food in the refrigerator and freezer and other sanitation problems at the daycare located at 343 Yellowood Circle where two year old Eva Ravikovich died on July 8.
A day after Ravikovich’s death, inspectors arrived to find inadequate dishwashing capacity, unsanitized toys and improperly stored food…
Education Minister Liz Sandals said in July that officials received three complaints in late 2012 about the number of children being monitored at the Vaughan facility.
Ministry officials only followed up on one of the complaints with a site inspection, Sandals said, calling the lack of action “unacceptable.”
Calver said the province’s failure to act decisively on previous complaints puts children at risk…
Don Giesbrecht, chief executive of Canadian Child Care Federation, said that while many unlicensed private daycares fill a need for working parents, there is little government oversight into how they operate.
Giesbrecht also said the demand for daycare spaces in Canada far outstrips supply. He added there are 900,000 licensed daycare spaces in Canada but three million children with parents in the workforce.
What’s also insidious about state-funded daycare is the true reason why the state wants to provide this. To help mothers return to work as quickly after child birth as possible. Why? Because a stay-at-home mother is not earning income that they can tax. Which is why they want these women to return to the workforce as quickly as possible. The children will be better off with a stay-at-home parent. But the state isn’t interested in children. They’re interested in taxpayers.
Now there are some women who want to return to work to continue their career. As the left has told them that a career is what defines a woman. Not providing the best possible home for a child to grow up in. One with a stay-at-home parent that loves his or her child. And doesn’t look at him or her as yet another annoying task to do like taking out the garbage. Or doing the laundry. If you’re relieved to drop your kid off at daycare so you can do what you love best then why did you ever become a parent?
Of course if we based our decisions on what was best for our children instead of what was best for us there would be no daycare. We would wait until we were married and one spouse was established in a career before even having children. But even that is not possible for everyone due to the high taxation of the welfare state. Which is the real problem here. This is why there is substandard daycare. Because the government creates such a high demand for daycare with their high taxation to support the welfare state. For one parent just can’t earn enough these days to raise a family.
Tags: Canada, career, children, daycare, high taxation, mother, parent, state-funded daycare, welfare state, York
Week in Review
According to Democrats, Republicans are at war with women. Because they hate women. For they want to restrict abortion. And they want women to pay for their birth control. Republicans also want women to marry and raise a family instead of just pursuing a career. The kind of thinking they had in the Middle Ages. And the Republicans are always talking about God and religion. Trying to shame women from enjoying their sexual side. Preferring their women barefoot and pregnant. Not out having a good time. Drinking and smoking pot as they please. And going home with anyone they please to enjoy sexually. This is what being a modern woman is all about. The freedom to do whatever the hell they want without any moral judgment. Just like a man can. Women have made progress. But they have a long way to go (see Why female potheads still feel ashamed by Hayley Krischer posted 9/14/2013 on Salon).
Here’s the thing about women and weed: Women generally don’t want to discuss their habit out of fear of being judged or compared to a cartoon. Think Milla Jovovich’s stoner character in “Dazed and Confused” — she had no lines whatsoever and merely stared off into space, and, okay, she painted a Gene Simmons face on that statue. Worse, if you’re a mother, you keep your weed habit secret because you don’t want to be seen as a negligent parent…
Though movies have portrayed men getting high in groups for decades (just this summer Seth Rogen and co. smoked their way through the apocalypse in “This Is The End”), there’s a complete lack of women who smoke weed in pop culture, as Ann Friedman points out in New York magazine: “There are a few depictions of women smoking at home as a way to blow off some steam and bond with each other…
This is exactly why a 43-year-old friend of mine, and a mom of two young boys, won’t discuss her weed smoking with other women. “I don’t want to be judged,” she says. “I think in general women are supposed to be more responsible and something about it is irresponsible…”
Perhaps, eventually, the broader acceptance of smoking weed will spread to women. Two recent examples: Lady Gaga and Rihanna both dressed up as bedazzled cannabis queens last year for Halloween. (Rihanna dressed as a weed bride with a bouquet of bud. Lady Gaga covered her nipples with sativa leaf nipple pasties.) And there’s an opportunity for women to create their own statement about marijuana in the future without feeling so, ahem, paranoid. I saw some hope after a conversation with my 21-year-old cousin, a senior at Oberlin, who says most of her girlfriends freely smoke weed. “People think it’s cool if girls smoke weed.” And then as an afterthought she added, “It might also be because of my environment.”
For the most part smoking weed is illegal. So it is irresponsible. Especially if you have children. As parents don’t want their children to see them breaking the law. For if breaking the law is okay then it must be okay not to listen to your parents, too. “Do your homework, clean your room, don’t drink until you’re of legal age,” says a kid’s parent. “But you smoke pot and that’s illegal,” says the kid. “Damn,” says the parent. “Then I guess it’s okay if you break the law and drink.”
No doubt a lot of mothers want to hide their weed habit from their kids to avoid exchanges like this. Which will be easier to do if they hide it from everyone. If she smokes with another mother this other mother could talk to her husband about her getting stoned with her friend which can be overheard by this other mother’s kid. That kid tells his friends who then tell their friends and the next thing you know they kick this stoner mother off the PTA. So it’s still an uphill battle for women to get high. But at least they are making progress elsewhere. Closing the gap between men and women. Something that should make Democrats happy (see Number of female DUIs soaring across the country, statistics show by Emily Alpert posted 9/12/2013 on the Los Angeles Times).
Women make up a bigger share of arrests for driving under the influence than they did decades ago, but little attention has been paid to how to halt or handle the trend, according to a report released Thursday.
Federal statistics showed that women constituted nearly a quarter of DUI arrests across the United States in recent years. In 1980, the number was just 9.3%, but the percentage has risen almost every year for three decades, according to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Yet most research on drunk driving focuses on men…
The Canadian group found some common threads among the female offenders: Almost all said they faced a stressful event such as a breakup or death in the family before their arrest. More than three-quarters said they used at least one prescription medication for anxiety, depression and other disorders. And more than half were single, separated or divorced.
The report also found that the women fit into three categories: young women who drink to “fit in” at house parties or bars; recently married women who drink to cope with loneliness after their children are born; and divorced older women or empty-nesters who begin to drink later in life.
When women married and raised families they were drinking and driving less. Because they were happier. For over half of the women with a DUI were single, separated or divorced. That is, they were not married and raising a family. They were not happy. And because they were not happy they drank more.
So who, then, is fighting this war on women? Those who are doing everything to make it easier to drink, get high and have sex? That leads to more unhappiness and more drinking? As well as an explosion in sexually transmitted diseases? Or those who champion marriage and family? That leads to more happiness and less drinking? And fewer sexually transmitted diseases?
You probably should ask mothers what they want for their daughters.
Tags: breaking the law, children, daughter, Democrats, drinking, driving under the influence, drunk driving, DUI, family, getting high, irresponsible, judged, marijuana, mother, parent, pot, Republicans, responsible, smoke weed, smoking pot, stoner, stoner mother, weed, women
Liberals help Women delay Living Happily Ever After as Long as Possible
Conservatives believe in customs. And traditions. Those things that are tried and true. Like the institution of marriage. The foundation of the family. Where a man and a woman pledge their love to each other. To have and to hold. From the day of their wedding forward. For better. For worse. For richer. For poorer. In sickness and health. To love and to cherish. Till death do they part. All the while living happily ever after. As husband and wife.
Conservatives do not believe chivalry is dead. Conservative men still place women on pedestals. They stand up when a lady enters the room. Holds her chair for her. If it’s raining or cold outside a conservative will give his coat to her. And open and close the door for her. A conservative will shield her from danger. And protect her honor. Always treating her like a lady.
A liberal feminist woman, on the other hand, will say, “Don’t you dare open that door for me.” For she is fiercely independent. And wants nothing to do with chivalry. She wants to be treated like a man. Liberals, in fact, want women to have a career first then maybe consider getting married. Or having children. And not have the fairytale wedding all girls dream about. Looking forward to the day when her Prince Charming will come along. And sweep her off her feet. No. Liberals want to kill that dream. And kill all romance. Giving women birth control, access to abortion and the morning-after pill so she can avoid living happily ever after as long as possible.
Liberals believe being a Part-Time Mother is Good Enough
Conservatives don’t like high taxes. Because a generation ago taxes were low enough that most everyone could raise a family on a single income. But with the rise of the welfare state taxes have steadily risen. Taking more and more of our paychecks. Making it difficult for a woman to stay at home and be a full-time mother. Which is why, today, many women are forced to be part-time mothers. So they can earn a second income. So they have enough left over in their paychecks after paying for the welfare state.
The family is the center of the conservative’s world. Which is why they work hard to establish a career. And vote to keep the tax bite as small as possible. So they can afford to buy a house. And begin raising their family. With the mother staying home to be a full-time mother. To give her children the best possible of all childhoods. Having all of their material needs met. A nurturing environment. Created by a loving father and mother. Who teach their children the customs and traditions that their parents taught them. And help them with their school work so they get the best possible education. So they, too, will one day be able to earn enough to raise their own family.
Liberals, though, believe in childcare. In fact, they want state-funded childcare so women can return to work as soon as possible after having their children. Leaving part of the raising and nurturing of their children to strangers. As if children are a burden. Like cutting the grass. Something that they can farm out to other people. As a working mother has better and more important things to do. Like earning a paycheck. Which is why liberals want state-funded childcare. Because they believe being a part-time mother is good enough. A working mother’s children may disagree with that. But liberals are old-fashioned in this one respect. They believe children should be seen and not heard.
Liberals encourage Women to stay Strong, Independent and Alone
Conservative policies tend to favor families. They promote families. While liberal policies make the family obsolete. By trying to make husbands and fathers obsolete. Liberal policies allow a woman to build a career instead of a family. Birth control, access to abortion and the morning-after pill allow her to engage in consequence-free sex. Liberal policies enable so many women to give it away for free that men see no reason to marry them. Women earn their own money. And with no children there’s no need for a woman to get married. So she can stay strong and independent. And alone.
Of course, today, there are a lot of women starting their families in their forties. As they’ve discovered they want more than just to be strong, independent and alone. They want a family. They want children. Their own children. Before it’s too late for them to have children. As waiting too long physically complicates things both for the mother and the child. And there can be some emotional issues. For a young child entering school with a 50-year old mother will be different from other children who have parents in their twenties. And when they graduate high school their parents will be ‘grandparent’ age. Perhaps not being there for their children when they start raising their own families.
Conservative policies foster the bonds between parents and children. And grandchildren. While liberal polices weaken these bonds. By encouraging a woman to exchange a career and casual sex for marriage and a family. Who may later in life discover that she wants to be married and raise a family. But because she was a devoted follower of devout liberal feminist dogma those things are harder now. And most likely she will have to do them alone. As the men these women rejected to pursue their career likely found other women who wanted to get married and raise a family. And even if those marriages didn’t last happily ever after they probably have grown children from it. And may not be interested in doing it all over again. As their children may still be consuming a large percentage of their paycheck. Especially if they’re going to college.
And yet with every election cycle it is the conservatives that hate women and children. Not the people that are destroying women’s lives by telling them to forget their silly childhood dreams of meeting prince charming, having the beautiful wedding and raising children. Instead they should stay strong, independent and alone. Forcing many women to miss or delay the greatest experience of their lives. Raising their family.
Tags: abortion, birth control, career, childcare, children, chivalry, conservative, customs, family, father, feminist, full-time mother, happily ever after, liberal, marriage, married, morning-after pill, mother, parents, part-time mothers, paycheck, Prince Charming, single income, state-funded childcare, taxes, traditions, wedding, welfare state, women, working mother
While the French embrace their Culture the Liberals in America attack their own Culture
What is multiculturalism? It’s a philosophy of diversity. Basically saying it’s our differences that make us great. Something you won’t hear a whole lot of in France. Where they have a single culture they promote. The French culture. And rightly so. Because it is the French culture that makes France great. Just as it is the British culture that makes Britain great. As the Spanish culture makes Spain great. As the German culture makes Germany great. As the Japanese culture makes Japan great. As the Mexican culture makes Mexico great. Etc.
In the United States of America, though, it’s not American culture that makes America great. It’s all of the other cultures in America. Which is why they teach multiculturalism. Where we must admire and respect every other culture. And they don’t teach assimilation. Where people in America assimilate into a single culture. The American culture. The one culture that is not worthy of admiration or veneration. Apparently.
Where did this start? It started with our educators at colleges and universities. As well as at our public schools. And the liberals controlling them. Who decided to do something about their hatred of America. In addition to the other things that they were already doing. Instead of teaching about American greatness they taught about American imperialism. They taught how the Founding Fathers stole America from the Native Americans. They taught how the Founding Fathers were nothing more than rich white slave owners. Who made a country to benefit rich white slave owners. So while the French embrace their culture the liberals in America attack their own culture. Basically saying America isn’t great. But everyone else is. That is multiculturalism.
Liberals are Smarter than Everyone Else and should be Running the Nation, not a Government of the People
Liberals hate America. They hate it so much that they have worked incessantly to change it. Like a cancer. Working from within. Invading our culture and institutions and slowly spreading. Just as socialism consumed Europe. The liberals wanted that in America, too. But liberals were, and still are, a small minority in the nation. Few think like they do. So they’ve always found great resistance to their enlightened ideals.
Their Ivy League schools created and nurtured liberalism. Rich people who inherited their money sent their kids to the Ivy League. And when they leave these schools many go into politics. Or policy think-tanks that influence politics. So these few, this privileged few, can change America. To reflect what they believe it should be. And run by like-minded people like them. An aristocracy. Something America shouldn’t have. But does because of people like them. Who are better and smarter than everyone else. And should be running the nation. Not a government of the people.
Liberals hate the principles of the Founding Fathers. They hate limited government. Laissez-faire capitalism. Free markets. A business-friendly regulatory environment. Low taxes. And the profit incentive. The things that made America the number one economy in the world. And the destination of choice for immigrants looking for a better life. One free from government oppression. Abject poverty. Chronic hunger. And corruption. People who were tired of living in a society where everyone was equal. Where some were more equal than others. So they came here. To get away from people like liberals. Who think they are more equal than everyone else.
Liberals enshrine Single Mothers and Same-Sex Couples raising Children to help destroy the Traditional Family
Because liberals are a small minority of the population they face great opposition. Which is why they have infiltrated our educational system. To set the educational curriculum. So they can take our children. And make them think differently from their parents. Who most likely think like the majority. And not like the liberal, privileged elite. The aristocracy. This is the greatest enemy of liberalism. Parents. And the family.
Parents have some 5 years to teach their kids to think incorrectly. That’s a 5-year head-start these parents have. Which the liberals have to undo. So they can start programming them to become good liberals. So they attack the family. To break the bond between the parents and their children. So they can start building a bond between these children and the liberal state. Which is a prime motivation behind global warming. For it was these children’s greedy, thoughtless parents that caused global warming. Because they were so greedy and thoughtless—or just too stupid—to care about the planet.
So liberals enshrine single mothers. And same-sex couples raising children. To help destroy the traditional family. And build a loyalty of single mothers and same-sex couples to the state. By providing financial assistance. Or new legislation to protect and help them. Ensuring that these people will make these children think correctly from the get-go. Which is why multiculturalism and diversity go out the window in the family. A mother and a father are different. They are a woman and a man. Who can provide a much broader cultural education than a single mother. Or a same-sex couple. Who can only provide half of the cultural experience that a woman AND a man can provide. So parenting is the one place in America that we don’t make better with diversity. For when it comes to children in the household there is nothing wrong with having a single cultural experience. No. Multiculturalism only applies after these kids leave the household. When they may start thinking incorrectly.
Tags: American culture, aristocracy, children, diversity, educational system, family, father, Founding Fathers, French culture, Global Warming, Ivy League, liberalism, liberals, mother, multiculturalism, parents, privileged few, same-sex couples, single mothers, traditional family
Week in Review
The hardest thing about divorce is the children. Who gets custody? Who pays child support. And who pays alimony? A woman may give up a career to be a stay-at-home mom. To raise a family. Which is more difficult than going to a job 5 days a week. Because you’re on-call 24/7. And you’re responsible for more than just numbers on a ledger. You’re now responsible for human life. As well as numbers on a ledger.
In a divorce two things don’t change. Someone still has to raise the children. And someone still has to pay the bills. Which is where child support and alimony come in. So the children don’t suffer more than they have to by seeing their parents split up. They can still have a full-time parent. Typically the mother who gave up her career to run a household. While the father visits occasionally. And pays the bills. This is the marriage contract. And the divorce contract that often replaces the marriage contract.
This is what traditional marriage is. The legal institution that facilitates the family. And doesn’t leave the children or their mother out in the cold should the marriage fail. It protects them. And provides for them. So they won’t be disadvantaged in their life because their parents divorced. Getting the same opportunity to succeed in life as everyone else. Things that are not issues in same-sex unions. Because same-sex couples cannot bring new life into the world. Which eliminates most if not all of the need of a marriage contract. Yet they want it. And they are getting married (see Jane Lynch Files For Divorce From Wife Lara Embry by Joyce Chen posted 7/12/2013 on US Weekly).
Just one month after announcing that she and her wife of three years, Dr. Lara Embry, are going their separate ways, Jane Lynch has officially filed for divorce in an L.A. County Court, TMZ reports…
According to the legal documents, the couple did not have a prenup, and will therefore split their marital assets 50/50. The pair have no children together (Embry has two daughters Haden and Chase).
Lynch is also filing to terminate the court’s jurisdiction to award Embry with spousal support, TMZ reports.
And they’re getting divorced.
There is nothing they could not have accomplished with legal contracts other than the marriage contract. If they had lived happily ever after and wanted to leave their estates to each other they could have stipulated that in their wills. But no. They were married. Now they’re getting divorced. And Lynch now gets to enjoy a privilege once reserved for traditional marriage. Spousal support. Even with couples that brought no new children into the world. Where both worked and had careers. But the one with the less-paid career got a taste of a lifestyle the better-paid career afforded. And now is entitled to continue that lifestyle after the divorce. Because of the marriage contract.
Unless you’re bringing new children into the world there really is no reason to get married. And our record high divorce rates would seem to indicate that a lot these people getting married (some more than once) probably shouldn’t have gotten married. But they did. And went through great transfers of wealth because of it. As any rich person who is not quite so rich anymore following a divorce will attest to. Especially when there are children involved.
Lynch wanted everything traditional marriage offered. Well, everything but one. She is fighting not to give half of everything she owns to her ex. And you can bet the next time she gets married, if there is a next time, there will be a prenup. Which are no longer the prerogative of foolish rich men marrying women young enough to be their granddaughters. Today they’re just good business. Especially when there are great disparities in wealth. Interestingly, had she not been able to get married she would have had everything she wanted after their breakup. To happily go their separate ways. Without losing half of all of her stuff. Something no doubt weighing heavily on her mind these days.
Tags: alimony, child support, children, contract, divorce, divorce contract, family, Jane Lynch, Lara Embry, marriage, marriage contract, mother, prenup, spousal support, traditional marriage
« Previous Entries