The new fifty.

Drudge via Time has picked up Jenny Bahn’s piece at XO Jane 30 Is the New 50: “Old Age” is Killing My Dating Life.  What is fascinating is that while Bahn has stumbled on the painful truth, she still can’t fully connect the dots regarding her own choices.  She can’t see that the young women she is unable to compete against are the younger version of herself.  They don’t want to settle down now, but give them a decade and they will be singing the same song Bahn is singing now, complaining that men don’t want to commit.  What is wrong with men?

It’s this logic that has most of my 30-something guy friends dating girls fresh out of college. Girls who, in my experience, are less impressive, less striving, less volatile, less successful, less intimidating, less questioning, less pressing, less complex, less damaged, less opinionated, less powerful, less womanly. They are less, and, to a guy not ready for anything — like most of the guys I have dated in New York — less is more.

A 30-year-old woman is an undertaking…

Now that she has more baggage and is more difficult, she expects more from men than she expected when she was younger and prettier.  Is that too much to ask?

See Also:  Women’s morphing need for male investment.

Posted in Aging Feminists, Weak men screwing feminism up | 151 Comments

The new Red Guards.

Vox succinctly describes Social Justice Warriors:

Social Justice Enforcers would be a more apt term. The SJWs are nothing less than the mutaween of the godless West, the self-appointed enforcers of the would-be globalist elite’s hellish parody of morality.

Posted in Uncategorized | 32 Comments

The women rebel.

Several commenters have objected to my connecting Margaret Sanger’s radio program with the larger feminist movement.  Bluedog has a long and complicated explanation involving class which is specific to the one woman Sanger ostensibly was talking to.  New commenter openidname struggles with the math but comes to much the same conclusion:

Hmmm. One dumb-ass woman says one dumb-ass thing 650 FREAKING YEARS ago.
Get over it already.

Another new commenter by the handle Ann first explained that she was molested as a child and had an abusive porn viewing husband, before explaining that in exposing the ugliness of feminists like Sanger I am hurting women:

Groups do not abuse, individuals abuse. Sometimes, evil people, women like Sanger or men like Manson collect evil people and attract victims. Unfortunately, some are successful.

When evil people, like Sanger, get individual men to paint in this case, “all women” as evil, they win. When you hate women because of Sanger and her followers, you feel OK hurting women (since they are all evil). You have then become the thing you hate. Sadly, you hurt women, who may then become more attracted to Sanger and her ilk.

The simple truth is that Sanger was a radical feminist.  In 1914 she began publishing the radical feminist monthly The Women Rebel.  She was well connected within the progressive movement, including Eleanor Roosevelt.

Moreover, the ideas she was selling in the radio program are the same ideas modern feminism is founded on, the same ideas which are now mainstream even for conservatives.  Sanger founded Planned Parenthood, but the text of the program could have easily been written by the founder of NOW, Betty Friedan.  Friedan is credited with kicking off modern feminism with her book The Feminine Mystique.  Here is the synopsis of that book from Wikipedia:

The Feminine Mystique begins with an introduction describing what Friedan called “the problem that has no name”—the widespread unhappiness of women in the 1950s and early 1960s. It discusses the lives of several housewives from around the United States who were unhappy despite living in material comfort and being married with children.

What bothers these commenters is feminism is undeniably ugly, and I’m laying that out bare for all to see.

The myth is that modern feminism suddenly kicked off with Friedan’s book raising women’s consciousness of the oppression of marriage and motherhood.  The truth is that feminists had been beating the drums of envy and petty unhappiness for many decades, with perhaps a slight reduction in volume during the depression and World War II.  But whether you trace the roots back to Friedan, Sanger, or even further, you will find the same ugly philosophy of envy, miserliness, and petty unhappiness.

Feminism can’t shed that ugly legacy because this is what feminism is all about.  This is why even after radically reworking our entire society we still have feminist leaders like Hillary Clinton explaining that “Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.”  It is also why we will always have women eyeing the military with envy.

Posted in Denial, Feminists, Margaret Sanger, Miserliness, Philosophy of Feminism, Ugly Feminists | 117 Comments

No hiatus for solipsism during World War II.

640px-American_military_cemetery_2003

In my last post I quoted from a radio program delivered by Margaret Sanger discussing the hardships women face in marriage and the importance of marriage counseling.  Sanger described a young mother she met the day before on the train:

…she was beginning to feel very bitter toward her husband because she said that she could tell from his letters that he was actually enjoying the ↑excitement of↓ war! Already he had been to Iceland, England, Africa, and Italy! Oh, she was willing to admit there were plenty of hardships connected with it… but what had she been doing all this long while? Just staying home day after day minding the baby! “When he gets home,” she told me, “he can just sit with the baby for a while and she what it’s like. I’m going out and have some fun!”

I could see her point of view… what woman couldn’t. You don’t have to be a war bride to feel trapped… many a house-wife gets that feeling just watching her husband go off to the office every morning while she stays home facing the same meals, dishes, and children. How many divorces have their beginnings in just this very feeling of imprisoned futility.

The date of the program was July 19, 1944.  This was just a little over a month after D Day and before the Normandy breakout.  World War II was very much still raging in Europe, and American men were still fighting and dying there.  Yet at this very time we had (if we believe the story), a woman complaining to strangers on a train about the exciting adventures her husband was enjoying in the European theater (most likely as a result of being drafted).  Moreover, this was a story Sanger felt perfectly comfortable sharing on the radio at home to the wives and mothers of US servicemen, as those men continued to fight and die overseas.

American Cemetery at Normandy photo released as public domain by Bjarki Sigursveinsson.

Posted in Margaret Sanger, Solipsism, Ugly Feminists, Whispers | 121 Comments

The roots of marriage counseling.

Marcus D linked to a column by feminist and historian Rebecca Onion titled Lock up your wives! Advice columns from decades past provide a chilling glimpse into the horrors of marriage counselling before feminism.  While the title claims that marriage counselling predates feminism, the article describes how marriage counseling as we understand it today grew out of feminism in general, and specifically the rejection of the idea that marriage vows are permanent (emphasis mine):

Marriage counselling, once the informal job of clergy, parents and trusted elders, became its own profession in the 1920s. Following increased advocacy for women’s rights, divorce rates in the US rose 15-fold between 1870 and 1920. Meanwhile, psychology and social work found their footing as professions. Some marriage advocates, unable to stem the tide of divorces through legal strictures, turned to counselling as the answer.

In short, marriage counseling is a product of the divorce revolution.  The underlying premise here is not so much that divorce is beneficial because it ends unhappy marriages, but that it is beneficial because it gives wives leverage to force their husbands to do as the wife demands.  Once the husband does as the wife demands, goes the logic, the marriage will become happy (See also:  Fireproof).  While it is refreshing to see this spoken about honestly, it isn’t just feminists who celebrate this ostensible improvement on marriage.  Modern Christians have eagerly embraced this new view of marriage, a view I’ve dubbed the wake-up call model.  Although this modern Christian approach is drenched in denial, deception, and rationalization, it isn’t difficult to spot the modern Christian embrace of divorce if you look for it.

As just one example, traditional Catholics have expressed great concern with the explosion in annulments the RCC grants in the United States.  In response to these concerns, the Archdioceses of Boston has published a document defending the explosion in annulments.  The document explains that the explosion in US annulments is a positive development, a sign of justice and progress.  The problem is not that too many marriages in the US are being declared null by the RCC, the real problem is the rest of the world is behind the times and doesn’t grant enough annulments (emphasis mine):

In the last twenty years, the numbers of declarations are much higher in this country than they had been in the past. Yet this is due to the fact that the procedural laws governing marriage cases were expanded in the late 1960’s. Cases no longer had to go to Rome. They could be adjudicated locally. The appellate system was also somewhat streamlined. Furthermore, Roman jurisprudence was expanded in the light of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council. Cases could be heard on new grounds of jurisprudence.

Tribunals across the United States are operative so that individuals may vindicate their rights. The bishops of our country have invested personnel and resources to ensure the church’s jurisprudence and procedural law are fulfilled. Unfortunately, such an investment in justice is not as evident in other parts of the world. This is why the numbers in the United States appear high. In fact they are skewed.

The other thing I found interesting about Onion’s piece is her repeated reference to the eugenics movement’s involvement with the creation of modern marriage counseling.  I wasn’t aware of the connection here, but found a similar claim on wikipedia:

Marriage counseling originated in Germany in the 1920s as part of the eugenics movement.[1] The first institutes for marriage counseling in the USA began in the 1930s, partly in response to Germany’s medically directed, racial purification marriage counseling centres. It was promoted in the USA by both eugenicists such as Paul Popenoe and Robert Latou Dickinson and by birth control advocates such as Abraham and Hannah Stone who wrote ‘A Marriage Manual’ in 1935 and were involved with Planned Parenthood.[2] Other founders in USA include Lena Levine and Margaret Sanger.

Margaret Sanger as you may recall is one of the founders of Planned Parenthood.  With a bit of searching I found an old radio broadcasts where she promotes marriage counseling.  From How to Avoid Post War Divorces:

The pity of unhappy, ruined marriages is that with a little scientific advice and the use of common sense so many of them could be saved.

She offers as an example a woman who resents her husband for traveling to exciting places around the world (as a soldier in WW II):

the wife.. who was realy just a girl.. was feeling trapped and rebellious. She loved her baby ↑of course↓ , and well she might, because he was a beautiful child, but she was beginning to feel very bitter toward her husband because she said that she could tell from his letters that he was actually enjoying the ↑excitement of↓ war! Already he had been to Iceland, England, Africa, and Italy! Oh, she was willing to admit there were plenty of hardships connected with it… but what had she been doing all this long while? Just staying home day after day minding the baby! “When he gets home,” she told me, “he can just sit with the baby for a while and she what it’s like. I’m going out and have some fun!”

This was back in 1944, nearly 20 years before Friedan coined the term “the problem with no name”, yet all of the same tired feminist cliches about marriage we hear today were already fully formed and being sold to the general public.

I could see her point of view… what woman couldn’t. You don’t have to be a war bride to feel trapped… many a house-wife gets that feeling just watching her husband go off to the office every morning while she stays home facing the same meals, dishes, and children. How many divorces have their beginnings in just this very feeling of imprisoned futility.

 

Posted in Book of Oprah, Church Apathy About Divorce, Feminists, Margaret Sanger, Marriage, Philosophy of Feminism, selling divorce, Threatpoint, Wake-up call | 77 Comments