in the case of widows/widowers, is the parent left "bad" for not immediately getting remarried?

in the case of abusive parents, is the non-abusive parent "bad" for taking the child away from the abusive parent?

in the case of natural, if "being gay" is so unnatural, why is it that 3%, at a minimum, of any significant mammilian population will be gay?

in the case of the thousands of children who need good homes *NOW*, what do you think about states that have, or are trying to create, laws that prohibit anyone but married people from adopting those kids?

in the case of SAHMs, how many do you *really* know? and by that i mean, how many would have agreed to be a SAHM and give up their careers if they had had another choice?

European countries manage to have many, many mothers stay in the workforce, and those women don't lose their seniority, their place on the career ladder, just because they choose motherhood. what will you, personally, do about that particular injustice?

in the case of a gay person who managed to make a child in the "natural" way, how do you feel about this?

a lesbian is raped. or steels herself for something she thinks is horrible for the reward of a child (an exercise that appears to have been common a century ago, if the autobiographys can be believed). in either case, she and her female partner raise the child. is that *bad*?

do you know how MANY Native tribes actively encouraged gay couples (not called "gay" at the time, of course, but generally something that translates as "two souled") so that there would always be a family to take in orphans?

would you *really* have given up all your years of hard work, to take a 5 or so year "break" from your career, knowing that when you do try and go back to work every potential employer is going to look at that gap and wonder if you are reliable?

because that is what you are saying *all* mothers should do.

women are socialized to think what we want isn't as important as what men want.

you are quoting from Personal Failure's blog, yes - but at least two of those quotes were from me. and a couple from a few othe writers and its kinda hard to not be irritated that you are not properly attribiting them.

but that aside - did you NOT understand what you quoted by me? when i say that many women do not want to "settle" for a man, i really meant that.

look, PF and i both have the same disease that will kill is if we attempt pregnancy.

we are both in long term, loving relationships - she is married, i am engaged.

should i not marry because i can't bear children?

that seems to be an issues those on the RIght have.

"Gay Marriage" is wrong because two men cannot have children.

neither can i. so should i not get married??

even MORE, though, God granted me a BRAIN. a brain that finds tensor calculus boringly easy. a brain that tests much too high on IQ tests. a BRAIN I WAS GIVEN TO USE.

so i WILL NEVER marry a man who wants me to be a stay at home mom.

i have more important things.

there are many women who enjoy momhood, enjoy being a SAHM. i will never be one of them.

when i say that women have problems finding men for long term relationships, the thing i was refering to (you included it in your post, even) was that too many men expect the WOMAN to give up her career.

to lose their personhood, in a VERY real respect.

motherhood is important. motherhood is hard.

MEN CAN DO THE SAME THING, men are 100% as capable of taking care of a baby once its been born.

that if a woman cannot find a man "to take care of her"

which means her giving up the entirety of the life she built for herself before him - her job goes, her education no longer applies to anything, because all she can do in this is be a SAHM

if a woman cannot find a man who wants a woman who has a brain and a great job and paycheck and is able to support herself, you say she doesn't "deserve" a baby.

unless she was raped. or got drunk. or had BC fail. at which case it goes from "deserve" in the sense of a reward (for giving up everything for the horrible life and ennui of motherhood) to the she "deserves" to be PUNISHED with babies.

if you REALLY cared about all those children in foster care, or temporary care, or in orphanages or juvinile detention, you would STOP trying to prevent GOOD DECENT HARD WORKING LOVING FAMILIES from rescuing those children. even if its two wives - two wives, two mothers, is still 1000% better than NO parents.

One woman gets pregnant, there is a split, the other woman - who has paid for the reproductive medical treatments, perhaps donated the eggs, and wants the children - sues to block abortion. Currently, a wife can get an abortion even if her husband objects. Will "gay rights" trump abortion rights?

I do not believe that the voluntary association of a man and a woman is the same kind of voluntary association as two women or two men, and I do not see a moral or legal obligation for the state to treat all three as the same. I see a state interest in licensing and encouraging natural marriage that is not met in either of the other two kinds of unions. It is obvious to me that what keeps same-sex "marriage" and natural marriage from being equal has less to do with state licensing requirement and more to do with the nature of the sexes and the differences between them.

Fannie found a recent blog entry of mine worthy of comment on her blog.  Click here to read my previous blog entry in full.  It is very short.

You know, it's almost entertaining when I hear anti-feminist men spout the Feminists Are Ugly meme.

Well, maybe not all feminists.  But it is one of the Undeniable Truths of Life (#24) that "feminism was established as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society."  And before you say it... yes, that can be true even if the man who said is has been divorced three times and has been addicted to prescription medication.

One, it reminds people that, unlike men, women are to be judged first and foremost by their attractiveness and appropriate availability to men.

If they are looking for approval or attention from men, then yes, this is the way life generally works.  This the way most men are hardwired biologically, and it is something supported by the actions of a majority of women.  Attractive women catch our eyes first and easiest – that is the initial introduction.  You might as well blame women for growing breasts.  Fortunately for female Uglo-Americans, this is not the sole criteria used in evaluating a woman.

His critique is not so much that the magazine exploits women, but more that the women who model for Playboy choose to exercise their sexuality beyond the acceptable scope of Wife Monogamously Married to Man.

I’m not quite sure what she, or other feminists – or, for that matter, what some Religious Right types – mean by "exploit" in this case.  I'm not convinced Playboy exploits women more than any other paid gig exploits a man or a woman.

I do believe that the ideal is sex within marriage only and public modesty – that goes for men and women.

By verbally depriving all feminists of their beauty, anti-feminist men attempt to deprive women of the most important value they think women have- their appeal to the male gaze.

I have not deprived any feminist of anything.  If they are ugly, that isn't my doing.

Once a woman has lost her beauty, she has lost her worth and no one is thus required to take her seriously.

Let me be clear (as our President would say) that I do not believe that a woman's only worth or even her most important attribute is her beauty.  But I do not deny that beauty is important.  Good looks help out men, too.  Life is easier for attractive people.  I've noticed I get treated differently when I am thinner than when I am packing on the fat.  But yes, the difference is more profound for women.  No amount of social engineering is going to stamp that out, but feminism has worked to try to mitigate it.

She is only saying those feminist things because she's ugly and can't get a man.

It may definitely be a factor.  Beautiful women (who are willing to entertain male attention) are often too busy enjoying dates or marriage or modeling (or working out or on their tan or shopping) to bother with being active feminists.

It is just one of the many caricatures of feminists that cause many women to begin sentences with that infamous phrase "I'm not a feminist or anything but [insert feminist statement]."

Maybe some women say that because homosexual behavior advocacy, legally-protected infanticide, and misandry have been so prominent in modern feminism and the speaker doesn’t want to be associated with one or more of those things?

Yet, what if we turned the mirror in the other direction and shone it on these fellows? We have a huge double-standard in which men, especially those who are political, do not have their looks scrutinized in the way that women do.

Are you kidding me?  Compare the looks of male politicians before and after women got the vote.  But women perpetuate a double-standard as well - they can allow a man to be unattractive as long as he is rich, and women have more to say about the appearance of female public figures than anyone else.  Who do you think is buying all of those magazines that are obsessed with the what a famous woman is wearing, her plastic surgery, and her weight loss or gain?  Are men to blame for making women feel some need to buy those magazines?  If so, are women ever reponsible for their own decisions?

Why is it that men, unattractive or not, feel that they can mock a woman's appearance while their own appearance is off-limits?

Our appearance is not off-limits - at least not mine.  But evidently, we can be balding and fat and have horrible skin, and as long as we have our name on the executive's door, or the large bank account, or the ballot, or the cinema marquee, or the pro team roster, or on the Billboard charts – we're very attractive to lots of women.  There are some really great guys out there with great ideas, manners, and a sense of humor that would make a great date (or a great friend to a lesbian), but the moment they pick up their mop to get back to work, they are dismissed by so many of those women.

I have been reading Walrus's blog off and on for a few months now, and I do remember him mentioning that he has a bit of a weight issue. Perhaps he has chosen his moniker because he really does resemble a large flippered sea mammmal?

I just might.

Seriously, attractiveness in women, from a male perspective, isn't all about looks.  Sometimes, it is a woman's attitude or behavior that makes her unattractive.  Such things can even overcome extreme physical beauty.  Conversely, a man can fall for a woman who didn't catch his eye at first if she has a winsome attitude and personality or is accomplished.  And I'm not just talking about social interaction – this can also apply to business, politics, entertainment, whatever.

It's time to start dealing with the content of the arguments that feminists are making rather just blanketly dismissing the Feminazi Fuglies that exist only in your dull imaginations.

We do address the arguments.  But sometimes, we speculate about the motivations for those arguments because, frankly, we wonder why arguments we find lacking are championed with such fervor.  Admittedly, motivation for advancing an argument does not prove or disprove the validity of the argument.

And to address one of her follow-up comments: Noticing that feminists are generally unattractive is not name-calling.

I caught some of the comments on the blog, and of course, those comments are NOT necessarily Fannie’s opinions.

"John" wrote:

It's sounds more like he's saying that conservative women are Barbie Dolls, to be dressed and undressed at the man's will.

That is not what I’m saying.  Women (and men) should maintain control over their own sexuality.  Once they choose to marry, however, they have an obligation to share themselves with each other.  What I am saying is that, in general, conservative women are more attractive.  Perhaps it is my "red" goggles at work?  I would imagine that a PETA member may no longer find a guy to be "hot" if she finds out he hunts.

"earlgreyrooibos" wrote:

So wait ... there are feminist/ugly women, conservative/attractive women, and ... Playboy models? So if feminists are "ugly" and conservative women are "attractive", where do Playboy models fit politically?

Considering their ages and what they are doing, most are probably somewhat Leftist.  Not all Leftists are feminists.

But as far as Playboy, I am fascinated by the dilemma Leftist feminists face when they claim to be free speech crusaders and claim that they are in favor of women having full freedom over their own sexuality and the right to choose, but they are still uncomfortable with Playboy and blast the women who choose to appear in there, or claim that they are being exploited.  When conservative critics call into question the virtue of such "models", it seems as if feminists believe it is okay for woman to behave a certain way, but not for someone else to apply a label to that behavior that implies disapproval - except perhaps feminists.  If so, then one of the tenents of that form of feminism seems to be that immodesty and fornication are okay.  It's like when I point out to a Leftist that pot smoking may contribute to global warming and the thought sends the poor guy into the fetal position.

I can support criticism and boycotting of things like Playboy, but since I do believe in limited government, I could not join with those on the Religious Right who would seek to outlaw the publication/associated ventures.  I know not all on the RR would call for that, but I get the idea that some would.  I have no problem with enjoying the thought that they are having financial problems because people have voluntarily cut back on purchasing their goods and services. For me, it isn't just for the imagery, but also the editorial philosophy.

What is a feminist, anyway?  It seems to be like the word "art" because it means different things to different people.  If you are straight, have never killed any of your offspring, enjoy looking and being feminine in a way that appeals to straight men, believe both men and women should be responsible for their own actions, are not paranoid that you’re missing out on something when men get together without women being around, and believe that there is nothing inherently wrong with masculinity in men and boys, there's a good chance you're not a feminist in the sense to which I was referring in my earlier blog entry.

Finally, I'd like to take this opportunity to call attention to this book: Feminists Say the Darndest Things.

It is shocking to me that in this yearlong study of the history of marriage, Blankenhorn never happened upon the wealth of studies that demonstrate that when it comes to raising children, gays and lesbians are as suited to the task as their straight counterparts.

One need only ask the American Medical Assn., the Child Welfare League, the American Academy of Pediatrics -- the list goes on.

I can agree with Blankenhorn on one thing -- marriage is about protecting children -- but I am saddened that he does not include the millions of children who would be protected if their same-sex parents were allowed to marry. He's tried to explain his position to us. Now try explaining it to them.

Author’s Note: Having broken one or more of the following rules in no way excuses a man from following them in the future.

A divorced friend of mine was complaining to me recently about the pool of women available to him here in the coastal Carolina region. His specific complaint was that too many (I think he said “all”) of the women were carrying too much baggage to have a successful relationship. I’m so tired of hearing “men” make this complaint that I’ve made it the subject of today’s column.

It is not entirely fair and accurate to say that most adult women are carrying a lot of “baggage” or have a lot of “issues.”

It is much more accurate to say that most adult women are profoundly wounded and scarred by the things that “men” have done to them when they were not really acting like men.

Real Men Do Not Go To Topless Bars.

Real Men Do Not View Pornography.

I asked whether he would ever want his daughter to star in a porn flick. He said “never.” When I reminded him that the porn star has parents, too, he vowed to reconsider his continued viewing of internet pornography.

Something that “men” who view pornography do not realize is that it trains the mind to be sexually stimulated by seeing images of many different people nude and engaged in certain acts.

Eventually, the viewer becomes unable to be stimulated by just one person.

Thus, a “man” who views pornography is much more likely to hurt his wife by engaging in adultery.

Real Men Do Not Have Sex With Women They Do Not Intend To Marry.

Men have it within their power to stop contaminating the future-wife pool. A little self-control can do a lot to strengthen a dying institution.

Real Men Do Not Engage In Post-Marital Sex. Saying “I used to be married” is a pretty lame excuse for engaging in post-marital sex.

And, if you have children, especially girls, there’s a really good reason to avoid it.

Put simply, if you have young girls and you start having sex after marriage your girls will find out about it from your ex-wife.

Real Men Never Relinquish the Role of Spiritual Head of the Household.

In a future installment, I will deal with the issue of “real women.” That installment will talk about the things women are doing to hurt other women.

I think Elizabeth Wurtzel's ideas are strange. Would an actual feminist portray a woman choosing to raise her children properly over the supposed opportunities of corporate grind as "opting out"?

This writer may be conflicted over whether she should be the madonna or the whore, but I'm having no such internal argument. Women like Wurtzel denigrate what women do and then bemoan the loss of the perky boobs they once allowed to be shown in every half-priced bookstore in America.

It's true, something has gone wrong with the "Girls Gone Wild" thing. But if I look over the top of my paper for only a moment, I see what women are up to: I see real art, healthy families, strong friends and even business leaders.

I have news for Wurtzel: This is 2008, and women can accomplish whatever they set out to do. Women were put into boxes in the 1950s, and now Wurtzel is disappointed that they don't want to be in her box.

Did it ever occur to her that women who opt out to raise their children do so because it brings them more fulfillment? Maybe that doesn't advance her agenda, but I thought feminism was about women making their own choices. I had a career before I had my son, and frankly, I don't miss the workforce one bit. Yet she calls that ruining my life. What arrogance.

I'll tell Wurtzel where she and her feminist lot went wrong. Instead of embracing women's unique qualities, they decided to be just like the worst of men. So, yes, promiscuity, casual sex and "Girls Gone Wild" are the new "world that feminism hath wrought."

The movement allowed itself to be co-opted by the strange and the strident, including women who wanted to eliminate "man" from the language, women who abused men for such acts of civility as opening a door and women who browbeat other women for wanting to be wives and stay-at-home mothers.