Start of a bad ending: The Feminine Mystique

….previous (home page for this essay)
Part of the series ‘Communism → second-wave feminism → social re-engineering’
Index and preamble for series

‘The Feminine Mystique’, the start of a bad ending

Betty Friedan, the author of The Feminine Mystique, had decided that women in the U.S. did have a problem, an undefinable problem that no one could put a finger on.  She nevertheless decided to describe what it was and called it “the problem with no name.”  Betty Friedan was by now means the first to express those sentiments, she merely popularized them in the U.S.A. and in doing so catered to a demand market.  She went to great lengths describing that women with college and university educations were overqualified for what many individuals think of as the mundane jobs of mothers and housewives.  Betty Friedan asserted that women could therefore not possibly be happy, because they were being subjugated and condemned to live out their lives in perpetual boredom.

Betty Friedan’s recommendation was to liberate women from the slavery of having children, having to change diapers and to wipe snotty noses, cook meals, make beds, clean homes, shop, and being all-around domestics for their husbands. Thereby women would be able to escape their bonds and contribute more constructively to society by having rewarding careers, just as men had, which it was women’s right to enjoy and society’s duty to make allowances for.  The result of that would be happiness (and who would not go out of his way to make women happy), as a result of which we would gain Utopia, Paradise on Earth.

Second-wave feminism got an enormous boost through Betty Friedan's 'The Feminine Mystique'.

Betty Friedan put the expressed in ‘The Feminine Mystique’ to work, by participating in the launching of NOW (The National Organization for Women).

The message in The Feminine Mystique is familiar to students of history and of social evolution.  Many social reformers throughout history tried to motivate mankind to strive to attain Utopia, Paradise on Earth — through various means and methods, as explained excellently by Igor Shafarevich in The Socialist Phenomenon (1975, by YMCA Press; 1980 
English translation–online
, by Harper & Row).  No one had ever tried to succeed with that by developing a marketing strategy and message that targeted just the female half of mankind as well as had Betty Friedan (she and the second chapter of her book had been influenced by Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex).  She was a messenger who became a prophet, because the message she brought filled a void, the perception (no matter whether it was right or not, it was desired — it is hard to resist the lure of Paradise on Earth) that women’s role in society need not be boring but should have meaning. Many of Betty Friedan’s collaborators surely saw it for what it could become. Women were entitled to have meaningful lives, and society, all of civilization, owed it to them.

“A society that puts equality—in the sense of  equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom.  The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.”

—Milton and Rose Friedman
in Free to Choose: A Personal Statement

Why stop at full equality when everything is up for grabs?  In the perfect guise of seeking equality for women, Betty Friedan’s message was used as a Trojan horse that put mankind on the road to feminist supremacy.

The message in The Feminine Mystique proved to be irresistibly attractive to the nation’s women who had everything that women in the rest of the world envied them for.  Women who had everything but their full share of responsibilities could feel that their eyes had been opened.  The problem that had no name finally had received the recognition it deserved.  The boredom and lack of duties and responsibilities that so many felt they were suffering under became duly recognized as insidious oppression by the patriarchy.  The Feminine Mystique opened the  eyes of millions of dissatisfied women who yearned for their place in the sun, because they deserved it.  They were women.  They wanted it, and they wanted it now!

Millions of bored, dissatisfied women suddenly had a mission worth going on (although the membership of NOW apparently never rose above about 250,000). Many of them realized that, of course, they would not have to stop at achieving equality, but that, with enough imagination, they could rule, which they set out to achieve.

The message in The Feminine Mystique got soaked up as a dry sponge soaks up water.  The book became very popular.

»The Feminine Mystique is a book written by Betty Friedan which is widely credited with sparking the beginning of second-wave feminism in the United States.[2]….

During the year of 1964, The Feminine Mystique became the bestselling nonfiction book with over one million copies sold.[5][6] In this book, Friedan challenged the widely shared belief in 1950s that “fulfillment as a woman had only one definition for American women after 1949—the housewife-mother.”[6]….« —Wikipedia

Wikipedia also informs that,

»During the year of 1964, The Feminine Mystique became the bestselling nonfiction book with over one million copies sold.[5][6] In this book, Friedan challenged the widely shared belief in 1950s that “fulfillment as a woman had only one definition for American women after 1949—the housewife-mother.”[6] « —More (and links)

Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique rose to fame, and so did its author. Perhaps that prevented her from delivering the promised sequel to her book.  She became engaged in helping to launch the National Organization for Women (NOW) and, in 1966, was one of its co-founders (or at least on of the  coauthors of its 1966 Statement of purpose.)

1966 Founding of NOW, The National Organization for Women

NOW was at first somewhat gender-inclusive or made some concessions to gender tolerance, but perhaps that was just a pretense, to avoid the creation of a bad impression, as it became soon obvious that NOW would wage war against all things male.  Now had a strong lesbian contingent right from the start. One of the coauthors of its 1966 Statement of Purpose was a lesbian.

The 1998 version of its first agenda, The National Organization for Women’s 1966 Statement of Purpose, states: “This Statement of Purpose was co-authored by Betty Friedan, author of The Feminine Mystique, and Dr. Pauli Murray, an African-American, Episcopal minister.”

Analoyce Clapp wrote, “28 women met to set up a temporary organization for this purpose: To take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, assuming all the privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men.” — NOW, in Founding: Setting the Stage

NOW’s 49 founders are…

From the June 1966 meeting — 28 women:

Ada Allness, Mary Evelyn Benbow, Gene Boyer, Analoyce Clapp, Kathryn Clarenbach, Catherine Conroy, Caroline Davis, Mary Eastwood, Edith Finlayson, Betty Friedan, Dorothy Haener, Anna Roosevelt Halstead, Lorene Harrington, Mary Lou Hill, Esther Johnson, Nancy Knaak, Min Matheson, Helen Moreland, Dr. Pauli Murray (later Rev.), Ruth Murray, Inka O’Hanrahan, Pauline A. Parish, Eve Purvis, Edna Schwartz, Mary-jane Ryan Snyder, Gretchen Squires, Betty Talkington and Dr. Caroline Ware.

From the October 1966 conference — 21 women and men:

Caruthers Berger, Colleen Boland, Inez Casiano, Carl Degler, Elizabeth Drews, Dr. Mary Esther Gaulden (later Jagger), Muriel Fox, Ruth Gober, Richard Graham, Anna Arnold Hedgeman, Lucille Kapplinger (later Hazell), Bessie Margolin, Margorie Palmer, Sonia Pressman (later Fuentes), Sister Mary Joel Read, Amy Robinson, Charlotte Roe, Alice Rossi, Claire R. Salmond, Morag Simchak and Clara Wells.

— NOW, Honoring Our Founders & Pioneers

Wikipedia makes the same claim, that there were 28 founder, and it even provides a link to the source of the preceding quote with the names of NOW’s founders. Wikipedia asserts that thee were 28 original founders, lists their names, but it found a reason for including an additional one, that of Shirley Chisholm, although it does not specify why its list came to contain the names of 29 original founders of NOW, instead of the 28 it declares their number was, or why her name had to be included in the list.

NOW’s list of the 28 original founders does not contain the name of Shirley Chisholm, but it has another name that is not included in its count of names.  Then again Wikipedia can be forgiven for becoming confused, over the names of NOW’s founders, because NOW itself appears to be confused on the subject.  NOW is the source of Wikipedia’s list of names and does neither identify Shirley Chisholm nor the name of another founding member and its very first vice president:

Richard Graham, 1920-2007

…. His dedication to feminism led to his election as NOW Vice President in October of 1966 during NOW’s first organizing conference. He went on to found the District of Columbia Commission on the Status of Women, and to serve as the Executive Director of the Center for Moral Development at Harvard. In 1975, Graham was named President of Goddard College, where he helped found the Goddard-Cambridge Center for Social Change, one of the earliest centers for women’s studies.

— NOW, Honoring Our Founders & Pioneers

There were at least three other men who are listed in that document containing the name of the founding members of now:  Phineas Indritz, Rev. Dean Lewis,  and Herbert Wright. but they were part of the 21 additional founding members of the October 1966 founding conference.  There are not many people who know that men were founding members of now, NOW itself doesn’t seem to know.

That is not the end of the problems with NOW’s forgetfulness. It appears that some time after 1998 and no later than February 22, 2018, NOW had either contracted organizational amnesia  or felt that it had reasons for erasing Dr. Pauli Murray memory from its corporate consciousness or at least to remove all evidence of her from the copy of its 1966 Statement of Purpose that Now had been publishing then at its website.

The 2018 version of that (of The National Organization for Women’s 1966 Statement of Purpose) no longer mentions Dr. Pauli Murray and the fact that she was a coauthor of The National Organization for Women’s 1966 Statement of Purpose.  It concludes with: “This Statement of Purpose was written by Betty Friedan, author of “The Feminine Mystique”.

By 2016, the fact that all memory of Dr. Pauli had vanished came to light in article that NOW could not resist posting to its website, thereby proving that what has been lost can be found.

Finding Pauli Murray

Printable PDF

Finding Pauli Murray:
The Black Queer Feminist Civil Rights Lawyer Priest who co-founded NOW, but that History Nearly Forgot
October 24, 2016

Pauli Murray Project, http://paulimurrayproject.org/

NOW

It seems that ‘herstory’ is as flexible and variable as were Stalin’s infamous photos, which at first showed him in the company of trusted party officials who were later removed from life, from his photos and from history.  A side-by-side comparison of NOW’s 1966 Statement of Purpose to NOW’s 1996 National Conference Resolutions reveals substantial differences.  The advent of second-wave feminism had not just changed all of society with the help and leadership of NOW, it had changed NOW as well.

In 1966, NOW had been somewhat benign, agreeable, and sedate.
By 1996, NOW had become aggressively demanding, confrontational, belligerent, even shrill, and men were by then most definitely considered to be the enemy of women.

1996 National Conference Resolutions [Index]

– Parental Rights of the Disabled
– Anti-Lesbian and Gay Ballot Initiatives After Amendment 2
– Church Burnings
– Monitoring Sexual Harassment Policies and Title IX Compliance
– Fairness in Courts Dealing with Family Matters
– NOW Action Alert on “Fathers’ Rights”
– Elimination of Gender Apartheid in Sports
– Indigenous Hawai’ian Peoples Resolution
– Breast Implant Resolution
– Veteran Feminists
– Elimination of Discriminatory Labor Practices in Maquila Factory Industries
– National Day of Action in Support of Same-Sex Marriage
– Moving the Feminist Agenda in State Legislatures
– Activism on Native American Issues
– Reproductive Rights
– NOW Vision Summit
– Women’s Vote: Use It or Lose It
– Reaffirmation of Support for the Voting Rights Act
– Supporting Young Feminism Within NOW
– Violence and Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

From the National Organization of Women (NOW):
The original may be accessed at: http://www.now.org/organiza/conferen/1996/resoluti.html
(The preceding link is dysfunctional, but the text of NOW’s 1966 National
Conference Resolutions was accessed in 1999 at that link, downloaded and
annotated.  It can be accessed via the links in the preceding index.)

As can be seen, Now’s 1996 Agenda had something for every woman.  It had been vastly expanded, compared to the 1966 Statement of Purpose, and little was left out (except, of course, all pretense that women’s rights as seen by NOW had anything to do with equality for all, and that a functioning society needs respect for and coöperation with men.)

»No doubt, if you have read any of the documentation relating to the VAWA II [the Violence Against Women Act], you’ll recognize that much of what was contained in the 1966 Agenda of NOW is now firmly embedded in VAWA II. NOW is formulating national policy in the US, not only lobbying to formulate but actually controlling national policy.

Anyone may wonder why that should concern a Canadian.  The reason for that concern is that NOW and other “women’s” organizations in the world, such as NACSOW (National Action Committee Status of Women) in Canada are closely collaborating to dominate world politics.  That is done through their extraordinary influence at the UN, in every possible sector of the UN imaginable.«

— WHS, from my footnotes to
NOW’s 1966 National Conference Resolutions

Next page ….

Posted in Books & Films, Civil Rights, History, Marriage, Second-wave Feminism | 3 Comments

Communism → second-wave feminism → social re-engineering

Second-wave feminism prevails in today’s society.  Many think that is good.  The why and how that came about are not so clear, the consequences often not considered. Second-wave feminism was launched in the 1960s.  These pages provide a summary of why and what happened after that.

Index

The Present: Breadwinner moms are hard up

Last year [2014], the Ketchum consulting firm released a study22 showing that “49% of U.S. women … are now the primary breadwinner or on par financially with their significant others – a trend that is progressing more quickly than even recent major studies showed.”

In itself, this is a major shift from past decades.  What this statistic does not capture, however, is that single mothers earn significantly less than do families with two parents. According to the Census Bureau, in 2013, the median income for families headed by single mothers was $26,148.  In contrast, the median income for families with two parents was $84,916. ….

Quoted from:
The State of Your Family’s Economy, 2015
By Rob Schwarzwalder
Family Research Council

The income difference is substantial. It appears that many women have an aversion to being well off, or else they would not so eagerly opt for the life style of a single mother. That does not appear to make much sense. Consider:

  • All things being equal, the gender income gap vanishes. Yet the feminists keep on fighting to make women ever “more equal” than men.
  • When it comes to families with children, the average household income for single-mother families is about one-third that of households with two parents.

Husbands (fathers, protectors and providers in families) should obviously be in great demand. Women should be falling over themselves trying to get them and to try even harder to keep them. Still, it appears that most women and the vast majority of society, and virtually all social institutions are out to derogate, vilify and abrogate the intact, two-parent family.

Men and especially fathers in families are being vilified, obviously because they are the weakest links in the two-parent family and the easiest to break. That puts a steadily growing number of women on the road of hard, miserable lives, full of constant struggle. That produces deplorable outcomes in children of single-mother families. It does not do anything good for society and the welfare of nations. We know that. Nevertheless, those deplorable outcomes are being actively sought.

Beginning in the 1960s, there has been an all-out war against fathers in families.  Who is at fault?  If you believe the feminists, men are.

Second-wave feminism inspires creativity: you can blame men for *everything* !

… and give them credit for nothing.

The caption for the cartoon should be amended to read: “It’s so cool! If you use your imagination, you can blame men for everything, and give them credit for nothing!”

So, what is this? What happened?  Did something cause mass insanity?

I had posted the preceding thoughts to Facebook.  A fathers rights activist
from California, Robert L. Cheney Jr., stated,

“It’s a religion, started by The Feminine Mystique. This was during a time, that America led every social indicator across the world, when woman were the happiest, when they and the nation lived in the highest living standard in the world, when both men and woman did well—it was destroyed for a “problem with no name” (happiness). Now feminist say we don’t want to go back to the ’50s and ’60s—but rather they want to push the world back into the social condition that existed on the plains of Africa 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.”

_________
#Communism  #SecondWaveFeminism #SocialEngineering

Next page ….

Posted in Family, Feminism, History, Second-wave Feminism, Single-Parent | 8 Comments

Actual lifespans versus estimated life expectancies

This gallery contains 15 photos.

(Revision 2018 02 19: to identify a serious error in a report published by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, a report on aspects of suicides in India.) Actual average lifespans in the United States began to decline in … Continue reading

More Galleries | 3 Comments

Mass killer, spree killer, rampage killer, serial killer…?

Mass killer, spree killer, rampage killer, serial killer… What is the difference?

A Nation of Killers?‘ argues that nationality is not a factor in serial killing and implies that neither is the sex of the perpetrator. It uses the term ‘spree killer’ to identify the phenomenon of mass killers but implies that the borders between the categories serial killer and mass killer are blurred.

Breaking the Silence of the Lambs: Female Serial Killers and Collective Amnesia‘ identifies that men do not have a monopoly on being serial killers and that our collective amnesia with respect to female serial killers is quite recent (a consequence of the effectiveness of public relations efforts by modern feminism).

There most definitely were and are female mass killers. After all, women are just as human as men (or are they?).  The ‘Columbine High School Massacre Discussion Forum‘ identifies a compendium of female mass killers.

Shall I kill you ‘deader’ yet?

Mass killer, spree killer, rampage killer, serial killer…, who can tell the difference? Wikipedia does?

Mass murder is “the act of murdering a number of people, typically simultaneously or over a relatively short period of time and in close geographic proximity.”

Spree killer, someone who kills two or more victims in a short time in multiple locations.

Rampage killer, “A rampage involves the (attempted) killing of multiple persons at least partly in public space by a single physically present perpetrator using (potentially) deadly weapons in a single event without any cooling-off period.” Don’t ask why a weapon that was used to kill a good number of people is deemed ‘potentially’ deadly.

Serial killer, “typically a person who murders three or more people, usually in service of abnormal psychological gratification, with the murders taking place over more than a month and including a significant period of time between them.” Correct me if I am wrong, but is there anything that is normal about murdering anyone, let alone three or more people?

Did anyone ever look at all of the various attributes of somewhat arbitrary and capricious murder categories and apportioned them appropriately and rationally to individual categories of murders?  Yes, that appears to have been done. It appears to have been decided that none of the attributes matter much, other than almost equally, except for one, whether it was done by a woman. Although it was once, not all that long ago, common practice to acknowledge that woman are as human and as deadly as are men, that is no longer the case.

In their infinite wisdom, the feminist social engineers decided that the common sense expressed by Rudyard Kipling in ‘The Female of the Species‘ is wrong and launched a campaign to promote the denial of female culpability.

Mass killer? You can blame men for *everything*!

… and give them credit for nothing.

Of course, that is exceedingly difficult, when human lives are being willfully and even unjustifiably terminated, due to the prevalence of the inconvenient evidence — the bodies that litter the scenes. Therefore, when the evidence is undeniable, we now legalize it when women take lives and call it ‘abortion’, ‘infanticide’ or simply condone it in whatever desirable fashion.

That has a fine effect, as it makes the prevailing collective amnesia with respect to female culpability a reality.  For example, let’s not mention female suicide bombers or that women commit the vast majority of fatal child abuse and neglect.  Close to a million fatalities a year, in the US alone, but never mind.

How does a male mass killer fit in?

The Florida shooter, Nikolas Cruz, is without a doubt a mass killer who ended the lives of 17 people, mostly children.  Are those 17 lives more important than the remaining million that were violently terminated during the past 12 months?  Never mind.  We need to concern ourselves about what made Nikolas Cruz do what he did.

Few details are available as of now, but some emerged, such as that he was a full orphan who had been adopted, that his adoptive mother had died last November, that he had an obsession with owning weapons.   Perhaps we will eventually find out more but never be able to figure out what made him into a mass killer.

We know already that his killing spree broke the law and that, in absolute terms, the killing of close to a million other human beings during the past twelve months mostly did not (while the rest don’t matter that much, because they took place individually, although some did not), because most of them were legal, even government-funded.

We don’t know yet when Nicolas Cruz’ parents had died, whether he made the journey from one foster home to the next (on average 16 for orphaned or apprehended boys by the time they are eighteen).  All we can determine as of now is that he appears to fit the outcomes that are vastly more likely to be seen in children suffering from their parents’ divorce and father absence than they are with children from intact families.  Take a look at the damages that causes on average:

The Effects of Divorce on Children
Patrick F. Fagan and Aaron Churchill
January 11, 2012
https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF12A22.pdf

Let us hope that we will find our way out of the mess we managed to create for ourselves.


Addendum (2018 02 15, 6:12 PM)

Nikolas Cruz suffers from FAS?

Today I saw a photo of Nikolas Cruz, the Florida shooter, and instantly thought of looking whether someone else had drawn the conclusion the photo made me draw, that Nikolas Cruz is suffering from FAS (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome). Judging by the way Nikolas Cruz looks on the photo in the article identified below, yes, FAS is a possibility.

The headline for the article states, “Florida shooter, 19, may have had fetal alcohol syndrome“. FAS is not something that one “may have had”. FAS sufferers are born with the brain condition. I cannot be cured. It will never go away. It lasts for life.

From the indicated article:

»…Children with FASD [Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder *] can fall on many ends of the spectrum and vary in symptoms. Experts generally break the spectrum up into three stages. [* FASD — a continuum of permanent birth defects caused by maternal consumption of alcohol during pregnancy]

ARBD (alcohol-related birth defects) is the mildest stage, occurring in babies of women who drank lightly or moderately during pregnancy.

The physical defects of ARBD include heart, skeletal, kidney, ear, and eye malformations in the absence of apparent neurobehavioral or brain disorders.

ARND [alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorder] occurs in infants whose mothers drank lightly to moderately during pregnancy.

Specifically, children with ARND do not have the FAS facial abnormalities, but may have developmental disabilities including structural and/or functional central nervous system dysfunction (brain damage) with behavioral and learning problems.

FAS is recognized as the most severe form of the condition and occurs in women who drink heavily during pregnancy.

Kids with FAS have a distinct pattern of facial abnormalities, growth deficiency and evidence of central nervous system dysfunction…«

More about FAS in a comprehensive Canadian article from 16 years ago:

The fetal alcohol crisis

Report Newsmagazine (The Report Newsmagazine ceased publishing)

September 25, 2000 Issue, Full Text

»In addition to the tragedy caused, the cost of women binge-drinking while pregnant now exceeds that of the national debt«

by Candis McLean

Posted in Child Abuse, Divorce, Family, Feminism, History, Media Bias | Comments Off on Mass killer, spree killer, rampage killer, serial killer…?

Divorce hurts Children, a million more in the U.S. a year

Divorce hurts children: “Each year, over a million American children suffer the divorce of their parents. Divorce causes irreparable harm to all involved, but most especially to the children. Though it might be shown to benefit some individuals in some individual cases, over all it causes a temporary decrease in an individual’s quality of life and puts some “on a downward trajectory from which they might never fully recover.”1

Divorce damages society. It consumes social and human capital. It substantially increases cost to the taxpayer, while diminishing the taxpaying portion of society. It diminishes children’s future competence in all five of society’s major tasks or institutions: family, school, religion, marketplace and government. The reversal of the cultural and social status of divorce would be nothing less than a cultural revolution. Only a few generations ago, American culture rejected divorce as scandalous. Today, law, behavior, and culture embrace and even celebrate it….”

The Effects of Divorce on Children
Patrick F. Fagan and Aaron Churchill
January 11, 2012
Original text and bibliographic references at https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF12A22.pdf

Excerpt from the report:

C. Weakened Father-Child Relationships
Contact. Divorce leads to a decline in the frequency and quality of parent-child contact and relationships,25 and it becomes difficult for non-residential parents, 90 percent of whom are fathers, to maintain close ties with their children.26 For example, children spend significantly more nights with their mother than their father.27 Nearly 50 percent of the children in one study reported not seeing their nonresident father in the past year, and the small number that had recently stayed overnight at the father’s residence did so for a special visit, not as part of a regular routine.28 An analysis of the National Survey of Families and Households29 found that about one in five divorced fathers had not seen his
children in the past year, and fewer than half the fathers saw their children more
than a few times a year.30 By adolescence (between the ages of 12 and 16), fewer
than half of children living with separated, divorced, or remarried mothers had
seen their fathers at all in more than a year, and only one in six saw their fathers
once a week.31

Contact with the father declines over time after a divorce, though this pattern is
less pronounced the older the child is at the time of the divorce.32 Daughters of
divorced parents were eight percent less likely than their peers in intact families to
have frequent contact with their fathers, and sons of divorced parents were 20
percent less likely.33

Emotional Closeness and Well-being. Children’s relationships with their parents worsen after a divorce.34 Marital disruption creates distance between parents and children,35 even compared to children living in married but unhappy families.36 Divorced parents also report significantly diminished satisfaction with their former spouse’s relationships with their children,37 though parental divorce tends to affect the relationship of the child and the opposite-sex parent more than the child and their parent of the same sex.38

divorce hurts children, by creating distance between parents and children; even compared to children living in married but unhappy families.

Separation and divorce create distance between parents and children; even compared to children living in married but unhappy families.

Divorced fathers, especially non-custodial fathers, do not fare well with their children. Children report more distant relationships with their fathers,39 and fathers report “a more negative change in their relationships with their children than [do] custodial mothers.”40 The pattern of worsening relationships after the breakup holds for both sons41 and daughters,42 and more conflict during the divorce process increases the likelihood of distance between the father and his children.43 However, as time passes after the breakup, conflict between father and child decreases. Additionally, older children typically experience less conflict with their nonresident fathers than do younger children.44

Divorce leads to a decline in children’s ability to trust their fathers,45 which does
not bode well for the lifetime happiness of divorced children. Young adults who
feel emotionally close to their fathers tend to be happier and more satisfied in
life, regardless of their feelings towards their mothers.46 However, children and
adolescents who do feel close to the father following a divorce experience better
outcomes.47

Children from divorced families receive less emotional support from their fathers
than children from intact families.48 Divorced fathers are less nurturing,49 and
more likely to drift away from younger children if denied legal custody at the
time of the divorce.50 Nonresident fathers also “have considerably less opportunity
to influence their children’s attitudes and behavior,”51 a reality of which the
implications this paper will attempt to explore. Ultimately, the proportion of
children who enjoy a consistently close relationship with their father is much
higher among adolescents whose parents remain married (48 percent) than among
those whose parents divorce (25 percent).52

Persisting Effects. Boys, especially if they live with their mother, respond with
more hostility to parental divorce than girls do, both immediately following the
divorce and for a period of years thereafter.53 Girls often fare worse than boys
when living with their father or stepfather after a parental divorce.54 By the time children, particularly daughters, attend college, their affection for their divorced
father wanes significantly.55

D. Weakened Grandparent-Grandchild Relationships
Divorce negatively affects grandparent/grandchild relationships…. (Continued… read PDF file)
____________
More at dads & things and at Fathers for Life about children of divorce

 


References (excerpted references; only those that are pertinent to the excerpt quoted in this blog posting)

  1. Paul R. Amato, “The Consequences of Divorce for Adults and Children,” Journal of Marriage and Family 62 (2000): 1269.
  2. William S. Aquilino, “Later-Life Parental Divorce and Widowhood: Impact on Young Adults’ Assessment of Parent-Child Relations,” Journal of Marriage and Family 56 (1994): 908-922.
    Alan Booth and Paul R. Amato, “Parental Pre-Divorce Relations and Offspring Postdivorce Well-Being,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 63 (2001): 210.
  3. Brad Peters and Marion F. Ehrenberg, “The Influence of Parental Separations and Divorce on Father-Child Relationships,” Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 49 (2008): 96-97.
    Alan Booth and Paul R. Amato, “Parental Marital Quality, Parental Divorce, and Relations with Parents,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 56, no. 1 (1994): 27.
  4. I-Fen Lin, Nora Cate Schaeffer, Judith A. Seltzer, and Kay L. Tuschen, “Divorced Parents’ Qualitative and Quantitative Reports of Children’s Living Arrangements,” Journal of Marriage and Family 66 (2004): 389-390.
  5. Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr. and Christine W. Nord, “Parenting Apart: Patterns of Childrearing after Marital Disruption,” Journal of Marriage and Family 47 (1985): 893-904. Note: Eight percent of the children whose fathers were nonresident had never-married (as opposed to married and then divorced or separated) fathers.
  6. This is a federally funded survey of 13,000 respondents conducted by the University of Wisconsin in 1987-1988, 1992-1994, and 2001-2003.
  7. Judith A. Seltzer, “Relationships between Fathers and Children Who Live Apart: The Father’s Role After Separation,” Journal of Marriage and Family 53 (1991): 79-101.
  8. David Popenoe, Life without Father (New York, NY: The Free Press, 1996), 31. Popenoe reports on the findings of The National Survey of Children.
  9. Judith Seltzer, “Relationships between Fathers and Children Who Live Apart: The Father’s Role after Separation,” Journal of Marriage and Family 53 (1991): 79-101.
  10. Teresa M. Cooney, “Young Adults’ Relations With Parents: The Influence of Recent Parental Divorce,” Journal of Marriage and Family 56 (1994): 45-56.
  11. Paul R. Amato, “Children of Divorce in the 1990s: An Update of the Amato and Keith (1991) Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Family Psychology 15 (2001): 355-375.
    Yongmin Sun, “Family Environment and Adolescents’ Well-being Before and After Parents’ Marital Disruption: A Longitudinal Analysis,” Journal of Marriage and Family 63 (2001): 697-713.
    Paul R. Amato and Bruce Keith “Parental Divorce and the Well-being of Children: A Meta-Analysis,” Psychological Bulletin 110 (1991): 26-46.
  12. Alice Rossi and Peter Rossi, Of Human Bonding: Parent-Child Relations Across the Life Course (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1990). As cited in Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, A Generation at Risk, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), 69.
    Juliana M. Soboleswki, “Parents’ Discord and Divorce, Parent-Child Relationships and Subjective Well-being in Early Adulthood: Is Feeling Close to Two Parents Always Better than Feeling Close to One?” Social Forces 85 (2007): 1105-1124.
    Alan Booth and Paul R. Amato, “Parental Predivorce Relations and Offspring Postdivorce Well-being,” Journal of Marriage and Family 63 (2001): 197-212.
  13. Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, “Consequences of Parental Divorce and Marital Unhappiness for Adult Well-being,” Social Forces 69 (1991): 895-914.
  14. Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, “A Prospective Study of Divorce and Parent-Child
    Relationships,” Journal of Marriage and Family 58 (1996): 361.
  15. Alan Booth and Paul R. Amato, “Parental Marital Quality, Parental Divorce, and Relations with Parents,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 56, no. 1 (1994): 28.
  16. Rosemary Dunlop, Ailsa Burns, and Suzanne Bermingham, “Parent-Child Relations and Adolescent Self-Image Following Divorce: A Ten Year Study,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 30 (2001): 117-134.
  17. Marsha Kline Pruett, Tamra Y. Williams, Glendessa Insabella, and Todd D. Little, “Family and Legal Indicators of Child Adjustment to Divorce Among Families With Young Children,” Journal of Family Psychology 17, no. 2 (2003): 174.
  18. Nicholas Zill, Donna Morrison, and Mary Jo Coiro, “Long Term Effects of Parental Divorce on Parent-child Relationships, Adjustment, and Achievement in Young Adulthood,” Journal of Family Psychology 7 (1993): 91-103.
  19. Constance R. Ahrons and Jennifer L. Tanner, “Adult Children and Their Fathers: Relationship Changes Twenty Years after Parental Divorce,” Family Relations 52 (2003): 340-351.
  20. Janet Johnston, “High Conflict Divorce,” The Future of Children (1994): 165-182.
  21. Judy Dunn, Helen Cheng, Thomas G. O’Connor, and Laura Bridges, “Children’s Perspectives on Their Relationships with Their Nonresident Fathers: Influences, Outcomes and Implications,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45, no. 3 (2004): 559.
  22. Valarie King, “Parental Divorce and Interpersonal Trust in Adult Offspring,” Journal of Marriage and Family 64 (2002): 642-656.
  23. Paul Amato, “Father-Child Relations, Mother-Child Relations and Offspring Psychological Well-being in Early Adulthood,” Journal of Marriage and Family 56 (1994): 1031-1042.
  24. Paul Amato and Joan G. Gilbreth, “Nonresident fathers and children’s well-being: A metaanalysis,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 61 (1999): 557-574; Valarie King and Juliana M. Sobolewski, “Nonresident fathers’ contributions to adolescent well-being,” Journal of Marriage and Family 68 (2006): 537-557. Both as cited in Mindy E. Scott, Alan Booth, Valarie King, and David R. Johnson, “Postdivorce Father-Adolescent Closeness,” Journal of Marriage and Family 69 (2007): 1194.
  25. Heidi R. Riggio, “Parental Marital Conflict and Divorce, Parent-Child Relationships, Social Support, and Relationship Anxiety in Young Adulthood,” Personal Relationships 11 (2004): 106.
  26. Seth J. Schwartz and Gordon E. Finley, “Fathering in Intact and Divorced Families: Ethnic Differences in Retrospective Reports,” Journal of Marriage and Family, 67 (2005): 207.
  27. Yoram Weiss and Robert J. Willis, “Children as Collective Goods and Divorce Settlements,” Journal of Labor Economics 3 (1985): 268-292.
  28. Judith A. Seltzer, “Legal Custody Arrangements and Children’s Economic Welfare,” American Journal of Sociology 96 (1991): 898.
  29. Mindy E. Scott, Alan Booth, Valarie King, and David R. Johnson, “Postdivorce Father-Adolescent Closeness,” Journal of Marriage and Family 69 (2007): 1201.
  30. Martha J. Zaslow, “Sex Differences in Children’s Response to Parental Divorce: Two Samples, Variables, Ages, and Sources,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 59 (1989): 118-141.
  31. Martha J. Zaslow, “Sex Differences in Children’s Response to Parental Divorce: Two Samples, Variables, Ages, and Sources,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 59 (1989): 118-141.
  32. Teresa M. Cooney, Michael A. Smyer, Gunhild O. Hagstad, and Robin Klock, “Parental Divorce in Young Adulthood: Some Preliminary Findings,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 56 (1986): 470-477.
Posted in Child Abuse, Civil Rights, Divorce, Economy, Education, Family, Health, Men's Issues, Paternal Rights, Single-Parent | 1 Comment

Quotes worth remembering, at least worth copying

Quotes from some of the writings that I came across over the years:

“The classical liberalism of the nineteenth century is widely and correctly admired, but we can now see that it was inevitably a transitional phase. The tendencies inherent in individualism were kept within bounds by the health of institutions other than the state, a common moral culture, and the strength of religion. Liberalism drained the power from the institutions. We no longer have a common moral culture and our religion, while pervasive, seems increasingly unable to affect actual behavior.

Modern liberalism is one branch of the rupture that occurred in liberalism in the last century. The other branch is today called conservatism. American conservatism, neo or otherwise, in fact represents the older classical liberal tradition. Conservatism of the American variety is simply liberalism that accepts the constraints that a clear view of reality, including a recognition of the nature of human beings, places upon the main thrusts of liberalism—liberty and equality. The difference, it has been said, is that between a hard-headed and a sentimental liberalism. Sentimental liberalism, with its sweet view of human nature, naturally evolves into the disaster of modern liberalism.”

—Robert H. Bork, in
Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism And American Decline
pp. 64 (bottom) to 65 (top)
Full text of book


“It is a characteristic of any decaying civilization that the great masses of the people are unaware of the tragedy. Humanity in a crisis is generally insensitive to the gravity of the times in which it lives. Men do not want to believe their own times are wicked, partly because they have no standard outside of themselves by which to measure their times. If there is no fixed concept of justice, how shall men know it is violated? Only those who live by faith really know what is happening in the world; the great masses without faith are unconscious of the destructive processes going on, because they have lost the vision of the heights from which they have fallen.”

Attributed to Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen


“A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom.  The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.”

—Milton and Rose Friedman
in Free to Choose: A Personal Statement


“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.”

― Voltaire, in The Age of Louis XIV


“It is true that liberty is precious — so precious that it must be rationed.”

— Lenin


“Who falls asleep in a democracy will wake up in a dictatorship.”

— Otto Gritschneder,
(when asked why he wanted to publicize
the system of terror in German military justice under the Nazis)


“A government is not the expression of the popular will, but rather the expression of what a nation’s people are willing to endure.”

 — Kurt Tucholsky


“Love is an ideal thing, marriage a real thing; a confusion of the real with the ideal never goes unpunished.”

— Johann Wolfgang von Goethe


Plato, in Republic, has Socrates offer this advice to philosopher kings:

“Take all the children from their parents and rid the city of adults.”


“Who owns the youth controls the future.”

— Slogan used by Napoleon and
also by the founders of the Wandervogel
(“bird of passage”) the enormously popular youth movement that began
in about 1880 in Germany and produced many
of the prominent, and often homosexual, Nazi leaders


“Give me your four-year-olds, and within one generation I will build a socialist state.”

— Lenin


“Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”

— Lenin


“[The State] must set race in the center of all life. It must take care to keep it pure. It must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. It must  see to it that only the healthy beget children….”

— Hitler, in Mein Kampf


“President Obama is committed to helping states develop seamless, comprehensive, and coordinated ‘Zero to Five’ systems to improve developmental outcomes and early learning for all children….it will be the goal of this Administration to ensure that every child has access to a complete and competitive education — from the day they are born to the day they begin a career.”

— (Fact Sheet: Expanding the Promise of Education in America, Mar 10, 2009
see also: Remarks of President Barack Obama –
As Prepared for Delivery Address to Joint Session of Congress,
Tuesday, February 24th, 2009)


“First they came for the fathers, then for the mothers, and now for both parents in intact families.  In the end all children will be in the care, custody and control of the State.”

— Walter H. Schneider


“Make sure that when you get an erection you don’t lose your mind.  Always think of the consequences:

Is she someone you would want to face across the breakfast table ten years down the road?

Is she the woman who’ll be the best possible mother to your children?

Whether you’ll still be together ten years from now or not, you are trusting her with most of what you’ve got, with half of your genes, with more than half of all you’ll be able to earn for the rest of your life, and with your and your children’s physical and emotional health.

Will she be worthy of all that?”

— Ruth Schneider


“Idiocy is a gift from the gods – one should not punish it.”

— German adage


“Nothing is as terrible to see as ignorance in action.”

— Johann Wolfgang von Goethe


“Moral indignation is a technique used to endow the idiot with dignity.”

— Marshall McLuhan

Quoted by Philip Marchand, MM’s biographer, in
Marshall McLuhan: The Medium And the Messenger


“Mothers are fonder than fathers of their children because they are more certain they are their own.”

—Aristotle


“But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same.”

— Aristotle, in Politics


Love is like an onion.
You taste it with delight,
And when it is all gone,
You wonder what made you bite.

— (One of Ruth Schneider’s favorites; author unknown)


“If we have gotten to the point in our desperate culture in which we feel obligated to kill children, regardless of why or of what color, then we do not deserve to survive and probably won’t.”

— William Faulkner


“One of the paradoxes of management is this: Most employees usually are happier and more comfortable in a well-structured environment than in one that operates with disorder and permissiveness.”

— Unknown author
Telephony, Feb. 6, 1978, p. 61


“I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of ‘Women’s Rights,’ with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to ‘unsex’ themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection.”

— Queen Victoria, March, 1870
http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com


“Feminism is not about giving women freedom to choose; it is about taking away choices of which feminists disapprove. And one choice they disapprove is participation in a conventional family.”

—Robert H. Bork, in
Slouching Towards Gomorrah : Modern Liberalism and American Decline
p. 204


 

Not Guilty contains this gem:

“Armed with their wage packets and fortified by booze and the new, fashionable female machismo, young women are now taking to the road with all the mad abandon of their boyfriends and beginning to kill themselves with increasing frequency. Before they do, they should consider one important fact which sober, health conscious, emotionally open men have cottoned onto: the traditional male life style is hazardous to your health. It doesn’t carry a government warning, but it should. Once women start to behave like men, and work like men, and earn like men, they may well start to die like them, too.”

— David Thomas, in
Not Guilty: In Defence of the Modern Man (1993)
p. 29, second-last par.


“The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types — the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins.”

— G.K. (Gilbert Keith) Chesterton (1874-1936),
British essayist, critic, poet, and novelist;
Source: Illustrated London News, 1924


“Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense.”

— George Orwell, in 1984

The full text of the passage from which the preceding quote was taken is this:

“In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable—what then?”

― George Orwell, in 1984


The hungry sheep look up, and are not fed,
But swoln with wind, and the rank mist they draw,
Rot inwardly, and foul contagion spread.

— Milton: Lycidias


»The “family” in all ages and in all corners of the globe can be defined as a man and a woman bonded together through a socially approved covenant of marriage to regulate sexuality, to bear, raise, and protect children, to provide mutual care and protection, to create a small home economy, and to maintain continuity between the generations, those going before and those coming after.

It is out of the reciprocal, naturally recreated relations of the family that the broader communities–such as tribes, villages, peoples, and nations–grow.«

— Allan Carlson, in
What’s Wrong With the United Nations Definition of ‘Family’?
The Family in America (August 1994), p. 3


The traditional marriage vows once meant much and were taken seriously:

The man:
“I, [name of groom], take thee, [name of bride], to be my wedded wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till in death we part, and with this ring I thee wed, and with my body I thee honor, and pledge my faithfulness.”

The woman:
“I, [name of bride], take thee, [name of groom], to be my wedded husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till in death we part, and with this ring I thee wed, and with my body I thee honor, and pledge my faithfulness.”


It’s official: The experiment has failed

For the best part of thirty years we have been conducting a vast experiment with the family, and now the results are in : the decline of the two-parent, married-couple family has resulted in poverty, ill-health, educational failure, unhappiness, anti-social behaviour, isolation and social exclusion for thousands of women, men and children.

— Rebecca O’Neill, Sept. 2002
Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family
CIVITAS


“Contemporary (or second wave) feminism has aptly been described as “Marxism without economics,” since feminists replace class with gender as the key social construct. Of course, what society constructs can be deconstructed. This is the feminist project: to abolish gender difference by transforming its institutional source — the patriarchal family. Certain streams of the Gay Rights movement have taken this analysis one step farther. The problem is not just sexism but heterosexism, and the solution is to dismantle not just the patriarchal family but the heterosexual family as such.”

— F.L. Morton & Rainer Knopff in
The Charter Revolution & The Court Party (p. 75)
More


“If done successfully, committing suicide is one decision you’ll never live to regret!”

— The Contemporary Heretic, in
A Suicide Note in the Form of a Blog Post


Note:  The preceding observation is short, to the point, but is part of an exhaustive analysis, assessment, and comparative evaluation of at least most practical methods of doing away with oneself (death by drowning or by burning or fire are obvious omissions).  It seems a little macabre, overkill, so to speak, to devote so much effort and attention to methods of bringing suicides to successful conclusions, in view of the relatively small number of suicide victims in the world. 

Consider an equally concise but no less cutting observation of a considerably less macabre nature that involves vastly greater numbers of victims who have absolutely no say in the matter or manner of their deaths at a young age,  and contemplate why so little thought is given to why they are routinely prevented from living long, rewarding  lives. 

Proceed to the next quote.


“I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”

― Ronald Reagan

Posted in History, quotes | Comments Off on Quotes worth remembering, at least worth copying

Consumers support economy — Economies need consumers

Without consumers there is not much of an economy.  Work produces goods and services.  Consumers buy goods and services.  When more and more people’s jobs are being mechanized, more and more people will have trouble finding employment.  That problem is aggravated through accelerated immigration from under-developed nations (instant consumers, rather than having to wait 20 to 25 years of waiting for the home-grown variety to come on-line).  Without a lot of jobs and people filling them, there won’t be many consumers who can buy goods and services.

Consumers, described by Stompin Tom Connors

The Consumer, by Stompin Tom Connors

A collection of concerns, with links to articles in which they were expressed:

  1. Automation and mechanization have liberated many people from having to do onerous work. Much work and many more work processes will be done by machines in the years to come. The concern must be not so much that people doing work will be liberated from having to work, when machines do their work, but that those people will no longer have jobs. The people who are still working, will be working alongside or with machines and thereby increasingly ensure that there will be less need for humans who take sick-leave, go on strike or partake of doing shoddy work–especially on Blue Mondays . The work formerly done by people who are now unemployed is still being done, perhaps faster, cheaper and better, but those unemployed people used to be heavy-duty consumers, and now they no longer have enough money to spend to consume as much as they did, and the machines doing the work that they formerly did are not consumers of consumer goods.
    _________
    More at: “Falling birth rates cause painful demographic changes” Posted on  by Walter Schneider
  2. Will the drive to import immigrants in unprecedented numbers from underdeveloped nations put an end to the downward trend in birth rates? That depends on what the immigrants have to say about it. Furthermore, they bolster the declining numbers of young consumers in the developed nations (the old and the elderly do not buy many consumer products anymore) which is surely one of the main reasons why the demand for immigrants is so high. They have far more money to spend than they did in their countries of origin, and they now have access to consumer goods they previously only dreamed of. One way or another, they will consume, they crave it, and they are eager to consume.
    _________
    More at “Population control holocaust? Family courts participate” Posted on December 24, 2017 by Walter Schneider
  3. Energy is the life-blood of nations. What better way to raise tax revenues for governments than to drive up the cost of energy for end-consumers? Although there is some competition between sources of fuel that keeps energy costs somewhat in check, royalties and various other taxes comprise the vast majority of the price of energy to end consumers, at absolutely no penalties in terms of capital investment for governments. Add to that taxes on taxes, such as cap and trade, carbon taxes and value-added taxes.Energy from renewable sources is as a rule two to three times more expensive than from conventional sources, period! It cannot be made competitive. It cannot be made attractive to investors without paying enormous subsidies, which subsidies drive up the cost of energy to end consumers.
    _________
    More at “Global-warming alarmism – is it dead yet?
    Posted on September 16, 2013 by Walter Schneider
  4. “In order to pay the wages and make a profit the media has learnt that their clients – readers, viewers, listeners, must be good consumers or else the advertisers will go elsewhere. The best consumers are overwhelmingly women – Maureen Gaffney of the National Economic and Social Forum estimates that at least 90% of financial decisions and purchases are now made by women – so to survive and be successful editors everywhere must fill the spaces between the ads with content (what in the old days used to be called “News”) labelled WAWMAA – stories that reinforce what women like to hear – ones that say Women Are Wonderful, Men Are Awful.It’s not that editors like women and dislike men, it’s just good for business.The mantra of big business is growth so their strategy has to be always to maximise profit through sales. For every cent they pay to a woman they know they will get it back immediately in sales. For them to hire women rather than men, wherever it is feasible, suits their purpose.It’s not that managers and company directors like women and dislike men, it’s just good for business.Since the seventies governments have acted exactly like big business. They now claim taxes from virtually every purchase made so, if they want to expand their empire, they have a vested interest in ensuring consumerism is maximised.That means it makes sense for government, like the media and big business, to have policies which use WAWMAA to justify the transfer of control of the Family income from the man to the woman. Hence the built-in bias in the governments family Courts – both in Custody and Domestic Violence cases – and Child Support laws and decisions.It’s not that governments like women and dislike men, it’s just good for business.”
    _________
    More at “Book about family breakdown in the making
    Posted on July 10, 2008 by Roger Eldridge, Ireland
  5.  A declining population means declining numbers of consumers, declining numbers of consumers mean shrinking profits. Correcting that by encouraging people to have more children entails a 20 to 25 waiting period before children become full-fledged consumers. Producers can eliminate that waiting time, through importing ready-made consumers from underdeveloped nations. They’ll have vastly more money in their new host countries than they would have had in their home countries, and they are ready and eager to consume — instant, massive profits, people who need everything, with money to spend in a country where they can buy everything they can possibly dream of having, results in the best consumers of all one could ask for, instantly available, no waiting for 25 years involved.No country’s and no region’s culture will have the time to permit painless assimilation of a massive influx of – at a rate of as much as and more than six percent, annually, of its resident population – migrants from underdeveloped nations. The migrants – from nations in turmoil because of internal, ideological clashes – will not only continue the strife they wish to escape from but add to it in the countries that host them. That is an unavoidable, defensive reaction aimed at preserving their own cultural and national identities. It manifests itself in the migrant’s hostility against the resident population, language, and cultural traditions of the host country that is forced to accommodate them, whether it can or not._________More at »UN report on “Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?”«
    FaceBook, May 27, 2017, by Walter Schneider

 

Posted in Economy, Men and Women Work | Comments Off on Consumers support economy — Economies need consumers

Maya Angelou — fame not facts

Maya Angelou, “Trying to support her son as a single mother, she worked as a pimp, prostitute and _____.” How does such a passage make it into an 8th Grade maths test?  That depends…

Nobel Prizes are hard to get, Nobel Peace Prizes easier.

A Nobel Prize is awarded to people who excelled in a field of science and worked hard at doing so, while a Nobel Peace Prize is awarded primarily to someone who makes the grade for political expediency.  Nobel Peace Prize winners are in the company of,

Although Andrew Weaver cannot lay claim to ever having been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, he happily does so but is not the only climate-alarm populist who lays claim to it without being entitled to do so (i. e.: Rajenda Pachauri and Michael Mann).

Meet ‘One of the World’s Foremost Climate Scientists’

Andrew Weaver: climate modeler, Green Party deputy leader, Greenpeace promoter.

Andrew Weaver is a climate modeler. Which means he spends his time messing about with computers. His “research” takes place in a virtual, imaginary, speculative world. Decades or centuries from now his climate predictions may turn out to be correct. Or they may be forgotten because they were spectacularly wrong.

What is important is that, at this moment in history,

Andrew Weaver is one of the world’s foremost climate scientists and a leading expert on global warming…He is Canada Research Chair in climate modeling and analysis at the University of Victoria, and has authored or coauthored nearly two hundred peer-reviewed studies in climate, earth science, policy, and education journals. He was chief editor of the Journal of Climate from 2005-2009. [backed up here]

More…

Rigoberta Menchú Tum

Rigoberta Menchú Tum

One area of political endeavour where Nobel Peace Prizes are much sought and pursued is feminism.  Women may not excel as much in science as men do, but the feminists try to make up for that by trying to create their own truths, whereby they at times obtain a much-sought-after Nobel Peace Prize for some of their sisters. Some succeed, as did Rigoberta Menchú (see the article by David Horowitz identified in the following), and others (or their supporters) fail in their bid to fame through obtaining a Nobel Peace Prize, as none was awarded to (former prostitute) poet and author of creative fiction Maya Angelou, although that was apparently not for lack of trying by some of her supporters.

 

R I G H T  O N !   —   D A V I D_H O R O W I T Z

I, Rigoberta Menchú, liar 
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
How left-wing propagandists, a fellow-traveling Nobel committee and a corrupt media perpetrated a monstrous hoax.

The story of Rigoberta Menchú, a Quiché Mayan from Guatemala whose autobiography catapulted her to international fame, won her the Nobel Peace Prize and made her an international emblem of the dispossessed indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere and their attempt to rebel against the oppression of European conquerors, has now been exposed as a political fabrication, a tissue of lies. It is one of the greatest hoaxes of the 20th century….

More….

Maya Angelou was an American story teller, born long after the last American slaves were liberated, She chose to remain in the United States, and why not?  She did well, by writing “for money,” complaining about her slave ancestry and the fact that she had been a prostitute — both popular topics.

Maya Angelou ("writing for money")

Maya Angelou, successful author, poet and activist (“writing for money”)

Pa. high school apologizes for using inappropriate Maya Angelou questions on homework

AP January 13, 2017, 2:23 PM

PERKASIE, Pa. — A Pennsylvania high school is apologizing after students were given a math homework assignment that asked which family member had sexually assaulted a girl.

The assignment focused on Maya Angelou and her autobiography “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings.” It provided an algebra formula that asked: “Angelou was sexually abused by her mother’s ___ at age 8, which shaped her career choices and motivation for writing.” Pennridge High School students needed to solve the formula before deciding whether the answer was boyfriend, brother or father.

Screenshots of the homework posted by news organizations showed the subsequent question reads: “Trying to support her son as a single mother, she worked as a pimp, prostitute and ___.” Another formula must be solved to determine if the answer was bookie, drug dealer or nightclub dancer. «

More….

Is all of what Maya Angelou reported and wrote about the unvarnished, hard and cold truth? We already know from the CBS NEWS report that some of the embellishments added by the man-hating feminists in that maths test are fabrications. Still, when one reads, “Although referred to as Dr. Angelou, she never went to college,” one must wonder. What does it mean when Angelou stated, in responding to critics of the veracity of her writing, “I agree with Balzac and 19th-century writers, black and white, who say, ‘I write for money'”? In other of her own words: “There’s a world of difference between truth and facts. Facts can obscure the truth.” That is a good way of putting it.  That should be taken to mean that, for the sake of bringing in money, Angelou had no qualms about substituting her own “truths” for the facts.  Someone like that obviously has strong opinions but is not a good source of facts of history, her own or in general but is a source to go to for anyone in search of strong, unsubstantiated opinions.

No one knows why a caged bird sings, other than that it is speculated that birds often sing to proclaim their presence or the territory they claim.  It stands to reason that any caged bird can be quite comfortable and proclaim that fact by singing.  No amount of creatively writing and declaring by anyone, not even by Maya Angelou, that “I know why the caged bird sings,”  will change that fact, but it will ensure, if done well enough when writing for money, that the author will live comfortably ever after.

That still leaves the question of how and why Angelou’s creative writing made it into an 8th Grade maths test. The apology offered for that transgression declared that it was a mistake. Yes, it was. It was not an accident. It was deliberate. It was a hate crime and no more a mistake than any other crime is.  Was it merely misandry, was it for mercenary reasons (to help out the publishers of Maya Angelou’s works), or was it both? Who knows what the motivation for that deliberate ploy for attention really was?  It did receive a lot of attention.

All of that leaves one with the firm impression that feminist sources of truth may well be popular but don’t necessarily acquire the desired extent of political correctness, and that may well be because the expression “feminist source of truth” can be thought of as an oxymoron.

Posted in Feminism, History, Propaganda Exposed, The New World Order | Comments Off on Maya Angelou — fame not facts

The wall at the border, down Mexico way

The “wall” at the U.S.-Mexico border

Originally posted on FB, January, 28, 2017

Why is the liberal media obsessing about that wall? How is it any different from the walls around one’s home? Walls keep us safe, but they cost money.

Funding the wall at the border, down Mexico-way

Funding may not be quite that easy to come by

President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team has signaled to congressional Republican leaders that his preference is to fund the border wall….Source CNN

So far, we still have the right to build, sell, rent and purchase homes that have walls, walls with doors and windows in them. We still have that right and are well advised to secure the windows and to keep the doors locked, basically all day, but especially at night.

We can open the doors to our homes to let in anyone we wish to have come in, and we can keep the doors locked to keep out the people whom we wish to keep out, even if they are merely squatters who wish to be fed at our dinner tables.  Why should the nation in which one’s home is located not only have the right but the obligation to keep its borders secure by constructing a wall?

As to who pays for such a wall, why not use the law of the range? When two property owners have their properties divided by a common fence, the decision of who is responsible for the installation, upkeep and maintenance of the fence is simple. When a property owner stands at the middle of it and looks at the fence, the half of the fence that is to the right of him is his to build, maintain and repair.

If there are any disputes over that, because one of the two owners is not doing his share of due diligence, things go to court and are settled without any problem, usually at the expense of the laggard.

When higher powers are involved, it becomes a bit of a problem, but a court that will make a reasonable, equitable decision is not impossible to find, if no agreement between the two interested parties can be reached.

Things are only difficult and perhaps next to impossible to settle, when a fence dispute is at such a high level that it is not possible to go any higher. The U.S and Mexico have it good, in comparison.

Take a fence dispute between Satan and St. Peter, when Satan’s cows kept getting out at his portion of the fence that was in disrepair, when Satan refused to make repairs or bring the fence up to snuff, and when St. Peter told him: “Well, Buddy, then you leave me no choice. I’ll have to take you to court,” and Satan said: “Ha! Where’ll you get a lawyer?!” (Keep in mind that judges are lawyers, to.)

More: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/border-wall-house-republicans-donald-trump-taxpayers/index.html
_____________

The local seniors club keeps it door locked when no one is there. That is most definitely a wise thing to do, considering the frequent break-ins that happen in not only the business district but also in the residential areas of the thriving metropolis of Bruderheim, a town of about 1,500 residents in Alberta, Canada.

The property on which the seniors club is located does not have any fences, because as every farmer knows who has no trouble with keeping his cows at home, a fence around the property of the seniors club would be a challenge to be overcome by any juvenile delinquent. So, the seniors club may as well not have a fence around its property, as it would need constant repair. The seniors don’t have the money or the time to look after that. Where there is nothing, nothing needs repairing, and if there were any animals that would wander in and eat the grass, so much the better.

Fences or walls are only good if they keep things out and in, such as people whose qualities are not known, and illegal drugs. I don’t know all the details of what the exchange in unvetted, illegal immigrants and drugs is that goes the other way, but if there is any of that, Mexico does not seem to be concerned about the size of the influx of those from the U.S.

I have not been going to the seniors for a few years now, and I miss the 5 x 10 ft snooker tables, but I have a perfume sensitivity that gives me bad reactions. There is enough perfume at the seniors club to make it worse for me than playing Russian roulette with every chamber loaded. Reactions are certain to happen when I breathe in perfume (paint solvents do the same), but they vary in severity and don’t kill me, no more than bad colds do, which they resemble, and they last about as long.

My wife goes to the seniors club, and I’ll gave her a copy of this write-up, to immunize the members of the seniors club against ever getting the notion of building a fence around their property, through being able to contemplate the pros and cons of having fences.

As to the U.S.-Mexico border-wall (well, fence is more like it), neither Donald Trump nor Enrique Peña Nieto are members of the Bruderheim Seniors Club. Could someone be so good as to give them copies of this? 😉

Posted in Civil Rights, History, The New World Order | Comments Off on The wall at the border, down Mexico way

Women’s March

The Women’s March on Washington (2017) was probably the single, most important event staged by feminists that evoked in the general public a rejection of feminism.

The highlights of the policy platform that were impressed upon the writers of the article covering the event were these (the impressions I took away from the media coverage are added in parentheses after each item in the list):

  • Reproductive rights (government funding of abortions and other forms of birth control);
  • Immigration reform (legalization of illegal immigration);
  • Healthcare reform (government funding of health care for women);
  • Religious discrimination (more government protection for Muslim U.S. women residents, the promotion of Sharia law for women, Burqas, Hijabs, polygamy, arranged marriages, etc.);
  • LGBTQ rights (more government promotion of LGBQT rights);
  • Gender and racial inequities (the elimination of those that are thought to favor men and Non-Hispanic whites);
  • Workers’ rights, and other issues (to make women “more equal” wherever they feel they are being discriminated against, regardless of the fact that women live on average five more years than men do), and
  • Environmental issues (apparently the oppressive EPA rules are not restrictive enough, although it is most definitely difficult to figure out why opposition to what made America great has become a women’s issue and how women’s objections to corporate profits will help women, unless women desire that the economy goes the route taken by Venezuela. After all, if corporate profits are to be eradicated, how will the government raise the tax revenues required to make women happy?).
    More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Women’s_March#Policy_platform

The Women’s March on Washington (2017) was to become known for a visible symbol, pink Pussyhats, a play on vaginas, that was for many women not impressive enough, wherefore many of the marchers dressed up in costumes that were intended to resemble giant vaginas, apparently intended to instill fear in everyone who would think of resisting women power. There’s no accounting for taste.
More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Women’s_March#Pussyhat_Project

The policy platform presented by feminism for the Women.s March on Washington (2017) was somewhat disorganized and unfocused, to say the least, even after a year of contemplating second thoughts, but it is a tough job finding gifts for women who have everything and are the envy of women in the world who line up to come to enjoy some of the plunder that is to be had in the land of plenty, the land of the most.

The policy platform for Women;s March (2018 edition)?  Who knows?

The beginning of the end of an era?

The preceding graph by Google Trends reflects the decline of the public’s interest in feminism, women’s rights, and women’s march (with the trend line for men’s rights – at a steady zero throughout the whole interval from Dec. 4, 2017 to Jan. 25. 2018 – providing a solid base line for reference).

With the Women’s March on Washington (2017), feminism “jumped the shark.” It was a flash-in-the-pan. After it was over, the public’s interest in feminism and women’s issues continued its downhill slide that was barely interrupted by half-hearted attempts at bringing about a repeat performance this year through an even less-focused and less-well organized Women’s March (2018 edition).

So, where will women’s rights go now? At least no one needs to worry about the decline of the public’s interest in men’s rights. Rock-bottom is a very stable position.

Popular interest in feminism and women’s rights shows
seasonal changes triggered by media and public relations efforts.

(Notice that the annual low points in January and July are being followed by peaks in July and November, respectively, while that pattern changed lately on account of the flagging interest generated by the Women’s March events.)

For public interest in men’s rights, any change will be an improvement.  Billions of dollars in annual funding for men’s rights would do wonders, but as of now there are no equal rights in those two sectors of public policy.  Women have the power.

Are the media letting an opportunity slip through their fingers?  Imagine what an ongoing, escalating media war promoting men’s rights against the overwhelming and now somewhat boring power of women rights could do for the ailing newspaper-publishing industry and for other major players in the main-stream media who wish that their ratings would improve.

Posted in Civil Rights, Feminism, Health, History, Maternal Rights, Men's Issues | Comments Off on Women’s March