More and more we are seeing articles, and science that debunks and causes problems for feminism, and left wing ideological “truths”. What is clear is that more often, we are seeing a view that maybe the bad old days are better than the good new days will ever be. Follow the link to read the interesting comments from both sides.

Be honest: we all love the sexist alpha male

Many women will tell you that one of the most irritating things about life is that alpha males - great silverbacked gorilla types - strike us, maddeningly, as being rather more attractive than their kinder, gentler, more considerate dwarf-monkey counterparts. We know intellectually that it shouldn’t be so, since the gorillas are often sexist pigs (just to mix the animal metaphors); but when push comes to shove and we’re picking a boyfriend rather than a friend, few of us find beta males especially appealing.

In real life as in Georgette Heyer, the reprehensible, oddly sexy brute fares rather better than the sensitive flower. Now it turns out that the unreconstituted, sexist male chauvinist is not only more attractive to many women, but earns more money and is more professionally successful than the kind man who sympathises when you have period cramps and offers to make you a nice cup of camomile. Not fair, is it?

The Journal of Applied Psychology has just published findings from a University of Florida study based on interviews with more than 12,000 men and women. Between 1979 and 2005, they were questioned regularly about how they viewed male and female roles - whether they believed a woman’s place was in the home, whether employing women led to more juvenile delinquency(!) and whether it was the woman’s job to take care of the home and family.

Sexist men, the scientists found, made an average of $8,500 (£4,600) a year more than men who viewed women as work-place equals. Meanwhile, feminists earned more than their more traditionally minded female colleagues (but not a great deal more - £800 a year, on average). And while there was only a small difference between the pay packets of “egalitarian” men and women, sexist men’s wages outstripped everyone else’s.

Surprised? Me neither. It’s one of those stories that, even without being corroborated by the figures, has the horrible ring of truth about it: we’ve all worked in an office where the sexist monster is (a) very good at his job and (b) gruesomely and guilt-inducingly attractive despite his antediluvian attitudes.

The existence of such men is why sexism persists: it is obviously wrong on every level, as many an industrial tribunal will attest, but the combination of power and, shall we say, lack of political correctness can be a potent one - which is why everyone in Britain fell in love with Gene Hunt, the hulking great throwback in the BBC series Life on Mars, which was set in the 1970s. On paper the character was entirely despicable; in full flow he made his intelligent, evolved, sensitive sidekick look like a ladyboy. Men wanted to be Hunt; women wanted to be with him. This says a great deal about men’s sense of being emasculated at every turn in modern Britain - a complaint that is, I think, pretty much justified and needs to be addressed before it does considerable damage.

It is surely no coincidence that men seem angrier than they have ever been; you notice it especially when it comes to pornography. Wanting to subjugate and violate powerless women used to be a specialist minority interest; it has now become mainstream. Nobody seems to mind much. I find that pretty alarming.

See also the extremes men now go to in order to punish their former wives or girlfriends: horrific news stories about fathers murdering their children and then killing themselves have become, if not quite commonplace, frequent enough to ring loud alarm bells. There was another one just last week. There’s not much point in women saying, “Oh dear, how horrid - but anyway, about my right to breastfeed in public . . . ” These are issues that need to be looked at urgently before the situation gets wholly out of control.

Women aren’t powerless - au contraire. What is interesting about the sexist pay packet is that it doesn’t happen despite women, but rather with their consent and, in many cases, their covert approval. The fact of the matter is that biology will always get in the way of gender politics; you can cogitate and reason all you like, but it isn’t easy simply to eradicate attitudes and desires that have been hard-wired into us for millennia.

Wet men aren’t generally considered desirable or attractive; manly men are. Manly men, knowing they are considered attractive, continue to behave in their retrograde way and are rewarded for it with popularity, success and, if they’re good at their jobs, a heftier pay packet than anyone else’s. And then everyone likes or admires them even more, secretly or otherwise: success, money, esteem - what’s not to like, apart from the little matter of gender politics? And so it goes on.

Meanwhile, confusingly, everything we read and observe and are taught shows us that the object of our admiration is to be condemned and that being a victim of sexism is one of the most terrible things that can befall a helpless woman (in fact, it really isn’t and we’re not helpless: there are many worse things than people making jokes about your bosoms, especially if the jokes are quite funny. If they aren’t, we all have a tongue in our head and, if need be, recourse to the law. Part of the problem with all this is the irritating assumption that women are constantly doomed to victimhood and need protecting from the big, mean boys).

No wonder people get muddled. So this is a little plea for the sexist alpha male – the one we all secretly think isn’t as dreadful as he’s made out to be. Isn’t it time that we gave him a break from the full force of our disapproval? We live in a furtive sort of society where lots of women fancy men they feel they shouldn’t and many men go through life pretending to be a great deal sweeter and more feminine than they actually are, because they’ve been told it’s the only way to be.

It’s unhealthy, really - smoke and mirrors masking the unavoidable fact that, underneath it all, women prefer manly men, even ones who make sexist jokes; and men prefer womanly women, even ones who whinge about being fat. Perhaps that’s a terribly self-hating and sexist thing to say. Or perhaps it’s just the truth.

+ Writing in 1605, Luisa de Carvajal, a Spanish nun who was brought to London by the Jesuits and risked her life in pursuit of martyrdom (she was especially good at the gruesome task of collecting relics from the freshly murdered bodies of Catholic martyrs), opined as follows: London is overcrowded, dirty, rowdy, especially on Friday nights; the food’s not up to much, everything’s too expensive and it rains all the time.

“The food looks good,” she wrote in letters home, “but it has no smell and almost no taste.” As for the neighbours: “At times, they grind me down with the noise that comes through the wall where I sleep. All you hear is the sound of meat being roasted and others cooking, eating, playing and drinking.” She is repulsed by the lack of sanitation - one day she sees carrots transported in a cart that had just been used to carry the corpses of plague victims - and is shocked by thieving children “of 10 or 11” being sent to the gallows.

No change there, then, despite the intervening 400 years (you can substitute the vilification of child criminals for the gallows, as though babies were born evil). The nun’s letters have been translated for the first time by Dr Glyn Redworth, a history lecturer at Manchester University. His book, The She-Apostle: The Extraordinary Life and Death of Luisa de Carvajal, published last Thursday, is an absolute treat - utterly gripping from start to finish.

Well, It’s about time. After 40 years of junk science with feminists claiming equality but better, and flipping any positive quality to being a positive quality only if women do it, and inconsequential if men do.

This type of feminist logic really had its biggest push in things that they could paint sounded better. They would say, we have a larger cable between the two hemispheres, so we think we are superior. Or that women are multitaskers, and that is better (this after studies now show that multitaskers are not as good). The list of this kind of thing literally being endless as long as the inventiveness to spin something was healthier than the truth.

Now women say this even though there is millinea of evidence showing that women select their men on the basis of the men and their families competency in the world. Unsuccessful need not apply.  One would expect from darwin that men were being selectively bred for competency in world actions. Men on the other hand, select women for fertility, of which beauty and companionship are a part of it, there is little selection for women to be competent in the world, and definitely less selection, even today, that they be so. In truth the mythical patriarchy is the result of women selectively breeding men to be good in the world for their mutual benifit in fecundity and familial success.  In general, their exhaltations about reality rarely make sense in light of prior scientific knowlege and concordance.

So its really interesting to go over my usual science fare. From the journals i read to their representation in the press I came along this interesting piece ni the UK Telegraph.

Men’s brains are ‘better connected’

Previous studies have revealed differences in the density of nerve cells and other brain features but none of these gender differences have been linked to behaviour or function in a very convincing way.

Now, Dr Lidia Alonso-Nanclares and Prof Javier De Filipe of the Instituto Cajal, Madrid, Spain; and colleagues there and at the Universidad Complutense of Madrid, used fresh brain tissue removed from epileptic patients during brain surgery to explore microscopic differences in the brain structure of men and women, revealing a consistent difference.

The authors of a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences used an electron microscope to study the brain tissue and discovered that in the temporal neocortex, a key part which is involved in both social and emotional processes, located near the ears, among other skills, that men had a one third higher density than women of synapses - the junction between two brain cells that enables precisely tuned cell-to-cell communication.

However, men had more brain cells, though the excess was slight compared with the excess in the number of synapses.

Prof De Filipe said that the difference in synapses was “very consistent” and surprising, though he stressed that in other regions of the brain women may have more connections.

Other work said that the anterior commissure, which connects several regions of the frontal and temporal lobes, is 12 per cent larger in women than in men, for example.

There has been little attention to the anatomical differences between men and women at the level of the synapse, adds Prof De Felipe.

Although these differences contribute to the way men and women differ, he could not say exactly how, though he said there had been much speculation and hilarity in the lab about how this higher connectivity could contribute to male interest in sex and football, not least because the study was led by “two very clever women.”

Because they team only studied four men and four women, since the main object of the study was to compare human brains to those of rats, mice and monkeys, the authors emphasise that more research is needed to understand how these differences influence brain function.

Brain function has been shown to differ between men and women in various respects.

Intelligence is not one of them. Much more convincing, says the team are studies that show differences that relate to spatial and language abilities, and whereas men excel in mental rotation and spatial perception, women perform better in verbal memory tasks, in verbal fluency tasks, and in the speed of articulation.

These differences are not thought to be a only consequence of the influence of sex hormones - oestrogen and testosterone - on brain organization during development but also of genetic factors.

Brain scans have found structural differences in the cortical volume of the Wernicke and Broca areas, involved in language, as well as in the frontal and medial paralimbic cortices, and in the thickness and density of the gray matter in the parietal lobes.

Women are smaller than men, on average, and tend to have smaller brains.

But Prof De Felipe points out that the intelligence of humans with brains weighing as little as half the average, may be normal or even above average. “There is not a clear correlation with the size of the brain,” he says.

The differences were in a social area of the brain. I would guess that the men have more complex areas since they have to deal with not only positive social interaction, but also negative and conflicted social interaction where backing down is losing, not a means of finese. In other words, the social landscape of men encompasses the social landscape of women AND the social landscape of complex conflict. Rather than men not being as socially developed, they are more socially developed to handle social interactions where social rules are less able to be enforced, applied, or imposed. Such a development would naturally lead men to see a wider landscape of social possibility which encompases choices that women dont use or are mitigated from (by size as one example), and to lead women to not be capable of even seeing the potentials of conflicts and outcomes as their machinery isnt gearted to think of them as options. 

There is great pressure for this kind of Darwinian development as it relies on women not seeing options that exist but are always negative to them (like fighting over a male mate), which proscribes their solutions. Just as living in a world where there are more options to social conflict that work to a end result, would make men have a larger richer panoply of potential social actions that would include behaviors and outcomes that are not open to the women due to their size and higher fertility value.

The truth is that men have to work in both worlds, the worlds of potential conflict without limits, and the world of women where conflicts have hard limits. This naturally would set them up to have more in this area than those that dont have this need, and have other needs in relation to young children.

As science goes forward, we are finding out that the customs of our culture were important ways to act in light of our biology, and that the pronouncments of feminism and other 5th column groups that they know biology would be a certain way before investigation has been nothing but politically motivated malarky that has wasted our lives and time.

          One does not need a complicated view to understand that a population’s way of life is learned in family, and to maintain a way of life, one has to maintain the population and the family is the entity that does this. Does it really take college level mathematics to figure out that for every woman that chooses to exterminate or prune the family tree that emanates from her, another woman would have to choose an abundance of five branches to maintain the population which maintains the culture, of which the structural block is the family?

 

Gender equality on the slide?

(PhysOrg.com) — Cambridge University study suggests growing numbers of people are concerned about working mums’ impact on family life.

Support for gender equality in Britain and the US appears to have peaked and could now be going into decline, research at Cambridge University has revealed.

The study, by Professor Jacqueline Scott from the University’s Department of Sociology, found evidence of "mounting concern" that women who play a full and equal role in the workforce do so at the expense of family life.

Although there are no signs of a full-scale gender-role backlash, there does appear to be growing sympathy for the old-fashioned view that a woman’s place is in the home, rather than in the office.

The study appears in a new book, Women And Employment; Changing Lives And New Challenges, which Professor Scott also edited.

"The notion that there has been a steady increase in favour of women taking an equal role in the workplace and away from their traditional role in the home is clearly a myth," she said.

"Instead, there is clear evidence that women’s changing role is viewed as having costs both for the woman and the family.

"It is conceivable that opinions are shifting as the shine of the ’super-mum’ syndrome wears off, and the idea of women juggling high-powered careers while also baking cookies and reading bedtime stories is increasingly seen to be unrealisable by ordinary mortals."

The survey compared the results of social attitude surveys from the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s - using recent data from the International Social Survey Programme as well as older polls. Professor Scott focused on the results from Britain, the United States and - because the earlier surveys pre-dated the fall of the Berlin Wall - the former Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany).

In each survey, samples of between 1,000 and 5,000 people were asked to say whether they agreed or disagreed with a number of statements. Statements such as "A husband’s job is to earn income; a wife’s to take care of the children," were designed to test their overall views on gender equality. Others, such as "Family life suffers if a woman works full time," examined whether they considered maternal employment as harmful to children or families.

The study shows that while British attitudes are more egalitarian than in the 1980s, there are signs that support for gender equality may have hit a high point some time during the 1990s. When it comes to the clash between work and family life, doubts about whether a woman should be doing both are starting to creep in.

In the 1990s, for example, more than 50% of women and 51% of men said they believed that family life would not suffer if a woman went to work. Since then, the figure has fallen - to 46% of women and 42% of men. Fewer people (54.9% of women and 54.1% of men) now take the view that a job is the best way for a woman to be independent than in 1991.

The results are even more extreme in the United States, where the percentage of people arguing that family life does not suffer if a woman works has plummeted, from 51% in 1994 to 38% in 2002. About the same number of West Germans (37%) agree; but the number there has risen, having been just 24% in the mid-1990s.

Professor Scott argues that each country is at a different stage in a cycle of sympathy for gender equality. In West Germany, where up until the 1990s a large majority of people still believed that men should be the family breadwinners while women stayed at home, acceptance for the notion of working mums is now increasing.

In Britain and the US, however, where support for equal opportunities for both sexes is much longer-standing, some people are now starting to have second thoughts. In most cases, this appears to revolve around concerns that the welfare of children and of the family are being compromised the more women spend their time at work and find themselves lumbered with the double burden of employment and family care.

The report adds that there should now be further investigation into whether the attitude shift is occurring because caring for the family is seen as predominantly women’s work, or because people feel there is no practical alternative to a woman fulfilling the role.

"A change in attitude is not the same thing as a change in behaviour, but attitudes do matter," Professor Scott added. "Women - particularly mothers - can experience considerable strain when attitudes reinforce the notion that employment and family interests conflict.

"If we are to make progress in devising policies that encourage equal working opportunities for women, we need to know more about what gender roles people view as practical, as possible and as fair."

Women And Employment: Changing Lives And New Challenges is published by Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. this week.

Provided by Cambridge University

 

Study: verbal aggression may affect children’s behavior

The methods mothers use to control their children during playtime and other daily activities could have a negative impact on their child’s self-esteem and behavior, according to a new Purdue University study.

"It’s hard to tell parents how to interact with their children based on one study, but what we see here is that parents who have a propensity for being verbally aggressive have a tendency to try to direct and control their children during a play period," said Steven R. Wilson, a professor of communication who specializes in family issues. "As a result, these children were less cooperative, and not only are parents setting up situations that are challenging for them to handle, but they also are subtly undermining their child’s self-esteem."

Wilson and Felicia Roberts, an associate professor of communication, are lead authors of a study that appears in the July issue of Human Communication Research journal. The researchers videotaped 40 mothers as they played with one of their children, ages 3-8, during a 10-minute, unstructured play period. The mothers also completed a series of questionnaires to assess their general tendency to be verbally aggressive toward others. For example, someone who is verbally aggressive is likely to insult others as a way to motivate them to comply or behave.

The researchers found that mothers who were high in the general tendency to be verbally aggressive often tried to take control of the play period. For example, the four mothers with the highest verbal aggression scores on average were attempting to direct their child’s actions once every 12 seconds, while the four mothers with the lowest verbal aggression scores tried to do so only about half as often. In addition to verbally aggressive mothers telling a child to play with a different toy or to stop playing, they also used negative body language, such as restraining a child by the wrist or shoulder, to reinforce their commands.

"Of course all parents direct their children, and people in general are always directing others to close a door or hand them something," said Roberts, who has a background in linguistics and is a conversational analyst. "It’s something we do all the time. But there is a qualitative difference in the kinds of directing going on by these verbally aggressive mothers. By looking at how and when directives occurred, not just how often, we found that moms who scored highest on verbal aggression used directives to control the child and, ultimately, the way the game or activity was played. The aggressive action is not overt, as in a parent hitting or yelling, but these small negative maneuvers can say so much to a child."

Parents interested in learning more about how to improve communication with their children should contact a pediatrician or seek out community family and social service programs, Wilson said.

"We all say things to our children that we regret saying, but saying a lot of things that attack a child’s self-confidence is not healthy," Wilson said. "These parents were in an unstructured, low-stress environment, and if we saw this behavior in such a brief setting, how could such negative interactions, even so subtle, affect a child over the long-term? For example, if the parents always have to control what activity they and their children are going to play - as well as for how long and how they are going to play it - you wonder if this communicates to the child that what they want to do doesn’t matter."

The researchers will be looking at how praise plays a role in these types of parent-child interactions.

Source: Purdue University

Biological fathers not necessarily the best, social dads parent well too

A large number of U.S. children live or will live with a "social father," a man who is married to or cohabiting with the child’s mother, but is not the biological father. A new study in the Journal of Marriage and Family examined differences in the parenting practices of four groups of fathers according to whether they were biologically related to a child and whether they were married to the child’s mother. Researchers found that married social fathers exhibited equivalent or higher quality parenting behaviors than married and cohabiting biological fathers.

Furthermore, whereas married and cohabiting biological fathers displayed relatively similar quality parenting, the parenting practices of married social fathers were of higher quality than those of cohabiting social fathers. Married social fathers were more engaged with children, took on more shared responsibility in parenting, and were more trusted by mothers to take care of children.

Led by Lawrence M. Berger, PhD, MSW, of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, participants were drawn from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, a longitudinal study of children born in 20 large U.S. cities in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Sample children were mostly born to unmarried parents and had been followed from birth to approximately age five.

Analyses and regression results from interviews with mothers revealed that they perceived married social fathers to be engaged in relatively high quality parenting practices with the five-year-old children. Most notably, social fathers exhibited significantly higher levels of cooperation in parenting than biological fathers.

"On the whole, our findings suggest that marriage is a better predictor of parenting quality with regard to social fathers than biological fathers," the authors conclude. "Our study is relevant to understanding the quality of parental care that children receive from resident fathers across a range of family configurations that are now commonly experienced by children."

Source: Wiley

Turns out the rumors from the Nice Guys are correct…

When left on their own, without family and friends to help, women select mental people for mates because they find them sexy. That in the absence of the restriction of sex (which i am making no suggestions either way), that such overwhelming selection drowns out common sense. As long as short term sex and gratification are on the table, wasting time getting to know them, respecting them, and selecting a commpanion based on their caracter and values goes right out the window. Not because there arent guys that want to do that, but because the guys that do that lose, and the guys that treat them badly win. 

No one wants to be a Loser, and with the modern woman, being a Loser (from the past) makes you a winner (in the present)!

That in the absence of chapperones, and such, womens choices tend towards selecting mates that would send us back to the trees and a dog eat dog way of life.

It doesnt take long for the guys to figure out what works, and so the women define the kind of pool that they can select from as the guys tailor themselves to whats effective. The ones in the pool define what the women have to do to get their attention since they are what the women want.

In the old days, it was bat an eye, drop a hankerchief, and be feminine for a decent man, giving no truck to the bad ones. Bring someone with you so that both are in control. Take time to get to know one another, discuss things, and keep the sex monster at bay. After all, we want to have sex with more people we see than the people we know.  Getting to know someone first gives you pause to avoid bad outcomes. Listening to your family who are watching him as he is with you is also important in the past.  After all, who will look out for you better than your parents?  By the results of the studies, it isnt the self. 

Today, the rules say you dont give truck to the boring nice guys, and so you have to compete for the bad boys who basically wouldnt notice a decent girl that batted her eyes and wanted a long courtship.  Though they do pay attention to coquettes, pole dancers, girls in fetish wear, and women that can pull a train. 

Of course the more moderate feminists cant understand what went wrong, and try to blame the men. These studies show that the men are just trying to be what the women want (not what they say they want).

So its a race to the bottom as they try to impress people with antisocial personality disorders who would make them jump through perverse hoops to prove how easy they are. 

Girls really do love bad boys

NEW research has revealed that "bad boys" who are cursed with anti-social personality traits are more successful with the opposite sex than "nice guys".

This week’s New Scientist says two studies in the US have found that men with "dark" characters - such as Hollywood hunk Colin Farrell - have the most prolific sex lives.

The so-called "dark triad" traits include impulsiveness, narcissism, thrill-seeking and deceitfulness, it said.

One of the studies, a survey of 35,000 people in 57 countries, found a clear link between dark triad traits and the reproductive success of males.

"It is universal across cultures for high dark triad scorers to be more active in short-term mating," David Schmitt, of Bradley University in the United States, told the New Scientist.

"They are more likely to try and poach other people’s partners for a brief affair."

Another study found that males who scored higher in the dark triad personality traits had a greater number of partners and a desire for short relationships.

Wow, who knew? (the guys who tried to tell them)

Of course the nice guys tend now to become copies of these bad boys because they dont want to be dealt out of the game of life.  so this means that there is a much smaller amount of men willing to not use women and dump them, and there is a market for people to educate nice guys on how to become the crumbs and abusive people that women select (but say they dont want).

Way to go feminism.. 

You not only led sheep to the wolves, but made it customary for them to seek them out and lie down with them, all the while removing all the protections of the people that cared for them.

Utimately the genetics of the situation will lead to a vast increase of this kind of man in the population (more women have sex with more sociopaths, and antisocial personality disorders and what do you get as your future posterity?). The effect will not be the production of the new sensitive man that can be with women and be partners in life as before feminism, no, it will be the antisocial prison thug type who will use and discard her.

As soon as our society had enough nice guys, the ladies told them that they dont want them. Then went out and created a society that would destroy and remove the nice guys that were willing to live the way that we all thought was better (without having to destroy the family). One only needs to look at the painting "Sunday in the park" by George Seurat and compare that to the new art we create today, and you can see where their boat ride has taken us to. 

In this case the old cultural maxims are so true:

You lay down with dogs, you get up with flees

You dont know what you had till its gone

One shouldnt throw the baby out with the bath water.

This kind of list could get real long. Though it would fall on empty ears today.

Women in the safe life created by men called society, which is much safer than before, find misery too exciting for them to want the nice guys. Its as if they are asking for the sword to fall because they can’t stant the tension of it hanging there.  They tend to want men who want many women unlike the nice guys. they tend to like men that will not work and leech off of them. They tend to like men who are violent to them.

Face it nice guys, we cant compete, and maybe we shouldn’t? 

After all, there is a huge number of foreign women who have not yet decided to be miserable, and given the outcomes of the past 40 years in the west, the problem ultimatly will fix itself demographically one way or another.

Going through my morning mail i get a reference to an interesting article at the UK Mail Femail section…

It appears to be a bit of a dose of reality.

The first article tries to explain:

Why more and more women are losing custody battles over their children

One could call this an expectations expose…   The main gist not discussed but oozing through the cracks was:

I did what they said would be great, so how come I don’t have my kids since I worked.

to which the obvious answer to those who understand the far left leaders of the radical feminists…

It means that they were set up, not knowing the game was that they were to be damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

They never realized that feminism is anti capitalist, and the reason the working men were losing their kids was not because they were male, no, that wasn’t the reason, which was the presumption when there wasn’t enough information.

now that we know better one can clearly see that whomever works ends up being a capitalist, and its the capitalist that gets punished for not taking a state dole, staying home, and having ‘quality time’ in a state of social justice subsistence.

So now women are suddenly finding out that if they work, and their husbands stay home, they get treated like men.

 How dare they!

Then while at the same place I spied another article and followed it through, and its another wakeup call to reality and what has been created in womans name.

Forget this tosh about ‘freemales’ - single women who say they are happy are lying

Ouch, this may be more reality than the UK working women may want to take in one day. Losing their children, dying of heart desease, finding out your wife - i mean husband - played mr mom with some stay at home, stress medical conditions, children calling minimum wage watchers mom, and all the other gifts presented by the ladies of dissent.

Sad truth is that they havent seen nothing yet. My last article told the tale of the reality if infertility, and that its a lot worse than even a pessimist might decide.

This article points out that when the ladies get together they try to prop themselves up with lies about how wonderful life is. Kind of like an old "I Love Lucy" episode where they were caught writing back home and didnt want to tell everyone that they were just a nothing, a cog, and have nothing at home too. But they sure do have a cafe latte lifestyle all full of frivolities to distract and keep busy for someone elses purpose. 

the author is oh so quick to detail what she sees around her with her honest eyes"

In fact, do you believe any single woman over 30 is being honest when she claims to be happy that way? I don’t. 

What’s really going on behind that confident demeanour and fulfilled exterior is crushing loneliness and desperation.
 

Single women become adept at playing the isn’t-life-grand game.
 

They have to do it around men so they don’t appear desperate.
 

And they come to do it around other women, too, as I’ve discovered in the course of counselling hundreds of single women in my work as an agony aunt and life coach.
 

This is what happens when the devil gives you advice and you take it.  You end up leaving paradise for another set of digs that is a lot worse for you, a lot better for the devil you listened to, and no way to get back, because that’s the design.  this is what happens when you betray the trust of those closest to you for the advice of strangers claiming to know it all, and to make change that everyone can be proud of. They didn’t know they were not part of everyone, they were part of the no ones that enable the elite who ARE representative of everyone.

The sad truth is that while pretending to take life seriously, they didnt take life seriously. the didnt take it seriously that its not easy finding a compatible mate, and that the older you are the harder it is (since we get set in our ways). they didnt take fertility seriously, so they are kissing up to 40, when their fertility started declining at 25 (nice soft eugenics population control). they didnt listen when someone said "if we abort all these kids who are going to fund your feminist socailst excesses?".

the truth is that they didnt listen to those that had the answers, they listened to those that had sweet little lies that would con them into giving up their lives to extablish a change so that a bunch of sociopathic control freak harpies could then have enough power and enough control to "remake america".

They used all kinds of words to make being a wage slave glamorous. they gave you sex in the city to show you how much fun it could be (while your own private life called rome burns).  they gave you promises of endless sex, no commitments, a bright future given on a slver platter by the state, children without caring for them, lower crime, higher standards, and so on.

never at any time did most of the women think of not trusting women. never did they realize that they are so gullible they will buy soap with fruit in it. a primitive version of the miser monkey bathing in the scarse wealth of life: food. never did they really ask - HOW.

Dont believe me?

Susie, 38, a music industry lawyer, is a classic case of portraying the sunny single when inside she’s utterly miserable.
 

In therapy sessions with me, she despaired of her secret search for a man.
 

I say "secret search", because two years previously she’d stopped being honest with people and telling them she hoped to settle down, at the very least, with a Mr Maybe Right.
 

Susie felt ashamed of living a lie  -  and finally confessed she always pretends to be cheerful about her single status.
 

"How would other people feel coming back to an empty flat after a long, hard day with no one to talk to or cuddle?
 

"They have no idea how good they’ve got it. Yet I’ve got too much pride to say: ‘I desperately want to meet someone.’"
 

Susie’s not alone in this huge and damaging game of female fakery.
 

No she isn’t. What’s worse is that as she gets older she will trade that single lonely apartment, her "room of her own" for the antiseptic halls of soft euthanasia elder care.  where she gets to enjoy her later years among the halls where the people are not cared for, there is a smell of fluids, and no grandchildren, family, or real friends around.  Her last moments will not be in a room with her loved ones gathered around as it was in the past before women ran the world.

We haven’t gotten that far yet…    that will be the UK Mail piece in 20 years… after they have come to be resigned to their fate as there is nothing else that they can do. After all, 70 is the new 20 is a delusion, not a time machine.

The best part of the article the author draws the attention to the propaganda that is supporting such delusional thinking. That at best its making a circular argument. the exact dialectic that gets a girl to have sex early is the dialectic used on them. The press reports and the ladies pretend and like a bunch of boys in the locker room they think they are freaks if they haven’t had even a little sex. After all everyone else is having lots of it.

Well they are upset that they are abnormal, that they aren’t happy. And everyone else is happy, just look at the sex in the city girls!  And the parties, and all the freedom…  everyone else must be happy and it’s not PC to rock the boat, they may not like it.

Why, like Susie, do they pretend to be a satisfied single? Because when it comes to love and marriage, and romance and relationships, the way we think has changed little over time.

Yes, outwardly women in 2008 are supposed to aspire to careers and self-fulfilment, but inwardly they also long to satisfy an urge that’s been around as long as humankind: to connect with a partner  -  and if their biological clock is ticking  -  to fulfil it and produce children together.

It’s absolute tosh to think it’s any other way. The human species would die out if this weren’t the case.

In her musings, she hits the nail on the head. That it was easier to get women to not have babies or abort them by social manipulation than it would be to march the 47 million into a camp and exterminate them as socialists did in the past.

Those too stupid to not get the game (or unlucky to be partnered with such), were the ones to have their life trees pruned. Every one of us is a living direct line lineage to the first creature that ever was ‘alive’.  A complete and unbroken thread that survived plagues, animals, disasters, other people, wars, starvation, accidents, and more…  All that to be done in by a set of people who changed the values around so that you would miss the bus come time to get to where you REALLY want to be.

If one can change the system when one tricks them, then one only needs to trick them long enough.

Its too late for the majority of these women… it’s also too late for the west since there is no next generation to take up the reigns and progress onward.  Pretty soon there is going to be a lot of old people walking around. not only that but they are going to be old and bitter that the world they were so smart in making never even reached the world they destroyed. So they are not going to vote in a manner that will help the younger generation, they are seculars going out, and there is no moral reason to do so. Is there?

To give an idea of the kind of prison they constructed for themselves:

I once coached a nationally known TV personality in her late 30s  -  I’ll call her Sarah  -  who hated going back to her empty flat after long weeks of filming.

She had an image of being a carefree single, which she felt compelled to maintain.

Privately, though, she was "unhappily unattached" as she called it.

Sarah had invested in a gorgeous flat as her career went from strength to strength.

It was beautifully decorated and she surrounded herself with every luxury. But she was depressed and longed for a partner.

"How do I meet someone when I’m always pretending to be happy the way I am?" she used to ask me.

What a pickle. Men when they worked, worked for family. That personal sacrifice that was belittled meant that women couldn’t find that meaning in work, or else men could. So they are stuck in a vicious mental circle they don’t know how to get out of. This is the problem when you dine with devils. As the trailer for 8mm said "when you dance with the devil the devil don’t change, you do".  So the trick is not learning to dance better, its in learning who not to dance with, who are the devils.

Such things often lead to extremes.

Often I’ve come across women who have sworn to stay away from men after an acrimonious breakup, only to find themselves more lonely than ever.

Sylvie, 46, a charity fundraiser, was in a relationship until the age of 37.

Deeply hurt when her former partner cheated on her, she decided she’d had enough of men "for a few years".

But, on hitting 40, she became increasingly lonely and frustrated by a situation of her own making.

"Once I’d put up a front as a happy single, I found it hard to drop," she told me. 

Sylvie feels a fraud pretending that she’s living life on her terms. She told me that being without a partner was like being a book without a cover.

 The men are saying about now "What happened to fish and bicycles"?

Before the men get too excited, remer what a book cover is for and what happens to it when it can’t do its job.

It sure looks to me that women have a very long long long and lonely road back to where they were when the utopians took them on a wild goose chase. It’s what happens when you chase will o the wisps…  you never catch the lie, and the seeking often destroys you. But that’s from the culture of dead white men, what do they know?

Looks like we can get used to a lot more reality articles, and soul searching articles, and a rich plethora of blame the males for not being everything that women ever wanted.

what we are not going to get is a bunch of happy (older lonely) women.

Well Solanas of SCUM Manifesto claim may get her wish after all.

The future looks interesting… with what countries are doing to their people the women in the west will either have to become bi/lesbian, or marry the surfiet of males from China or Islam.

Given this ruling, a campaign for selective births among single women will create a huge disparity between sexes. Then the unintentional outcome will happen. The old ways will return as the mens value will go up, men will be like lions.  If you dont believe me, study college hookup culture where the few desireable males get to have a the best of the female population do wacky things and debase themselves for the connection.

 

‘Sorry love, Unwanted fathers go in the yellow bags.’

Fathers aren’t needed say MPs: Commons decides IVF babies can do without a male role model

 

The requirement for fertility doctors to consider a child’s need for a male role model before giving women IVF treatment was scrapped by MPs.

In a free vote, they swept away the rule despite impassioned pleas that the Government plan would "drive another nail into the coffin of the traditional family".

Labour rebels said it would send entirely the wrong signal to society as Britain faces a crisis in responsible parenting. The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, had warned it would remove the father from the heart of the family.

He accused the Government of putting the interests of "consumers" who want to become parents before the welfare of children. But in the Commons, ministers won support for the legislation.
 

Voting was 292 to 217, a majority of 75. In a second vote, a Tory attempt to underline the need for a father or "male role model" was rejected by 290 votes to 222, a majority of 68.

Three senior Conservatives  -  Shadow Chancellor George Osborne, Cabinet Office spokesman Francis Maude and justice spokesman Nick Herbert, who is openly gay  - were the only members of the shadow Cabinet to back the Government.

Mr Osborne’s vote will cause most surprise, since it reveals a split with party leader David Cameron on the issue.

 

Three Cabinet ministers  -  Culture Secretary Andy Burnham, Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly and Welsh Secretary Paul Murphy  -  voted against the Government.

It emerged later that Mr Burnham, a rare champion of marriage on the Labour front bench, felt so strongly that he scrapped a visit to the Cannes film festival to be in the Commons.

 

Mr Cameron also voted for keeping the "father" requirement, while Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg were against.

The Government argued that the law as it stood discriminated against single women and lesbian couples  -  although both these groups can already get fertility treatment on the Health Service. From now on, doctors will have to consider only a child’s need for "supportive parenting".

The legislation will also allow two women both to be registered formally as a child’s "mother" on birth certificates.

In a highly-charged three-hour debate, former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith, who led the revolt against the plans, said it was essential to recognise the importance to a developing child of a father figure.

"Taking it away will be as though we are saying that this is not an issue, that fathers are not important," he added.

The Government’s emphasis on "supportive parenting" sends a message to society that "fathers are less important than mothers", he warned.

Mr Duncan Smith said there is clear evidence that children growing up without fathers are more likely to fail in school, develop drug addiction and alcohol problems.

"This is common sense," he insisted. "All we are saying is, ‘Take consideration of the need of a child for a father’, not, "If you don’t have a father you will never get treatment".’

Labour rebel Geraldine Smith said there was no evidence that any lesbian or single women had been denied IVF treatment because of the ‘need for a father’ clause.

The Morecambe MP added: "I can’t see what harm is being done by saying to a lesbian couple or a single woman going for IVF, ‘Can you consider the need for a father or a potential father figure?’ It may be a grandfather. It may be a relative.

"Even having that discussion must do some good. This is about common sense and what is in the best interests of the child and, yes, fathers do have a role to play.

"Is there any wonder people think politicians are out of touch with ordinary people when we have debates such as this?"

Iris Robinson, of the Democratic Unionist Party, claimed the Government was "airbrushing out" the role of fathers. Some MPs wanted to "facilitate immorality" and put lesbians’ rights above everyone else, she added. "I stand by my faith and I stand by the word of God that says Man was created in the image of God and woman was created from the rib of Adam," she told the House.

"She became the helpmate and the companion of Man. It is the natural progression of procreation.

"The word of God says procreation is through a man and a woman and we are moving mountains to facilitate immorality and bringing in the rights of lesbians above all others in this country. It is a shame and you ought to hang your heads in shame."

Labour MP Emily Thornberry, defending the Government’s plans, said: "It’s wrong to make judgments about families and tell one family they are normal and another family that they are abnormal. It is wrong to vilify single parents. It is wrong to discriminate against lesbian couples."

Health Minister Dawn Primarolo insisted that blocking the Government’s plans would have posed "a practical impediment" to lesbians and single women obtaining treatment.

She said the legislation was not intended to "send a wider message to the whole population about family structures".

Polls have found that eight out of ten people believe a child has a right to two parents and that six out of ten believe that a child should have male and female parents.

Critics accuse Labour of a systematic attempt to undermine traditional family roles. It has removed the terms "husband", "wife" and "spouse" from a wide range of official forms, and replaced them with the word "partner".

This week, the party’s deputy leader Harriet Harman was criticised after insisting ministers would not promote marriage. She said higher rates of family separation were a "positive" because they suggested people had "greater choice".

 

 

Fathers were last night effectively declared an irrelevance in modern Britain.
 

  

Mother’s prenatal stress predisposes their babies to asthma and allergy

Women who are stressed during pregnancy may pass some of that frazzlement to their fetuses in the form of increased sensitivity to allergen exposure and possibly future asthma risk, according to researchers from Harvard Medical School who presented their findings at the American Thoracic Society’s 2008 International Conference in Toronto on Sunday.

“While predisposition to asthma may be, in part, set at birth, the factors that may determine this are not strictly genetic. Certain substances in the environment that cause allergies, such as dust mites, can increase a child’s chance of developing asthma and the effects may begin before birth,” said Rosalind J. Wright, M.D., M.P.H., assistant professor of medicine at Brigham & Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School. Mother’s stress during pregnancy can also influence the babies developing immune system. While animal studies suggest that the combination of stress and allergen exposure during pregnancy may magnify the effects on the immune system, this is the first human study to examine this directly. The researchers analyzed levels of maternal stress and mother’s exposure to dust mite allergen in their homes while pregnant with respect to cord blood IgE expression—a marker of the child’s immune response at birth— in 387 infants enrolled in the Asthma Coalition on Community, Environment, and Social Stress (ACCESS) project in Boston. They found increased levels of IgE expression in cord blood among infants whose mothers experienced higher level stress even when exposed to relatively low levels of dust mite during pregnancy. This indicates that mother’s stress during pregnancy magnified the effect of dust exposure on the child’s immune system such that the child’s immune response at birth may be altered even with lower levels of dust exposure in the home. The results held true regardless of the mother’s race, class, education or smoking history. “This research adds to a growing body of evidence that links maternal stress such as that precipitated by financial problems or relationship issues, to changes in children’s developing immune systems, even during pregnancy,” said Dr. Wright. “This further supports the notion that stress can be thought of as a social pollutant that, when ‘breathed’ into the body, may influence the body’s immune response similar to the effects of physical pollutants like allergens, thus adding to their effects.” While these findings are important, Dr. Wright noted that only with continued follow-up of these children will they know if these effects will result in increased asthma risk. Moreover, it will be important to replicate these findings in larger populations to give a clearer picture of the relationship between prenatal maternal stress, allergen exposure and subsequent childhood asthma development. “It is notable that these findings were obtained in a U.S. urban population, which may be more likely to be simultaneously exposed to multiple factors, including stress and indoor allergens. More studies like this may help explain why asthma occurs more frequently in these high-risk groups,” said Junenette Peters, Sc.D., postdoctoral research fellow who presented these results. In the meantime, the findings suggest that when such exposures—prenatal stress, allergen exposure— occur together, there is a magnified increase in risk, which supports the assessment of maternal psychological well-being along with other environmental factors as part of a prenatal health program. Source: American Thoracic Society

 

 Having children later in life is fraught with a lot more stress. Working in a job during your pregnancy, rather than being home, is also fraught with a lot more stress. Carrying the baby to the last minute while working as if its not there is very stressful, as is commuting, and other things. Being a single parent because society no longer supports women as women, is even more stressful.

Well isn’t this just a peachy piece of precedence? The non custodial father of a 18 year old girl, goes to jail because she fails to earn a GED while truant in moms custody.

Man Jailed After Daughter Fails To Get GED

A Fairfield man is in jail because his daughter hasn’t gotten her General Equivalency Diploma (GED).

A judge ordered the father to stay on top of his daughter’s education months ago and when that order wasn’t followed, Brian Gegner was sentenced to 180-days in the Butler County jail.

The daughter, Brittany Gegner, says her father shouldn’t be punished for her problems.

Especially, she says because she’s now 18, an adult.

"It’s ridiculously wrong," said Brittany Gegner.

"Of all the punishments they could have given him, to make him go to jail?," she asked. "I mean, probation – until I get my GED – would be reasonable, but to send him to jail? That’s overboard."

Butler County Juvenile Court Judge David Niehaus ordered Gegner to jail for contributing to the delinquency of a minor by not following a court order which required Gegner to be sure his daughter got her GED.

This comes after ongoing problems of Brittany skipping classes at Fairfield High School and then, Butler Tech.

While Brian Gegner had custody of her, Brittany says it was while she lived with her mother that she was truant.

"I’m about to be 19 and my Dad’s being punished for something I did when I was 16," she said.

"It’s like I should, if anybody should be punished for this," said Brittany. "I would way rather me go to jail than my Dad."

"They probably should have punished me if they were going to punish anybody," said Brittany’s mother Shana Roach. "Because she did live with me at the time, but because he had the custody, that’s why he’s being punished."

"But I don’t understand the punishment all together because she’s going to school, she’s been going for four months," said Roach. "The only thing that’s holding her back is she can’t pass her math test."

Brittany has a daughter who’s about 18-months-old.

She says she’s determined to pass the GED for her daughter – and her father.

The judge says if she passes the test, her father could get out of jail before his six-months sentence is up.

Brittany’s step-mother worries the time in jail will ruin their family.

She says he could lose the job he’s worked for 15-years.

"I never dreamed they would put him in jail for this – for six months – it’s crazy," said Stephanie Gegner, Brittany’s step-mother.

"He has no control over what his adult daughter does," she said. "He just doesn’t."

Court administrators say that even though Brittany is an adult now, the case remains active in their court because she was a juvenile when the problems started.

They say this type of punishment is rare and reserved for extreme cases when court orders aren’t met.