tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post2309891291895786449..comments2024-03-25T19:48:24.624+11:00Comments on Oz Conservative: The unhappiest award goes to...Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-32162899070973795122011-12-05T09:04:28.255+11:002011-12-05T09:04:28.255+11:00Georgina Charlotte said,
"If we don't ap...Georgina Charlotte said,<br /><br />"If we don't appreciate and take advantage of all the things previous generations have done, or our parents' efforts, or the hard work of people in the here and now, what is the point of all their blood, sweat, and tears?"<br /><br />If we don't reproduce ourselves into the future the same question applies and everyone seeking personal fulfilment in areas such as careers as the highest good puts that directly at risk.<br /><br />"There is a lovely psalm that sums up this basic philosophy. I can't remember it exactly but it is something like, "Her lyre is the fruit of her hands, and may her works sing her praises at the gates." <br /><br />That's Proverbs 31. It also says:<br /><br />“Charm is deceitful and beauty is passing, But a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be praised.”Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-56820795238704410542011-12-04T19:01:43.787+11:002011-12-04T19:01:43.787+11:00If you read Dalrock, I comment there as Doomed Har...<i>If you read Dalrock, I comment there as Doomed Harlot, as noted above, and so you may have read my nattering on my personal issues before.</i><br /><br />Wait Georginna you're Doomed Harlot? Interesting.Elizabeth Smithhttp://alcestiseshtemoa.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-29606789770965579472011-12-03T11:35:36.903+11:002011-12-03T11:35:36.903+11:00I worked at a convenience store in my small town f...I worked at a convenience store in my small town for a little less than a year, getting paid decent wages; I had started to save up some money to take a trip with my dad, and it was only part time. But even with all that, I wouldn't have been able to stand the thought of staying there for a significant amount of time. Compare this to my brother, who is now working there; he loves it, is right at home there, and I doubt he'll leave unless we move.<br />I would much rather be at home, watching my younger siblings, writing, and teaching myself the violin.<br />The strange thing is that my manager once said, in my hearing but not to me, "If my husband told me to quite my job, I would do it. I wish he would." She's in her late 40s, I think.<br />It's interesting when the mask slips and women show how empty their lives are as they find themselves freer to pursue a career.Laura Elizabethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15043576932031107768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-71847260595617145452011-12-03T10:31:38.888+11:002011-12-03T10:31:38.888+11:00Tim,
I didn't think you sounded mean. You s...Tim, <br /><br />I didn't think you sounded mean. You sounded honest. That's what I am looking for on-line! So thank you.<br /><br />I don't pretend to have all the answers in the search for meaning. I don't think anyone does. But I have thought about it a lot since I was very little. My perspective is very much informed by the incredible privilege of having been born into a peaceful, prosperous, and civil western country in the 20th century. I have a profound consciousness of benefiting from the efforts of countless people who came before me to create the bounty around me -- from material comforts to the eradication of diseases to the creation of systems for ordering a peaceful and civil society to the production of enriching works of philosophy and art.(And yes, for the mothers and homemakers out there, I also am aware of my debt to the mother who bore me and raised me.) And lastly, I am acutely conscious of the debt I owe to all the people in our society who make it as comfortable as it is-- like the sanitation worker who cleans the garbage off the street, or the appointment clerk who gets my medical appointment scheduled, or the people who make sure that offices, and airports, and stores are clean, and the list goes on and on, and includes the more obvious ones like the doctor who makes sure I am healthy and pain free.<br /><br />My acute consciousness of the efforts of others informs my search for meaning. I have concluded that the search for meaning has a two-fold aspect: (1) To enjoy life! If we don't appreciate and take advantage of all the things previous generations have done, or our parents' efforts, or the hard work of people in the here and now, what is the point of all <i>their</i> blood, sweat, and tears? (2) To do whatever I can to contribute to the furthering of human happiness, whether in a large or small way, according to the opportunities and abilities I have. While I suppose it is humorous on some level for an attorney to talk about furthering human happiness, my work does in fact contribute to the orderly nature of our society and the possibility of fairness and justice when disputes arise. And there are other ways to contribute besides one's paid employment -- through positive family relationships, through the upbringing of a child or children, through charitable endeavors, through artistic endeavors, and through activism and other efforts to help improve the lot of people suffering in less hospitable corners of our society and the globe. <br /><br />There is a lovely psalm that sums up this basic philosophy. I can't remember it exactly but it is something like, "Her lyre is the fruit of her hands, and may her works sing her praises at the gates." Now, I don't claim that my point of view will be satisfying to everyone or is the ultimate secret to happiness and meaning; but it does occur to me that this kind of attitude can help men who are wondering about their role in a world of shifting gender norms. There are plenty of ways to be of service outside the traditional blueprint. <br /><br />Thank you for putting up with me, Tim (and Mark too) and for being a good sport.Georgina Charlottenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-35797743774675558272011-12-03T09:32:02.534+11:002011-12-03T09:32:02.534+11:00Georgina,
As a famous man once said, Methinks tho...Georgina,<br /><br />As a famous man once said, Methinks thou protesteth too much...<br /><br />MarkyMarkMarkyMarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02710045100037253902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-38617834339075597742011-12-03T09:07:57.537+11:002011-12-03T09:07:57.537+11:00I think the larger question is one of meaning. Wh...I think the larger question is one of meaning. What is the "meaning" of your life if you have achieved a career at the expense of fertility? There is always a subtraction in all avenues of life. Feminism may have made it easier for a woman to become a lawyer, but I think its safe to say that it comes at the expense of motherhood. Presently, the zeitgeist of the time is that a woman should wait until she has self-designed before she starts a family. However, it should also be noted that there have been high achieving women in the past who have had both careers and families. The only difference is back then women did not wait until they had self-designed. My grandmother was married at 26 and had nine kids. She also earned a Master's Degree at night. <br /><br />I don't feel like I am devaluing your experience. We are probably not that different. I'm 42, my sister is 39, she was married and divorced. She avoids women with children because of the female civil war that's going on. I hope you don't think that I think you are some sort of bad person, lol! I don't. You're a normal woman in this day and age. Of course women teachers, nurses and so on are critical to society, and I don't think women should be in the kitchen making babies. Mostly we here in these men's blogs are wondering aloud to one another where we fit in the scheme of things, and muse about how society will be formed in the future. According to feminism, we are going back to the future, living as we did in pre-history, before patriarchy, when men and women were co-partners. Kind of like Clan of the Cave Bear. Like I say, I am not a traditionalist, I'm just trying to figure out the angles. It's really up to women to decide. We men are bystanders. Sure, we may build bridges, etc, but women shape our domestic lives, and we'll just have to see what happens. Sorry if I sounded mean to you earlier. Who knows, maybe you will have a kid soon! I can't say I don't enjoy freedom of choice, myself. Good luck.Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-39387335910044510012011-12-03T08:48:30.110+11:002011-12-03T08:48:30.110+11:00Women have a brief window of opportunity in which ...<i>Women have a brief window of opportunity in which to conceive a healthy child, and that is between their late teens and late twenties, a time of peak fertility. This is also true of men. Acknowledging this is painful to a blank slate equalist, because human pride says the opposite - that we can conceive after we have self-designed, well into our forties, after our careers have established.</i><br /><br />Well, you've called me a blank slate equalist, yet I don't think it's painful. I don't mind acknowledging that my fertility has an endpoint, one that has likely already arrived. It's just a fact of life, like the fact that you and I will both die one day. I don't love these facts but it's not "painful to acknowledge." Your assumptions about the inner emotional states of people you don't know are a bit off. <br /><br />(By the way, your facts on fertility are a little off. A woman's fertility certainly reaches her peak in her early 20s, but that doesn't mean that a woman has to get pregnant by 25 in order to have a healthy baby. Even at 35, a woman's chance of conceiving within a year is 75%. Even at 40 when fertility really starts nosediving even more rapidly than before, a woman has a good 40-50%chance. And the vast majority of babies born to women in their 30s and 40s are healthy.)Georgina Charlottenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-7568719535396763882011-12-03T07:54:25.037+11:002011-12-03T07:54:25.037+11:00You give yourself away when you say that "fem...<i>You give yourself away when you say that "feminism has created a culture in which employees... Firstly, feminism has turned mothers into "employees" - by your own admission. How exactly is that progress? Who benefits? Why exactly is it better to be an employee than a mother?</i><br /><br />Feminism didn't turn women into employees. The industrial revolution turned both men and women into employees. (And employers too.)<br /><br />Your question implies that women's work is of no value to society. No matter how hard a woman works at her paid employment, it can be considered to have no social benefit (in your view). Your question also implies that the benefits to women themselves is of no import. Talk about devaluing women! <br /><br /><i>What is the point of being a full time lawyer and trying to conceive a child in one's forties so they can have a beautiful hobby as a flex-time parent?</i><br /><br />Ummm . . . to put food on the table, to serve my family, to serve my community, to make it easier for other women who have similar dreams, to enjoy life, and to pass the baton of the good life onto the next generation in some way. Do you really think that a woman who labors night and day to secure the fairest possible results for her clients, and to pay her taxes, and to support herself and her husband and possibly her child is "simply . . . nothing" and that such a life has no point? Really? There is only ONE blueprint, only one way for a woman to live a life that has any "point" in your view? <br /><br />Can't you see how that's just a bit extreme? Of course, this is why freedom of choice is so important. No one else can decide for another what constitutes a life well-lived.Georgina Charlottenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-1418821408101763482011-12-03T04:46:32.630+11:002011-12-03T04:46:32.630+11:00Since we are talking about happiness, I think one ...<i>Since we are talking about happiness, I think one secret to happiness is the recognition that there is no human being who is "simply . . . nothing." All human beings have inherent worth. Forgetting that is a sure path to developing a contemptuous habit of thought that ultimately poisons one's own soul.</i><br /><br />This is blank slate equalism again. All is nothing and nothing is all because we are all everything and everything is nothing. <br /><br />Her point was clear. What is the point of being a full time lawyer and trying to conceive a child in one's forties so they can have a beautiful hobby as a flex-time parent?Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-59106710416539462732011-12-03T04:42:10.864+11:002011-12-03T04:42:10.864+11:00As for your scenario with the breast feeding emerg...<i>As for your scenario with the breast feeding emergency, it seems a bit tortured and unlikely. But if this ever actually happened at the exact same time I happened to be in court, I would simply say, "I need to leave unexpectedly due to a family emergency." Emergencies happen all the time. I once was in a court hearing in which the (male) lawyer on the other side suffered a sudden attack of diarrhea, causing the hearing to be postponed half way through. But this highlights another positive about feminism. In the past, working women (and as noted above, women have always worked) paid serious penalties for events like this -- and in fact, still do, in many jobs. But feminism has helped create a culture in which employees are more likely to treat parenting emergencies just like other kinds of emergencies.</i><br /><br />I think the point she is making is that raising children cannot be viewed as a part-time hobby. It will absorb all of your energy. You give yourself away when you say that "feminism has created a culture in which <b>employees</b>... Firstly, feminism has turned mothers into "employees" - by your own admission. How exactly is that progress? Who benefits? Why exactly is it better to be an employee than a mother?Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-10395877990921099562011-12-03T04:36:05.311+11:002011-12-03T04:36:05.311+11:00but hey, at least they are "strong, independe...but hey, at least they are "strong, independent women"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-29476979735675193312011-12-03T04:31:08.838+11:002011-12-03T04:31:08.838+11:00Oh please. Homemaking doesn't transcend the ma...<i>Oh please. Homemaking doesn't transcend the materialist and the transient any more than any other life choice. Your life choice and my life choice both involve a combination of (1) self-interest and (2) the desire to serve. I am proud of the fact that my choices help other women who want to pursue a similar life-path.</i><br /><br />This is blank slate equalism. You're approach to life is Gnostic. According to you, everything is nothing and nothing is everything. We are all interchangeable because we are all equal. To you, homemaking does not transcend the material, but the point of this blog is...quite the opposite. Homemaking does transcend the material. That's the whole point we are making. The assertion that men and women are different, and have unique roles. Women have a brief window of opportunity in which to conceive a healthy child, and that is between their late teens and late twenties, a time of peak fertility. This is also true of men. Acknowledging this is painful to a blank slate equalist, because human pride says the opposite - that we can conceive after we have self-designed, well into our forties, after our careers have established.Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-47395755057854709162011-12-03T04:20:30.642+11:002011-12-03T04:20:30.642+11:00Most men's low status jobs are not low status ...<i>Most men's low status jobs are not low status compared to the opportunities available to similarly situated women. For example, coal mining and sanitation pay more than cleaning houses. I think this is fair, because as you point out, jobs like mining and sanitation are dangerous. But the point remains that these jobs are not low status compared to what is generally available to women of similar circumstances and education.</i><br /><br />I think what you're saying is construction work is still sexist. In that I would agree with you. Having said that, it has been my experience that work which involves manual labor is best left to men. I know that's a sexist comment, but I base it on experience. I've worked with women in construction, and they have done a fine job, but it always makes the foremen and the owners of the companies nervous when women are on the job. I've also worked as a caregiver, and I can assure you it is better left for women to do. Even the clients prefer women, also. <br /><br />The point I am making is, what is the end goal of liberal autonomy theory? (that one is not fully human until one has self-designed.) It seems to me that liberal autonomy theory is based on the premise that men and women are the same, and are therefore inter-changeable. So when you say that there are not enough positions available for women in construction, what you really mean is men and women are exactly the same. They are "blank slates". <br /><br /><i>And opening up New York's sanitation department to women was a hard-won feminist result.</i><br /><br />Who won? In the context of the "common good" or the "greater good", who won? If it is true that men and women are blank slates and are exactly the same biologically, then yes, I would consider that a victory. But what if we are not the same biologically? What if we are not blank slates? Who benefits when a woman wins the right to work in a man's traditional role, and therefore displaces men? Well, we know that the birth rate does not go up. We also know that it makes women who want to become mothers and home-makers even more burdened, as it raises the cultural expectations of what is expected of a woman. What are we supposed to make of this state of affairs, when motherhood is no longer viewed as something sacred, but rather, nothing more than a beautiful hobby?Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-87216134963887041732011-12-03T03:56:40.168+11:002011-12-03T03:56:40.168+11:00A truly bad example for a feminist to use- especia...<i>A truly bad example for a feminist to use- especially one who lives in a state of denial and would rather pretend that she has control over life itself than sacrifice her pride to save other younger women the same gut wrenching heartache of realizing everything she valued wasn’t worth a darn, and now she is simply...nothing.</i><br /><br />Oh, how did I miss this part! I LOVE this. This kind of comment reveals a lot more about you than anything at all to do with me or other feminists.<br /><br />Since we are talking about happiness, I think one secret to happiness is the recognition that there is no human being who is "simply . . . nothing." All human beings have inherent worth. Forgetting that is a sure path to developing a contemptuous habit of thought that ultimately poisons one's own soul.Georgina Charlottenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-44751142961170881022011-12-03T03:36:26.301+11:002011-12-03T03:36:26.301+11:00A,
Would you wish a materialist, transient exis...A, <br /> <br /><i>Would you wish a materialist, transient existence on anyone else or do the right thing and tell younger women that it’s a mistake?</i><br /><br />Oh please. Homemaking doesn't transcend the materialist and the transient any more than any other life choice. Your life choice and my life choice both involve a combination of (1) self-interest and (2) the desire to serve. I am proud of the fact that my choices help other women who want to pursue a similar life-path. <br /><br />As for your scenario with the breast feeding emergency, it seems a bit tortured and unlikely. But if this ever actually happened at the exact same time I happened to be in court, I would simply say, "I need to leave unexpectedly due to a family emergency." Emergencies happen all the time. I once was in a court hearing in which the (male) lawyer on the other side suffered a sudden attack of diarrhea, causing the hearing to be postponed half way through. But this highlights another positive about feminism. In the past, working women (and as noted above, women have always worked) paid serious penalties for events like this -- and in fact, still do, in many jobs. But feminism has helped create a culture in which employees are more likely to treat parenting emergencies just like other kinds of emergencies.Georgina Charlottenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-77842982596251531372011-12-03T02:35:29.302+11:002011-12-03T02:35:29.302+11:00Liesel,
What gets me is the continues focus on t...Liesel, <br /><br /><i>What gets me is the continues focus on the high-status, high earning jobs that feminists belive women deserve. Why not advacate for position in which women are outnumbered by men: any low status job that is also dirty, difficult or dangerous job - Low status remember so attempts to get women in infantry don't count.</i><br /><br />Ummmmmm. Where to start. The premise of the question is kind of crazy -- why don't women fight to do crap work that no one wants to do? Except it's not exactly the case that no one wants to do the crap work, and it's not exactly the case that women haven't fought to get into those crap jobs.<br /><br />1) Women already occupy dirty, extremely low status jobs in significant percentages. <br /><br />2) Most men's low status jobs are not low status compared to the opportunities available to similarly situated women. For example, coal mining and sanitation pay more than cleaning houses. I think this is fair, because as you point out, jobs like mining and sanitation are dangerous. But the point remains that these jobs are not low status compared to what is generally available to women of similar circumstances and education.<br /><br />3) Which is why women have, in fact, fought for the right to work as miners and sanitation workers. In my country, there have been class-action suits brought by women for the right to work in coal mines. And opening up New York's sanitation department to women was a hard-won feminist result. (And lest you think, sanitation work involves only dirt, it is also one of the most dangerous professions out there.)Georgina Charlottenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-36306232255046609952011-12-03T01:50:56.223+11:002011-12-03T01:50:56.223+11:00Did you know it is much easier to enslave someone ...Did you know it is much easier to enslave someone if they can't see the cage? You are getting a false sense of reward as you lose the control over your destiny Georgina.<br /><br />Autonomy means anything we can't choose ourselves must be discarded-okay then we don't choose to breathe, so we should stop doing that and our hearts pump blood around our bodies. We don't choose to think, so we should discard this too? Does this sound insane?<br /><br />For the small part of you Georgina who knows somewhere very deep down that a woman's distinct role is just as important to life as bodily functions that keep us alive or the ability to think, I say this. Because to deny this, is just as crazy as denying the ability to think. You can do it- but you'd be poorer for it and eventually biology will win out. Obviously it has- or you wouldn’t be trying to have a child at all but you’ve more than likely slammed your chance shut. I implore you to depart this world of denial- it’s too late for you but there are women in the here and now, who can still get married and have children, who think that the feminists have it made. Would you wish a materialist, transient existence on anyone else or do the right thing and tell younger women that it’s a mistake?<br />And Elizabeth I was a monarch who was fulfilling a duty higher than herself to the country she was born to rule in the absence of male heirs. According to anyone like you, a woman like that can't be terribly great because her royalty was not chosen. She made sacrifices for the prosperity of England because she was a royal, and it was her duty to put her country first.<br />A truly bad example for a feminist to use- especially one who lives in a state of denial and would rather pretend that she has control over life itself than sacrifice her pride to save other younger women the same gut wrenching heartache of realizing everything she valued wasn’t worth a darn, and now she is simply...nothing.<br />As for nothing inherently female about staying home with a baby- Georgina have you seen yourself in a mirror lately? A woman can nurse her infant; a man can't without a bottle. <br />Scenario: Oh no- he heated it up and tested it and the bottle accidentally fell and spilled. It was the last of the stored breast milk in the fridge. Your husband can call you as your baby screams, but wait- there’s a big case and you’re too busy in a courtroom. A note gets passed to you discretely by that male legal aide, and you have a choice. You can anger your client and the law firm to tend to your child or you can let your baby wait- when he/she needs you more than anyone else in the world.<br />Formula compromises a child’s basic immune system whilst they are too young for any immunization and breast milk gives them health and growth in all departments aside from immunity. <br />Our ears and sleeping patterns are conducive to high pitch noises so that we can wake and tend to our babies. So, we're as women, uniquely capable for raising their infants in ways a man can't at just a few basic examples. There are many, many more.A.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-15472267080379028882011-12-03T01:18:11.106+11:002011-12-03T01:18:11.106+11:00"Not all women are desirable to men on virtue..."Not all women are desirable to men on virtue of just being a woman."<br /><br />yeah, some fat in the right places helps though.<br /><br />http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/850/alwaysmorefriendsonface.png/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-63956336442183492512011-12-03T01:16:16.200+11:002011-12-03T01:16:16.200+11:00I have an engineering degree but I work part time ...I have an engineering degree but I work part time because it would be a complete betrayal of my duty to my husband and children to do otherwise. <br /><br /><i> Second, I actually agree with you that in an ideal world women would use their talents, education and skills to the utmost to contribute to society beyond just the wellbeing of their immediate family. </i><br /><br />The best way for women to contribute to society is to raise well adjusted children - an impossiblity with 2 full-time working professionals. And no, the mother & father role are not interchangable so dad cannot take moms place at home.<br /><br />What gets me is the continues focus on the high-status, high earning jobs that feminists belive women deserve. Why not advacate for position in which women are outnumbered by men: any low status job that is also dirty, difficult or dangerous job - Low status remember so attempts to get women in infantry don't count.Lieselnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-19783852861971184972011-12-02T19:34:27.049+11:002011-12-02T19:34:27.049+11:00"The first point is, as a man, I need the sta..."The first point is, as a man, I need the status boost of a well-paid career in order to attract a female."<br />No you don't.<br /><br />"Men cannot show up with our naked selves and expect a woman to love us, just for who we are. In other words, men have no erotic capital."<br />I must be the exception.<br />"Women, on the other hand, need only be breathing to attract a man."<br />Not all women are desirable to men on virtue of just being a woman.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-60699159588173964932011-12-02T18:23:45.726+11:002011-12-02T18:23:45.726+11:00But that's quite different than adopting a pas...<i>But that's quite different than adopting a passive stance of dependence in the hope it might influence another adult to be a productive member of society.</i> <br /><br />How so? How is being a full time homemaker passive? I can answer the question myself. It is passive because according to liberal autonomy theory, one is not fully human until one has self-designed. <br /><br /><i>You also raised what you call liberal autonomy theory. I think you are saying that I am somehow thwarting my own true nature by not having a baby and then staying home with the baby. But I just don't see it. There is nothing uniquely male about arguing a case in court, nor is anything uniquely female about taking care of young children. I don't believe there is a courtroom genome, or a diaper-changing genome.</i> <br /><br />No, I agree with you that it is not inherently natural for a woman to be some sort of fount of nurturing. It requires discipline and devotion to duty, something most women today balk at. You are not thwarting your own true nature by working as a professional. On the contrary, you are succumbing to it. It takes an effort of the will to turn a female from savage to woman, but it can be done, and has been done. The liberal autonomy theory I was referring to is the notion that one is not fully human until one has self-designed. <br /><br />By the way, I am not actually a traditionalist. My surfing these men's sites is a hobby. My own personal concern is as I mentioned earlier, external threats. We don't really face physical threats anymore. The biggest threat I see is unfunded liabilities. We have enjoyed for decades now the magical social security check which eases the pain of retirement. However, without "boots on the ground" working, we'll have to say goodbye to those social security checks, and that spells poverty for seniors. No children = no social security checks = death. Then of course the other issue is waiting until you are 40 to have children. This notion that one should wait until they are self-designed to have kids is starting to get old. Anyway, I'm done for now, will continue later. By the way...if you are already a lawyer and successful ...why do you even want kids at such an advanced age? It won't increase your own sense of personal fulfillment, I can guarantee you that.Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-41872137007328808302011-12-02T18:03:13.463+11:002011-12-02T18:03:13.463+11:00Charlotte,
In order to make sense of this convers...Charlotte,<br /><br />In order to make sense of this conversation we're having, it's sensible to first state that, for the most part, these manosphere blogs are not concerned with individual rights. It's more a matter of the common good that is of concern to me. A lot of men think this way, because we're conditioned to always be watchful for external threats. So we're actually talking past one another. As a woman, you are concerned with personal autonomy, but that is not what I am talking about at all. How we balance our rights and freedoms with the greater good is my concern. <br /><br />When you say that it is hypocritical for men to be encouraged to chase after high-paying jobs and not to do the same for women, I would counter with a couple of points. The first point is, as a man, I need the status boost of a well-paid career in order to attract a female. Females do not. Men cannot show up with our naked selves and expect a woman to love us, just for who we are. In other words, men have no erotic capital. Women, on the other hand, need only be breathing to attract a man. That is my first point. The second point is we are not blank slates, women and men. Men have testosterone levels an order of magnitude 14 times higher than women. So men are more driven and more ambitious than women, and they also need to "prove" their worth. It has always been this way. The slower sexual cycle of women has made them the choosers. Men display, women choose. Now if we were the same biologically, and there were no differences between the sexes, then yes, it would be hypocritical to suggest women shouldn't go after high-powered careers. <br /><br />As for you allusion to Communism, I've always felt feminism made the same fatal error: a misdiagnosis of human nature. Feminism believes men and women are "tabula rasa" - blank slates. I know you will deny this, but I have seen too many youtube videos and read too many feminist writings to think otherwise. Equality is the aggrandizement of women at the expense of men. Special workplace rules are enforced to make men comply.Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-4941562366077353092011-12-02T15:50:47.296+11:002011-12-02T15:50:47.296+11:00Women deserve this award. They are the best at eve...Women deserve this award. They are the best at everything.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-34345344613904703562011-12-02T13:11:16.953+11:002011-12-02T13:11:16.953+11:00Oops. I meant to say my chances of conceiving a c...Oops. I meant to say my chances of conceiving a child appear increasingly UNLIKELY due to my age, not likely! Ha ha. A little bit of a slip there!Georgina Charlottenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-2943400464947468852011-12-02T13:08:17.400+11:002011-12-02T13:08:17.400+11:00Tim, I neglected the personal question you have as...Tim, I neglected the personal question you have asked me as to whether I have children. If you read Dalrock, I comment there as Doomed Harlot, as noted above, and so you may have read my nattering on my personal issues before. So if this is repetitive to you, I apologize, but:<br /><br />No, I do not have children. My husband is infertile. I am currently undergoing efforts to conceive with donor sperm, though I learned just this morning in fact that my most recent effort was unsuccessful. I am going to try two more times, but success seems increasingly likely, probably due to my age. <br /><br />This reminds me of a couple other things you said. One, you said that I don't care about the wellbeing of society or its future. I don't think that's fair or representative of anything I said. Second, I believe it was you or perhaps someone else who asked if I would feel responsible for the moral guidance of a son if I had a boy. Obviously, yes. As a parent, I would have the responsibility to provide moral guidance and training to a son. But that's quite different than adopting a passive stance of dependence in the hope it might influence another adult to be a productive member of society. <br /><br />You also raised what you call liberal autonomy theory. I think you are saying that I am somehow thwarting my own true nature by not having a baby and then staying home with the baby. But I just don't see it. There is nothing uniquely male about arguing a case in court, nor is anything uniquely female about taking care of young children. I don't believe there is a courtroom genome, or a diaper-changing genome. <br /><br />There is also the fact that there are plenty of women revered by traditionalists who purposely never had children -- Mother Theresa, brilliant abbesses of great medieval monasteries who renounced relations with men in order to pursue their own intellectual and spiritual interests, the various saints who martyred themselves to preserve their virginity, for non-Catholics Elizabeth I of England -- and on and on. Were these women quasi-men who failed to embrace their full womanhood?Georgina Charlottenoreply@blogger.com