posted December 23, 2008 03:21 AM              

quote:

---

DEPRESSION OF WESTERN WOMEN

There are many indications of the deterioration of the well-being of American women such as high rates of breast cancer, obesity, diabetes, and migraine headaches; however, the most telling characteristic of the decline of the well-being of women is their deteriorating mental state.

The single most significant measure of the state of women in our society and in Western nations in general is their high level of mental illness. The number one debilitating illness of the American woman is depression with upwards of 10 million suffering from this ailment. Three million girls also suffer from depression. Depression has become so widespread that a major criterion in selecting colleges is the competence of their psychiatric staff, and a major criterion in evaluating college applicants is their psychological health.

Antidepressant drugs such as Prozac, Luvox, Paxil, and Zoloft have become household names. Children today probably know these names as well as they do Bayer Aspirin. Knowing the name of these drugs they then think it normal for their mothers to be depressed, and it is normal—not natural—but normal in our society.

Drugs—all drugs—produce dangerous side effects in the body further deteriorating the health of the women who use them. Studies are being made (Western thought loves studies because it knows nothing) on the causative factors of depression among women.

The following is an excerpt from one such study made by a woman who is attempting to blame society for the depression of woman:

The increase in the number of women diagnosed with depression, sometimes when symptoms are minimal, has come on the heels of an approach to treatment known as “biological psychiatry.” In this approach, rather than looking for social, cultural and economic and life stage factors that might be making a woman depressed or anxious, doctors are taught, and patients have come to believe, that the cause of symptoms is biological. This makes it seem logical that a drug is needed and appropriate.

This conclusion is partially right; however, the writer didn’t explore the social cultural and life stage factors that needed to be addressed. An analysis of American women who suffer from depression shows that a disproportionate share consists of those who are white, middle class and single, especially single women with children. This is a social, cultural, and economic grouping whose constituents make up the primary membership of feminism and “women’s liberation” thought. They have become so liberated that they are going out of their minds. They have no concept of family.

Feminists are the one’s who’ve been on psychiatrist’s couches, who belong to support groups, who are on prescription medicines, and who carry anti-depressants and painkillers in their purses.

Western women throughout the world suffer from a disproportionate amount of depression; in Europe depressed women comprise close to 15% of the female population. That’s a disaster. Yet they make up a significant part of the electorate that elects women to political power. Isn’t that amazing? The depressed ones—the nutsey byes of society—wield the political power that affects our lives and in particular laws affecting marriage and the care of our children. It is only in the Western nations that women have risen to political power without some relationship to their husbands and their fathers. It is these Western nations that have the highest rates of female depression. The core constituent group of Hillary Clinton supporters consists of depressed single females, and the media treats that as progress for women.

Those nations where women do not rise to political power have the lowest rates of depression. They also have lower rates of breast and cervical cancer, suicide, divorce, and adultery. They also have children less likely to become unwed mothers, join street gangs and end up in prison. They do not live un-natural “liberated” lives; they live in happy and secure families. The media treats those women as unenlightened, third world people. This is a true travesty of values.

The liberated independent Western woman in the aggregate is the unhappiest woman in the world and she produces children who are likewise. The reason that these women are depressed is because they have been removed from their natural environment and been deprived of their natural function—to bring life into this world and to nurture it. They can only do this if men provide the secure environment and means for this nurturing to take place.

This secure environment is known as the patriarchal structure and it produces family. Men make patriarchy. No men—No patriarchy. No patriarchy—No family. No family—No security. No security produces depressed women.

The Western woman is suffering from depression and there is no government program that will improve her lot.

Surveillance cameras and security guards do not alleviate the problem. There is only one species of life that protects, cares for, and loves women. It’s called man.

---

posted December 31, 2008 02:12 AM            

In many countries, mental illness is shameful and is often hidden by the families of the afflicted.

Perhaps it's due to the precision or perhaps even overdiagnosis of mental illness in the west.

Physicians of all sorts are licensed to give anti-depressants, and they may be medicating a depression caused by a physical illness and not a mental illness.

posted December 31, 2008 09:01 PM            

Sounds like you've got a preoccupation, or maybe that's too light, perhaps it's a fixation, even an obsession?

posted January 03, 2009 09:01 PM            

quote:

---

sounds to ME , if you and other Liberals dont stop moralising international politics I will end up paying for the upbringing of a million B@stards so their s1ut mamas can throw themselves on junkies and bad boys with no regard for responsibility.

---

quote:

---

This secure environment is known as the patriarchal structure and it produces family. Men make patriarchy. No men—No patriarchy. No patriarchy—No family. No family—No security. No security produces depressed women.

---

quote:

---

90% of our killers, drug addicts, teen pregnancies, rapists, child molesters, people with lower marks, poorer paying jobs, bad relationships are a product of ??
SINGLE MOM FAMILIES.

---

quote:

---

There is only one species of life that protects, cares for, and loves women. It’s called man.

---

Oh and btw, the "teen pregnancy is because of single moms" crack – what about dear Mrs. Sarah Palin’s daughter?? She must be an anomaly…..

What a load of strident horsesh!t.
Life should be so black and white, eh?? That would make it so much easier for fearful humans everywhere.....

posted January 03, 2009 09:41 PM            

That way my unwomanly ideas and sense of independence, self-sufficiency and pride in my own achievements won't pollute the rest of the women in the world -- oh what a bad role model I am.

That should do it.

You've filled me with despair over what I've done to my fellow slaves (women) the world over
As a single mom, I have not only NO value as a person, but a NEGATIVE value as a person.

posted January 03, 2009 10:19 PM              

quote:

---

So you suggest I should have stayed with my son’s father who’d get drunk every day and knock me around because he was p!ssed off about losing his job??

---

hey..wait, who said all single mom families arise out of men who have let them down. ??

90 % of divorces involving children are initiated by women, and domestic violence is a muuccchh abused loop by both men and women.

Az, there are always two sides to every coin . remember that.

quote:

---

SINGLE MOM FAMILIES." Huh?? How can we be a "real" family?? Methinks that was an error on the writers part, a mere oversight I'm sure

---

No, that is the statistic that i read many times on many different sites.

Its one thing to be a family and another to potray a family missing a parent as Ideal -because the mother didnt fulfilled in her role as a wife or wanted more happiness or whatever...

posted January 03, 2009 10:28 PM              

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm a 42 year old male who arrived home from a business trip one day to receive the standard about to be a divorced dad package. No warning of course, just locks changed, bank accounts cleaned out, credit cards maxed out, all valuables moved to her parents, and of course a temporary restraining order and false charge of "domestic violence”. I was left with the lesser of our two vehicles, my cell phone, the clothes on my back (from a 3 day business trip), and what I had in my wallet which was about $6.

I went to a friends house to stay the night and try to arrange to see my children but as I couldn't call my soon to be ex this proved pointless. As the days went by I received a pendite lite hearing granting my wife roughly 70% of my take home salary in spousal and child support. They also granted her full exclusive use of my house and everything in it, the nicer of the two vehicles (for the children!), and ordered me to pay that months mortgage payment + all debts not directly associated with the house (read: our credit cards which she maxed out while I was gone).

With the bank accounts, we had just redid out mortgage (much lower interest rate) and had roughly $40,000 within same not including my monthly salary (take home = $5,480.55). I also received an advance of $1500 from my employer to take the very last class for a master’s degree (which I had to pay my employer back for of course). I am paid once a month and she timed it perfectly. When I got back on the 3rd of the month all but $5 was in our joint accounts and she moved all of the money to a newly opened personal account for her and transferred $15,000 to her parents. To make matters worse all the bills including the mortgage and the bill for my final masters class electronically hit on the 5th, 2 days later. So with $6 available to me and no paycheck till the 1st of next month I was ordered to pay that months mortgage of $1450 (plus late fees as she caused this to bounce), $3,800 in support to her, another $350 in student loans, minimum payments on the credit cards of $300 (this was new I paid these off every month religiously), about $400 in bounced check fees which includes getting money to the doctor/dentist/auto shop etc. because the checks I wrote to them bounced, $1500 to my employer for the class I couldn't take as she stole the money for it, somehow find a place a live (rent), and of course buy things like food, gas, etc. Plus there was one more very important wrinkle...

I held one of the highest security clearances available and performed only cleared work which helped justify my salary to my employer. If that DV charge stuck or if I received ANYTHING other than a full not guilty I would lose my clearance and my job INSTANTLY. This meant I had to hire a criminal defense attorney also as losing my job would stop all income and woe be to the heretic that violates the sacrament of child support for any reason whatsoever. That scum only deserves jail - bonus points if their injured, in a coma, on deployment, etc.

I was able to scrape together a $14,500 loan from my credit union to pay for all of the above, find a place to live, and hire 2 lawyers, one to cover the divorce and another to fight the domestic violence charge. At the trial for the "Domestic Violence" charge my now ex swore up and down that I had hit her several weeks before right after returning from a business trip. Naturally she was so traumatized by this experience that she just had to "take action" while I was conveniently away so as to protect herself and prevent me from doing this again upon my return. Fortunately my defense lawyer made chutney of her testimony, demanding she point out on a calendar exactly when it happened, what the weather was like (she said it happened outside), etc. Well she stated, and restated that it was sunny out, about 4pm in the afternoon when in fact it was raining on that day and oh yeah... I wouldn't return for another TWO FULL days, and then it was late at night (no sun), and this day too was rainy - She broke down on the stand and said something to the effect of "Well I know it happened but I don't remember the facts!!!” Not guilty - $1500 for the defense - no restitution for me for the false charge (it won't be the last) and of course no punishment for her for making the false charge.

A few weeks later with the not guilty verdict I was able to get the restraining order cancelled. The order getting cancelled was good as she tried more than once to trick me into "meeting her somewhere to talk about things" and used the children as bait. The first time I agreed to meet but had the sense to have a friend drive by the location and watch the place for an hour before she arrived. About 20 minutes before the meeting was to take place she arrived with her father and a sheriff in tow... Gosh wonder what that meeting would have been like with a live restraining order in place?

It took me 5 months of wrangling before I could actually see my children (I have 3 all under 5 years) and the only way this was allowed was for her to meet me at a local restaurant with them. I had to agree to pay for her and my children’s meals as she was a poor single destitute mother of 3 etc. ad nauseum. Well on one of these meetings I receive a call that my truck (handed to her by the judge "FOR THE CHILDREN!!" wouldn't start. I wanted to see my kids and it had been a few months so like an idiot I agreed to drive us all to the restaurant. 3 weeks later I'm arrested for another false "domestic violence" charge and once again have to pay for a full defense. Seems I "hit" her when I went to pick her up which was of course a lie. Another $1500, no witnesses, no marks, oh and I accidentally recorded the whole meeting with a buttonhole camera that clearly showed I did nothing. I presented this evidence to the judge hoping that this would actually prompt him to consider charges of perjury but I was informed that because of the terrible stress she was under that I should just forgive and forget and oh be a dear and cover the $1500 for my attorney as this is clearly the higher road and what any about to destroyed man should do. Without belaboring this too much another false "Domestic Violence" charge (3rd) was also placed a month later when I was out of town - another $1500, another acquittal.

Right after this my lawyer and her lawyer finally agree on a visitation schedule “graciously” allowing me to see my children twice a month. Naturally she demands I come to the house, alone, sans camera (wants me to sign something promising I won't bring it), to pick up my children. I refuse and demand we do the exchange at a neutral location with cameras, listing the false charges and attempts to put me in jail whenever we're alone. Long story short they refuse, and I have to actually take her to court to demand that she drive 5 minutes (3 miles) down the road to a busy gas station with cameras everywhere for the exchange. I have to drive 62 miles from where I am living but 3 miles is just too much for her. I "win" but I am ordered to pay her legal fees incurred while contesting this ($2000 for my lawyer plus another $2500 for hers). By this time I’ve had to take out two more loans from my father to cover the costs of these shenanigans and my soon to be ex absolutely refuses to let me take out an equity loan on my own house as both our names are on it and she wants it all.

Months go by and the time for the final trial is almost upon us. Property settlement agreements are flying back and forth with ridiculous demands coming from the other side including: She keeps everything she stole, I pay off all "mutual" debt, she gets the house, she keeps all family heirlooms including ones from my family, she keeps the truck, my 10 year old car is sold with the proceeds split 70/30 in her favor, I pay her lawyer $20,000, she gets a raise of alimony/child support to $4400 (from $3800), the alimony of $2400 per month would be for *life* (we were married 8 years), she takes all children off her taxes forever (yes this was bizarre I don't understand it either), she gets the entire tax return for the coming year whatever it is. Obviously I couldn't agree to any of this and so we went to court... she received: 70% of my house (plus all costs associated with selling it to come out of MY meager share when sold), another $2,500 attorney fees, alimony of $2200 for 15 years (she's 30), $1600 child support with yearly adjustments, she got to keep ALL furniture, heirlooms, and anything of value she took as it was just too difficult to separate those things as they had been mingled with her parents stuff. I was awarded ALL debt including the credit cards and (bizarrely) the annual home owners association dues of $600 needed to be paid by me. I got to “generously” keep my car. I was also forced to continue to provide health and dental insurance for the children basically forever. The judge went out of her way to emphasize that although this "seems like a lot" it was really for the best and then threatened me with jail if I couldn't or wouldn't meet all of these obligations.

Months before I was forced to find additional under the table work (contracting for cash) in order to keep up with the frequent demands placed on me. I was working most weekends so I could never see my kids, and furthermore when the time to see them arrived she'd almost always find some excuse to deny my seeing them. The only relief I had centered on a woman I met 8 months after my ex began this, and I was living with her by her good graces as I could afford to pay no rent. Then it happened... On a rare free weekend I went to pick up my kids and when I arrived at the gas station my ex introduced me to her "friend" who would be babysitting my children and she wanted me to meet her (very magnanimous no?). My ex then handed me a pack of pictures for my daughter (her first year in school) and told me there was an order form inside where I could get some more. I pulled out the form and pictures, noted the prices listed on the form, and stuffed it back into the envelope. I couldn't afford to order pics but I could at least scan the ones provided for free and maybe blow them up and print them at work. 3 weeks later I receive a nasty note from her lawyer lauding his performance in court and cynically chiding me for the outcome. Apparently my ex decided that the 'stimulus' package should be hers and she should also be compensated for the hot water heater and roof repair on "my" house so she could sell it and take the money. I claimed I was never served with such a notice AS IT NEVER OCCURRED TO ME TO LOOK INSIDE THE PICTURE ENVELOPE WHERE, TAPED FACE DOWN TO THE BACK AND INSIDE, WAS A SUMMONS. Seems the "babysitter" and "friend" (she is both actually) was also a part time process server and she testified that she handed it to me legally. The gas station tapes had already been recorded over so I couldn't get them as proof and they knew it. Since I wasn't there, my ex won everything she demanded and then some. Another $12,500 for house repairs (how they arrived at this number I have no idea), $5,000 more for attorney fees, the entire stimulus package, and my portion of the tax return I guess to teach me a lesson.

I didn't have anything close to the amount of money they were demanding and my house wasn't selling in this market. To add insult to injury I received a note from the Dept Homeland Security stating that even though I was innocent of the three false DV charges they felt that a “reinvestigation” should take place before allowing me to perform any more cleared work. My clearance was suspended “pending review". No amount of talking to them would suffice and I was let go from my main employer the next day. This is when I made the decision... I called an old college friend I hadn't seen in years and spent an evening talking to him and asked him a huge favor. "Yes" was his answer... Over the next 30 days I applied for as many personal and "signature" loans as possible and I deliberately missed the deadline to pay my ex. A contempt hearing was scheduled and 5 days before it occurred I tearfully said goodbye to my girlfriend, boarded a plane, and left the United States forever.

I am now a "deadbeat dad" and thus evil and I cannot return home. Within 10 years I will owe my ex over $1.1 million dollars assuming 10% interest and no additional court penalties. My passport is good until 2018 but if I ever cross a U.S. border I will be arrested and imprisoned as this slave just couldn't produce enough to satisfy his “massa”. Looking back on all of this (I’ve been abroad now for over a month) I still can't believe how quickly I went from most trusted American citizen to most hated and it still seems a blur. I fully realize that I could easily serve more time for my 'crimes' than I could for murder and the trial for murder would at least involve a jury, rules of evidence, and a presumption of innocence. Let this be a lesson for all those who can't bring themselves to leave: MURDER is now a better solution than being continuously jailed for child support and the dead do not collect alimony... Just another day in paradise I suppose.

You see I was to discover that this was never really about money as my ex has parents who are very well off and promised to take care of her - she needed nothing. Her parents wrote her lawyer a blank check and said do everything you can to get him, destroy him, and put him in jail. She wanted me in prison, period, and money was simply the method to do it. Family court decrees are always backed with threats of violence and contempt orders that jail, jail, and jail without thought or mercy or reason and the corruption is so deep it can't change until the U.S. finally and mercifully collapses. The game is decided from the word "go". I am now desperately trying to find work while in exile, so that I can stop living off the kindness of others. Before I left I served as a Network Architect and I am willing to go anywhere (non west preferred as the tentacles of the U.S. are long and stretch everywhere). We'll see how it goes...

God be with everyone who has had to go through this or had a friend or loved one who has. The first step to getting my life back is to have a goal and before I left I gave what few friends who didn't mindlessly turn on me when it all started a special address they can contact me at. When and if the time ever comes and they have a choice of jail or leaving, I will be there to help with a bed and a roof and freedom. Perhaps that will be the only good to come out of this, the ability to help another as I have been helped. I urge anyone reading this to offer the same. Make no mistake, what is needed is a full underground railroad akin to the kind that existed in the days of Harriet Tubman... but no one mourns for men.

Deadbeat Dad #3475739 signing off -

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It’s my assertion that the above testimony epitomizes the myth of the “deadbeat dad”. It’s my assertion that over 90% of all so called deadbeat dads are terrorized by American women who deny them access to their children and turn their children against them with 100% impunity… even though those women are in direct violation of divorce court and family court orders.

The man in the above story is still desperately seeking a Network Architect job in Dubai or South East Asia… Anybody who can recommend resources or job leads can email me at: fwo1111@gmail.com

posted January 03, 2009 10:54 PM            

quote:

---

Az, there are always two sides to every coin. remember that.

---

**edit**
And speaking of two sides to every story/coin, your "deadbeat dad" I suppose was some lily-white, innocent bystander, the blameless victim of a mercenary woman.
That has a 50% probability of being true or false.

posted January 03, 2009 11:39 PM            

quote:

---

AWWW i see..liberalism does mean getting sensitive at the slightest questioning of your own beliefs right

---

With a three-post response to him, it would seem that your statement applies to you as much as any liberal wouldn't you concede?

quote:

---

I dont understand the liberal culture..that Reality is what a liberal decides it to be

---

The most educated people, the majority of our scientists and scholars, consider themselves liberal in this country. I'd trust a Liberal to get reality correct far more often than a Conservative.

quote:

---

I posted an article i read somewhere which gives the reality as it IS

---

How do you know that this blogger is in touch with reality? He doesn't cite a single reference. Citing references is what people/intellectuals do when they want to prove that the information they are providing is accurate and based in reality.
________________________________

These issues aren't simply political. It's values mixed with economics. Values have been forced to change for reasons like Zala mentioned. And they'll continue to change. That's inevitable, right?

Here's the question:

Between enforcing what you categorize as conservative values (forcing women to stay with men), or creating more equitable financial conditions for everyone, which is the solution that's going to solve the supposed depression problem with women as well as the single parent problem* some children experience?

Things are evolving...

posted January 03, 2009 11:54 PM              

quote:

---

And speaking of two sides to every story/coin, your "deadbeat dad" I suppose was some lily-white, innocent bystander, the blameless victim of a mercenary woman.
That has a 50% probability of being true or false

---

should i assume the same of your own story then - of your husband.

50 % ...hmmm..yup that is the percentage of false Rape claims that destroy the lives of hundreds of men , just because they are men.

quote:

---

enforcing what you categorize as conservative values (forcing women to stay with men)

---

but its not forcing women to leave their husbands by brainwashing them through school and college so when they hit their late thirties and men want nothinh to do with them, off they go to the sperm donors to make up for not having a hubby...wow..

All you have done Zala , like any feminist ever does is apply Equality to women not to men. women are goddesses ,men just love to victimise them.

Same Crap - new toilet .

Your country is what it is because of men. The highest female employment is in Retail , not a single Nobel prize after 4 decades of feminism. a majority of women who graduate as lawyers and doctors on the other hand choose evil men and children as their priority - they are forced right. One needs to be insane if their choices lead toi happiness but dont mirror your beliefs.

What absolutely perfect logic .

If you dismiss facts , you are proving yourself right.

If a deadbeat dad and many thousands others do so , they are an evil entity out to get you.
Perfect Logic.

Your response to facts is such was not logic and reason backed by facts but first -

portraying yourself as a victim when you have done well for yourself and making it personal so as to garner sympathy ( not empowered i say ) and then just dismiss everything ...

because it challenges your view of reality .

posted January 04, 2009 12:08 AM            

quote:

---

should i assume the same of your own story then - of your husband.

---

quote:

---

*I don't actually believe that a child having only one parent is necessarily disadvantaged. There have been children of single parents throughout history, and there's every reason to believe they can be just as successful as everyone else.

---

quote:

---

quote:

SINGLE MOM FAMILIES." Huh?? How can we be a "real" family?? Methinks that was an error on the writers part, a mere oversight I'm sure

No, that is the statistic that i read many times on many different sites.

---

quote:

---

Its one thing to be a family and another to potray a family missing a parent as Ideal -because the mother didnt fulfilled in her role as a wife or wanted more happiness or whatever...

---

quote:

---

A lot of women bought divorce propoganda in the sixties believing not being happy or wanting to make others happy meant they were oppressed..want more proof ???

---

quote:

---

but its not forcing women to leave their husbands by brainwashing them through school and college so when they hit their late thirties and men want nothinh to do with them, off they go to the sperm donors to make up for not having a hubby...wow..

---

quote:

---

No wonder men think women are idiots who have no intelligence.

---

PS: My ex is one of those poor lamentable deadbeat dads that society/lawyers are always being so mean to -- he's never given me a dime for our son's care, and I don't care if he ever does because he's OUT of our lives.

quote:

---

a majority of women who graduate as lawyers and doctors on the other hand choose evil men and children as their priority - they are forced right. One needs to be insane if their choices lead toi happiness but dont mirror your beliefs.

---

posted January 04, 2009 12:31 AM            

quote:

---

All you have done Zala , like any feminist ever does is apply Equality to women not to men. women are goddesses ,men just love to victimise them.

---

It looks like you're talking to Zala in reference to what I said.

quote:

---

Your country is what it is because of men.

---

[Aside from obvious insult to American women...]
It seems like you want to take an older data set, and make it true today. Because my hair was blond yesterday, does that mean that it's necessarily blond today? You can't take something from the past, and say that because it worked back then that it should work today as well. Should we enslave black people again, too, because the South thought that was an idea that worked?

quote:

---

If a deadbeat dad and many thousands others do so , they are an evil entity out to get you.

---

I've recently personally dealt with a semi-recently divorced man who did in fact have a completely one-sided view of the circumstances surrounding his divorce. I wasn't able to get his ex-wife's side, but it became clear through his personality that he had absolutely no recognition of anyone else's ideas regarding himself. Did he get the Domestic Violence rap? Yes. Did he admit to me to having struck her? Yes. Did he tell me of the time he decided that it was his right to see his children (despite the restraining order)? Yes: he was greeted by his daughter's boyfriend holding a baseball bat. Did I believe him when he claimed that he was a totally non-violent person? Hell no. This guy was certifiably crazy though. He also thought there was a huge conspiracy by his family trying to get him back together with his ex-wife, which he was resisting. He thought there was significance to every synchronicity he dreampt up (his old car model parked next to his ex-wife's old car model at the library was one of the signs of this conspiracy).

The weird thing is that he appeared to be at least semi-normal prior to the divorce. I mean he seemed normal enough to procure work at a bank (coincidentally the bank I currently work at). I found out from people who were there during his time that nobody liked him, and he was always getting in arguments with his co-workers. I think his issue might have been there then, and/or his issue was drugs.

Just because a deadbeat dad doesn't think he did anything wrong, doesn't mean he's right, or that he's going to convey both sides of the story accurately.

quote:

---

No wonder men think women are idiots who have no intelligence.

---

posted January 04, 2009 01:12 AM            

quote:

---

Your country is what it is because of men. The highest female employment is in Retail, not a single Nobel prize after 4 decades of feminism

---

Literature ~
1938 - Pearl Buck, USA
1993 – Toni Morrison, USA
Peace Prize ~
1931 – Jane Addams, USA
1946 – Emily Balch, USA
1997 – Jodi Williams, USA
Science ~
1947 – Gerty Cori, USA
1963 - Maria Goeppart Mayer, USA
1983 – Barbara McLintock, USA
1988 – Gertrude Elion, USA
2004 – Linda Buck, USA

I realize that the following is a Canadian website, but you know that those evil feminists have infiltrated up there too, and are no doubt brainwashing the women of the north….. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/71-222-x/2004000/4069670-eng.htm
Female employment, by occupation
One in three women work in sales and service occupations
· Fifty-nine percent of women work in the top two occupation categories. Almost 2.4 million women were employed in sales and service occupations in 2003, accounting for 32% of all working women over the age of 15 years. About 3 in 10 of these women worked as retail sales people, sales clerks, cashiers or retail supervisors. An additional 2.0 million women (27%) had jobs in business, finance and administrative occupations. A smaller but significant number of women also worked in occupations related to health as well as social science, education, government service and religion (700,000 or 20% of women).
· However, relatively few women were found in primary industry occupations (only 110,000 in farming, forestry, mining or fishing), or in trades, transport and equipment operation (148,000) in 2003.
· From 1996 to 2003, employment among women rose significantly in sales and services, social science, education, government services and religion, natural and applied sciences, and in health occupations.

Well then, if our country is what it is because of men, how much blame should we lay at the feet of men for the effed up way things are right now?? Or is that all liberated womens' fault, even though our country "is what it is because of men"??

Too bad those old indentured servants laws were eventually overturned, and God forbid, those same MEN granted evil feminist 2nd class citizens the right to VOTE!!

Seriously, I actually do feel very lucky that I don’t have to be beaten for looking at a man on the street, and that I don’t have to completely cover my entire body in public so that I don’t get killed for inadvertantly tempting some poor weak-willed man into some godless activity…..

quote:

---

portraying yourself as a victim when you have done well for yourself and making it personal so as to garner sympathy ( not empowered i say )

---

posted January 04, 2009 02:23 AM              

quote:

---

Absolutely, I don’t expect you to believe me – after all, I’m the enemy, a feminist liberal :-D I'm anathema to everything you appear to espouse -- you are not allowed to believe me!!

---

awww...no zala dont say that, i actually conduct workshops in homes for women who are battered wives

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, you believe in equality right, you beieve a woman should be free of any patriarchial coercion in her decisions right ?

On your hisband , i take it you werent forced to marry him ?

i take it you CHOSE him and that back then he didnt give you any reason to be suspicious, right ?

If you were in your sound mind when deciding to be with him, are you not by defintions of equality as responsible for the outcomes of your decision and thus liable to stand by it ?

In fact you did, you assumed responsibility for your life but not without blaming him for turning out bad when it was something in your own mind that led you to being with a man with an evident personality disorder .

Would you let a man go scot free if his wife turns into a post-partum depression monster , refuses to do the chores around the house , mistreats the kids...Men are expected to stick with their decisions and if they call such women for what they are they are coward pigs who only knbow to run when the going gets tough. Never mind emotional abuse is not any worse than physical

It is not to question equality for women but is it fair for equality for a gender to be at the expense of the other or at the expense of the whole society...

That was what is questioned , not your credentials, not how strong women are or were but equality for women at the price of men fair ?

quote:

---

*I don't actually believe that a child having only one parent is necessarily disadvantaged. There have been children of single parents throughout history, and there's every reason to believe they can be just as successful as everyone else.

Now, now AG, let’s not perpetrate an illusion – after all, venus has the PROOF that our/my/your viewpoint is in error!! Here it is: 90% of our killers, drug addicts, teen pregnancies, rapists, child molesters, people with lower marks, poorer paying jobs, bad relationships are a product of ??
SINGLE MOM FAMILIES.

---

when did i say it was a 100 % strike ?

but there is a fact i was given at an MRA meeting that occurs through all countries..I would like if you could come up with a conflicting report.

quote:

---

Ergo, my “single-parent family” cannot be called a “family.”

---

Your misinterpreattiuons are your own problem , not mine

quote:

---

Please point out where I portrayed my FAMILY situation as ideal?? Finding a partner and a role model for my son would fulfill my dreams.
Oh dear, I obviously didn’t fulfill my role as a wife, ie to have my body be a punching bag at the mercy of a moody spouse. Dang me, I wanted more happiness, how selfish can you be?!?!? Now I’m REALLY starting to get depressed…..

---

one wonders why an intelligent women would take something personally what obviously does not apply to them . Yours is not the family situation the article discusses, you are making it about you and calling for self-immolation when nothing is about you in the first place..no offense i have seen this in a lot debates i have had with womens groups, they assume the role of the offendee when the criteria does not apply to them ?

There are women who take a rain check when the going gets tough , who are immature but if you were not one of them why act as if i was accusing you ?

quote:

---

I can’t wait to see this fabulous proof!!

---

you mean there was NO divorce binge in the 60's and 70 's ?

quote:

---

Who exactly is forcing unwilling women to leave their husbands?? Who exactly is brainwashing women in college?? I'm sure you can come up with some entities and statistics for that -- they would be interesting to see.....

---

woah...never heard of womens studies did you ?

never heard of liberal student groups that have meeting spreading propoganda about the evils of marriage ?

quote:

---

Oh, I'm sad to hear that's how you're treated at your present employment and at home :-(
I don't have that issue in my life -- my boss the CFO respects my work, asks me for my input in decision-making, and treats me as a valuable member of his staff. And oh, those men who think women are idiots who have no intelligence, there's an old saw that comes to mind: it takes one to know one.....

---

Thanks for coming to more inaccurate conclusions about someone who is a stranger on the internet, speaks volumes for your self-conviction when you talk of immolation first and then twist words in para after para.Winning debate style, that is .

quote:

---

Female doctors and lawyers are forced to choose marriage and family, is that what you're saying??

---

forced ? , i said choose, though leberal femninism in recent books claim it pressure .

posted January 04, 2009 02:27 AM              

Half of the wealthiest, most-privileged, best-educated females in the country stay home with their babies rather than work in the market economy.

When in September the New York Times featured an article exploring a piece of this story, “Many Women at Elite Colleges Set Career Path to Motherhood,” the blogosphere went ballistic, countering with anecdotes and sarcasm.

Slate’s Jack Shafer accused the Times of “weasel-words” and of publishing the same story — essentially, “The Opt-Out Revolution” — every few years, and, recently, every few weeks. (A month after the flap, the Times’ only female columnist, Maureen Dowd, invoked the elite-college article in her contribution to the Times’ running soap, “What’s A Modern Girl To Do? about how women must forgo feminism even to get laid.)

The colleges article provoked such fury that the Times had to post an explanation of the then-student journalist’s methodology on its Web site.

There’s only one problem: There is important truth in the dropout story. Even though it appeared in The New York Times.

I stumbled across the news three years ago when researching a book on marriage after feminism. I found that among the educated elite, who are the logical heirs of the agenda of empowering women, feminism has largely failed in its goals. There are few women in the corridors of power, and marriage is essentially unchanged. The number of women at universities exceeds the number of men. But, more than a generation after feminism, the number of women in elite jobs doesn’t come close.

Why did this happen? The answer I discovered — an answer neither feminist leaders nor women themselves want to face — is that while the public world has changed, albeit imperfectly, to accommodate women among the elite, private lives have hardly budged. The real glass ceiling is at home.

Looking back, it seems obvious that the unreconstructed family was destined to re-emerge after the passage of feminism’s storm of social change. Following the original impulse to address everything in the lives of women, feminism turned its focus to cracking open the doors of the public power structure.

This was no small task. At the beginning, there were male juries and male Ivy League schools, sex-segregated want ads, discriminatory employers, harassing colleagues. As a result of feminist efforts — and larger economic trends — the percentage of women, even of mothers in full- or part-time employment, rose robustly through the 1980s and early ’90s.

But then the pace slowed. The census numbers for all working mothers leveled off around 1990 and have fallen modestly since 1998. In interviews, women with enough money to quit work say they are “choosing” to opt out. Their words conceal a crucial reality: the belief that women are responsible for child-rearing and homemaking was largely untouched by decades of workplace feminism. Add to this the good evidence that the upper-class workplace has become more demanding and then mix in the successful conservative cultural campaign to reinforce traditional gender roles and you’ve got a perfect recipe for feminism’s stall.

People who don’t like the message attack the data. True, the Times based its college story on a survey of questionable reliability and a bunch of interviews. It is not necessary to give credence to Dowd’s book, from which her Times Magazine piece was taken and which seems to be mostly based on her lifetime of bad dates and some e-mails from fellow Timesreporters, to wonder if all this noise doesn’t mean something important is going on in the politics of the sexes.

What evidence is good enough? Let’s start with you. Educated and affluent reader, if you are a 30- or 40-something woman with children, what are you doing? Husbands, what are your wives doing? Older readers, what are your married daughters with children doing? I have asked this question of scores of women and men. Among the affluent-educated-married population, women are letting their careers slide to tend the home fires. If my interviewees are working, they work largely part time, and their part-time careers are not putting them in the executive suite.

Here’s some more evidence: During the ’90s, I taught a course in sexual bargaining at a very good college. Each year, after the class reviewed the low rewards for child-care work, I asked how the students anticipated combining work with child-rearing. At least half the female students described lives of part-time or home-based work. Guys expected their female partners to care for the children. When I asked the young men how they reconciled that prospect with the manifest low regard the market has for child care, they were mystified. Turning to the women who had spoken before, they said, uniformly, “But she chose it.”

Even Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize-winner in economics in 1991, quotes the aphorism that “the plural of anecdote is data.” So how many anecdotes does it take to make data? I — a 1970s member of the National Organization for Women (NOW), a donor to EMILY’s List, and a professor of women’s studies — did not set out to find this.

I stumbled across the story when, while planning a book, I happened to watch Sex and the City’s Charlotte agonize about getting her wedding announcement in the “Sunday Styles” section of The New York Times. What better sample, I thought, than the brilliantly educated and accomplished brides of the “Sunday Styles,” circa 1996?

At marriage, they included a vice president of client communication, a gastroenterologist, a lawyer, an editor, and a marketing executive. In 2003 and 2004, I tracked them down and called them.

I interviewed about 80 percent of the 41 women who announced their weddings over three Sundays in 1996. Around 40 years old, college graduates with careers: Who was more likely than they to be reaping feminism’s promise of opportunity? Imagine my shock when I found almost all the brides from the first Sunday at home with their children. Statistical anomaly? Nope. Same result for the next Sunday. And the one after that.

Ninety percent of the brides I found had had babies. Of the 30 with babies, five were still working full time. Twenty-five, or 85 percent, were not working full time. Of those not working full time, 10 were working part time but often a long way from their prior career paths. And half the married women with children were not working at all.

And there is more. In 2000, Harvard Business School professor Myra Hart surveyed the women of the classes of 1981, 1986, and 1991 and found that only 38 percent of female Harvard MBAs were working full time. A 2004 survey by the Center for Work-Life Policy of 2,443 women with a graduate degree or very prestigious bachelor’s degree revealed that 43 percent of those women with children had taken a time out, primarily for family reasons.

Richard Posner, federal appeals-court judge and occasional University of Chicago adjunct professor, reports that “the [Times] article confirms — what everyone associated with such institutions [elite law schools] has long known: that a vastly higher percentage of female than of male students will drop out of the workforce to take care of their children.”

How many anecdotes to become data? The 2000 census showed a decline in the percentage of mothers of infants working full time, part time, or seeking employment. Starting at 31 percent in 1976, the percentage had gone up almost every year to 1992, hit a high of 58.7 percent in 1998, and then began to drop — to 55.2 percent in 2000, to 54.6 percent in 2002, to 53.7 percent in 2003. Statistics just released showed further decline to 52.9 percent in 2004. Even the percentage of working mothers with children who were not infants declined between 2000 and 2003, from 62.8 percent to 59.8 percent.

Although college-educated women work more than others, the 2002 census shows that graduate or professional degrees do not increase work-force participation much more than even one year of college. When their children are infants (under a year), 54 percent of females with graduate or professional degrees are not working full time (18 percent are working part time and 36 percent are not working at all). Even among those who have children who are not infants, 41 percent are not working full time (18 percent are working part time and 23 percent are not working at all).

Economists argue about the meaning of the data, even going so far as to contend that more mothers are working. They explain that the bureau changed the definition of “work” slightly in 2000, the economy went into recession, and the falloff in women without children was similar. However, even if there wasn’t a falloff but just a leveling off, this represents not a loss of present value but a loss of hope for the future — a loss of hope that the role of women in society will continue to increase.

The arguments still do not explain the absence of women in elite workplaces. If these women were sticking it out in the business, law, and academic worlds, now, 30 years after feminism started filling the selective schools with women, the elite workplaces should be proportionately female.

They are not. Law schools have been graduating classes around 40-percent female for decades — decades during which both schools and firms experienced enormous growth. And, although the legal population will not be 40-percent female until 2010, in 2003, the major law firms had only 16-percent female partners, according to the American Bar Association.

It’s important to note that elite workplaces like law firms grew in size during the very years that the percentage of female graduates was growing, leading you to expect a higher female employment than the pure graduation rate would indicate. The Harvard Business School has produced classes around 30-percent female. Yet only 10.6 percent of Wall Street’s corporate officers are women, and a mere nine are Fortune 500 CEOs. Harvard Business School’s dean, who extolled the virtues of interrupted careers on 60 Minutes, has a 20-percent female academic faculty.

It is possible that the workplace is discriminatory and hostile to family life. If firms had hired every childless woman lawyer available, that alone would have been enough to raise the percentage of female law partners above 16 percent in 30 years. It is also possible that women are voluntarily taking themselves out of the elite job competition for lower status and lower-paying jobs. Women must take responsibility for the consequences of their decisions. It defies reason to claim that the falloff from 40 percent of the class at law school to 16 percent of the partners at all the big law firms is unrelated to half the mothers with graduate and professional degrees leaving full-time work at childbirth and staying away for several years after that, or possibly bidding down.

This isn’t only about day care. Half my Times brides quit before the first baby came. In interviews, at least half of them expressed a hope never to work again. None had realistic plans to work. More importantly, when they quit, they were already alienated from their work or at least not committed to a life of work. One, a female MBA, said she could never figure out why the men at her workplace, which fired her, were so excited about making deals. “It’s only money,” she mused. Not surprisingly, even where employers offered them part-time work, they were not interested in taking it.

The Failure of Choice Feminism

What is going on? Most women hope to marry and have babies. If they resist the traditional female responsibilities of child-rearing and householding, what Arlie Hochschild called “The Second Shift,” they are fixing for a fight. But elite women aren’t resisting tradition. None of the stay-at-home brides I interviewed saw the second shift as unjust; they agree that the household is women’s work.

As one lawyer-bride put it in explaining her decision to quit practicing law after four years, “I had a wedding to plan.” Another, an Ivy Leaguer with a master’s degree, described it in management terms: “He’s the CEO and I’m the CFO. He sees to it that the money rolls in and I decide how to spend it.” It’s their work, and they must do it perfectly. “We’re all in here making fresh apple pie,” said one, explaining her reluctance to leave her daughters in order to be interviewed. The family CFO described her activities at home: “I take my [3-year-old] daughter to all the major museums. We go to little movement classes.”

Conservatives contend that the dropouts prove that feminism “failed” because it was too radical, because women didn’t want what feminism had to offer. In fact, if half or more of feminism’s heirs (85 percent of the women in my Times sample), are not working seriously, it’s because feminism wasn’t radical enough: It changed the workplace but it didn’t change men, and, more importantly, it didn’t fundamentally change how women related to men.

The movement did start out radical. Betty Friedan’s original call to arms compared housework to animal life. In The Feminine Mystique she wrote, “[V]acuuming the living room floor — with or without makeup — is not work that takes enough thought or energy to challenge any woman’s full capacity. … Down through the ages man has known that he was set apart from other animals by his mind’s power to have an idea, a vision, and shape the future to it … when he discovers and creates and shapes a future different from his past, he is a man, a human being.”

Thereafter, however, liberal feminists abandoned the judgmental starting point of the movement in favor of offering women “choices.” The choice talk spilled over from people trying to avoid saying “abortion,” and it provided an irresistible solution to feminists trying to duck the mommy wars. A woman could work, stay home, have 10 children or one, marry or stay single. It all counted as “feminist” as long as she chose it. (So dominant has the concept of choice become that when Charlotte, with a push from her insufferable first husband, quits her job, the writers at Sex and the City have her screaming, “I choose my choice! I choose my choice!”)

Only the most radical fringes of feminism took on the issue of gender relations at home, and they put forth fruitless solutions like socialism and separatism. We know the story about socialism. Separatism ran right into heterosexuality and reproduction, to say nothing of the need to earn a living other than at a feminist bookstore. As feminist historian Alice Echols put it, “Rather than challenging their subordination in domestic life, the feminists of NOW committed themselves to fighting for women’s integration into public life.”

Great as liberal feminism was, once it retreated to choice the movement had no language to use on the gendered ideology of the family. Feminists could not say, “Housekeeping and child-rearing in the nuclear family is not interesting and not socially validated. Justice requires that it not be assigned to women on the basis of their gender and at the sacrifice of their access to money, power, and honor.”

The 50 percent of census answerers and the 62 percent of Harvard MBAs and the 85 percent of my brides of the Times all think they are “choosing” their gendered lives. They don’t know that feminism, in collusion with traditional society, just passed the gendered family on to them to choose. Even with all the day care in the world, the personal is still political. Much of the rest is the opt-out revolution.

What Is to Be Done?

Here’s the feminist moral analysis that choice avoided: The family — with its repetitious, socially invisible, physical tasks — is a necessary part of life, but it allows fewer opportunities for full human flourishing than public spheres like the market or the government. This less-flourishing sphere is not the natural or moral responsibility only of women. Therefore, assigning it to women is unjust. Women assigning it to themselves is equally unjust. To paraphrase, as Mark Twain said, “A man who chooses not to read is just as ignorant as a man who cannot read.”

The critics are right about one thing: Dopey New YorkTimes stories do nothing to change the situation. Dowd, who is many things but not a political philosopher, concludes by wondering if the situation will change by 2030. Lefties keep hoping the Republicans will enact child-care legislation, which probably puts us well beyond 2030. In either case, we can’t wait that long. If women’s flourishing does matter, feminists must acknowledge that the family is to 2005 what the workplace was to 1964 and the vote to 1920. Like the right to work and the right to vote, the right to have a flourishing life that includes but is not limited to family cannot be addressed with language of choice.

Women who want to have sex and children with men as well as good work in interesting jobs where they may occasionally wield real social power need guidance, and they need it early. Step one is simply to begin talking about flourishing. In so doing, feminism will be returning to its early, judgmental roots. This may anger some, but it should sound the alarm before the next generation winds up in the same situation. Next, feminists will have to start offering young women not choices and not utopian dreams but solutions they can enact on their own. Prying women out of their traditional roles is not going to be easy. It will require rules — rules like those in the widely derided book The Rules, which was never about dating but about behavior modification.

There are three rules: Prepare yourself to qualify for good work, treat work seriously, and don’t put yourself in a position of unequal resources when you marry.

The preparation stage begins with college. It is shocking to think that girls cut off their options for a public life of work as early as college. But they do. The first pitfall is the liberal-arts curriculum, which women are good at, graduating in higher numbers than men. Although many really successful people start out studying liberal arts, the purpose of a liberal education is not, with the exception of a miniscule number of academic positions, job preparation.

So the first rule is to use your college education with an eye to career goals. Feminist organizations should produce each year a survey of the most common job opportunities for people with college degrees, along with the average lifetime earnings from each job category and the characteristics such jobs require. The point here is to help women see that yes, you can study art history, but only with the realistic understanding that one day soon you will need to use your arts education to support yourself and your family. The survey would ask young women to select what they are best suited for and give guidance on the appropriate course of study. Like the rule about accepting no dates for Saturday after Wednesday night, the survey would set realistic courses for women, helping would-be curators who are not artistic geniuses avoid career frustration and avoid solving their job problems with marriage.

After college comes on-the-job training or further education. Many of my Times brides — and grooms — did work when they finished their educations. Here’s an anecdote about the difference: One couple, both lawyers, met at a firm. After a few years, the man moved from international business law into international business. The woman quit working altogether. “They told me law school could train you for anything,” she told me. “But it doesn’t prepare you to go into business. I should have gone to business school.” Or rolled over and watched her husband the lawyer using his first few years of work to prepare to go into a related business.

Every Times groom assumed he had to succeed in business, and was really trying. By contrast, a common thread among the women I interviewed was a self-important idealism about the kinds of intellectual, prestigious, socially meaningful, politics-free jobs worth their incalculably valuable presence. So the second rule is that women must treat the first few years after college as an opportunity to lose their capitalism virginity and prepare for good work, which they will then treat seriously.

The best way to treat work seriously is to find the money. Money is the marker of success in a market economy; it usually accompanies power, and it enables the bearer to wield power, including within the family. Almost without exception, the brides who opted out graduated with roughly the same degrees as their husbands. Yet somewhere along the way the women made decisions in the direction of less money. Part of the problem was idealism; idealism on the career trail usually leads to volunteer work, or indentured servitude in social-service jobs, which is nice but doesn’t get you to money. Another big mistake involved changing jobs excessively. Without exception, the brides who eventually went home had much more job turnover than the grooms did. There’s no such thing as a perfect job. Condoleezza Rice actually wanted to be a pianist, and Gary Graffman didn’t want to give concerts.

If you are good at work you are in a position to address the third undertaking: the reproductive household. The rule here is to avoid taking on more than a fair share of the second shift. If this seems coldhearted, consider the survey by the Center for Work-Life Policy. Fully 40 percent of highly qualified women with spouses felt that their husbands create more work around the house than they perform.

According to Phyllis Moen and Patricia Roehling’s Career Mystique, “When couples marry, the amount of time that a woman spends doing housework increases by approximately 17 percent, while a man’s decreases by 33 percent.” Not a single Times groom was a stay-at-home dad. Several of them could hardly wait for Monday morning to come. None of my Timesgrooms took even brief paternity leave when his children were born.

How to avoid this kind of rut? You can either find a spouse with less social power than you or find one with an ideological commitment to gender equality. Taking the easier path first, marry down. Don’t think of this as brutally strategic. If you are devoted to your career goals and would like a man who will support that, you’re just doing what men throughout the ages have done: placing a safe bet.

In her 1995 book, Kidding Ourselves: Babies, Breadwinning and Bargaining Power, Rhona Mahoney recommended finding a sharing spouse by marrying younger or poorer, or someone in a dependent status, like a starving artist. Because money is such a marker of status and power, it’s hard to persuade women to marry poorer. So here’s an easier rule: Marry young or marry much older. Younger men are potential high-status companions. Much older men are sufficiently established so that they don’t have to work so hard, and they often have enough money to provide unlimited household help.

By contrast, slightly older men with bigger incomes are the most dangerous, but even a pure counterpart is risky. If you both are going through the elite-job hazing rituals simultaneously while having children, someone is going to have to give. Even the most devoted lawyers with the hardest-working nannies are going to have weeks when no one can get home other than to sleep. The odds are that when this happens, the woman is going to give up her ambitions and professional potential.

It is possible that marrying a liberal might be the better course. After all, conservatives justified the unequal family in two modes: “God ordained it” and “biology is destiny.” Most men (and most women), including the liberals, think women are responsible for the home. But at least the liberal men should feel squeamish about it.

posted January 04, 2009 05:06 AM            

Do you know the cultural psyche of a Western society???? Obviously not!!!

This site is for women bashers. You know, the type that rape, abuse, manipulate, and oppress women.

This website is for men who have not faced their abuse of women and are still finding a way to abuse them.