How to hate your husband

Want to read a just plain weird Mother's Day article? Try this:

You Will Hate Your Husband After Your Kid Is Born

This is some of the strangest drivel I've read in a long time. We are informed:

On this upcoming day of celebrating mothers, here’s a cautionary note, something many mothers-to-be don’t expect when they’re expecting: If you have a husband, you will hate him when your kid is born. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. Don’t be fooled by the pictures on your social media feed of your friends serenely beaming with their infants. When they’re not letting you know they’re #SoBlessed, they’re probably fighting.

(First of all, note the phrase, "IF you have a husband." Now you know the direction this is coming from.)

"Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise," says the author. Um, sweetheart, I'm here to tell you otherwise. You're treating your husband like dirt, and it's your fault.

So new parents are stressed, overtired, and having trouble adjusting to the constant demands of a seven-pound helpless human being. Um, what else did you expect when a new baby came into your formerly kid-free lives? That you'd be able to treat it like a puppy, lock it in the pantry, and go out to dinner?

The article seems to center on the shocking reality that women are much more attuned to the needs of their baby than men are ("A baby’s cry was the No. 1 sound most likely to wake a woman, it didn’t even figure into the male top ten, lagging behind car alarms and strong wind"). Again, duh. The author acts like this is something scandalous and disgraceful.

Men aren't mothers. Men don't carry the baby in utero. Men don't breastfeed the baby. Men are protectors and defenders, not nurturers. (Please don't misunderstand, I know men care for their babies; what I'm saying is, their biology is geared for defense/protection, not the sensitive nuances of infant care.)

The author of this article seems to spend a lot of time explaining why her man is scum because he's not as responsive to the immediate needs of a newborn as she is (she terms it "colossal asymmetry"), and why she decides he's nothing more than a knuckle-dragging caveman:

I thought I had married an evolved guy—one who assured me, when I was pregnant, that we would divide up the work equally. Yet right after our baby was born, we backslid into hidebound midcentury gender roles as I energetically overmet my expectations.

Sheesh, sister, suck it up. What on earth did you expect? Biology doesn't conform to feminism. Women are mothers, not men.

My advice: Get some immediate counseling for postpartum depression before you send what sounds like a very decent man fleeing into the night. Then read this article.

Okay, rant over.

Time-sucking monsters

Here's an interesting diatribe from a feminist named Amanda Marcotte who loathes babies and conservatives in equal measure. (The difference is she's in no position to murder conservatives.)

One of the milder quotes from this post: "This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion. Given the choice between living my life how I please and having my body within my control and the fate of a lentil-sized, brainless embryo that has half a chance of dying on its own anyway, I choose me."

In glancing through the comments following, one in particular caught my eye: "As a pro-lifer, I agree with this column. I think the decision by Amanda Marcotte to make herself the end of her lineage is a wise one. You're leaving this world a better place. Thank you."

I sincerely pray that Ms. Marcotte escapes the doom of motherhood by tying her tubes or some other permanent form of sterilization. Please.

Me, I'll enjoy my time-sucking monsters.

Letter from a young female engineer

Here's an interesting piece my husband picked up on the Vox Day blog. Vox Day, for those unfamiliar with him, is a Christian libertarian genius with a no-holds-barred attitude. He wrote for WND for many years.

In this piece, he is responding to a young female engineering student. I am reprinting this with permission from Mr. Day.

_____________________________

This is what the engineering student wrote:

Dear Sir,

I don't think you'll answer me, or read my message... But this is worth a try. I will try very hard to keep polite about all this. It will be difficult, but I'll try.

See, I'm a young woman. I'm currently 20 years old and a student in environmental engineering in one of the best engineering schools in the world. I got in fair and square. I didn't get a special grant for being female or any favors. I have to work my butt off to get good grades in fluid mechanics, calculus, environmental chemistry...

I have had the opportunity to read some of the posts you've written in your blog and I feel very insulted by them. What happened to you that made your brain go this wrong? How can you claim that women's rights are wrong? You defend forbidding abortion by claiming unborn children of rape merit all "the legal protections and rights afforded all other human beings", yet claim that women shouldn't have those same rights because we "ruin everything"?

I am working hard to be an engineer. My goal in life isn't to get married or to stay at home and take care of the children. I am not here on this planet to serve a man and raise his children. I have my own goals and my own motivations.

I would continue, but I have finals to prepare and I've lost enough of my time on you already.

I would wish you a nice day, but it would be a lie.

_____________________________

Here is Mr. Day's response:

Dear AA,

First of all, as a young woman studying engineering, you have very likely been granted special favors whether you know it or not. All those programs designed to encourage young women like you to pursue a career in engineering exist for a reason. And the reason is that most women just don't enjoy engineering the way men do. You're obviously smart, you can do the schoolwork, but it is unlikely that you will want to do the real thing for very long. Assuming you don't drop out in favor of an easier discipline before you graduate, the probabilities indicate that you won't spend much time actually working as an engineer; you'll soon be moved into some sort of management or marketing position. Whether you have been told as much or not, that is the conventional path for smart, educated women like you in the corporate world.

There is no shame in that. I started out in engineering myself. I had the ability, but not the aptitude, and quickly switched to a field I vastly preferred. If you're smart enough, you'll likely figure that out before long. Whatever you do, don't waste your life doing something you don't really enjoy simply because you are capable of doing it. Remember that actual engineering is very, very different than studying engineering, and being very good at the latter is not necessarily indicative of real interest in the former.

Now I'm going to teach you a hard, but very important lesson. You see, I don't care you how feel. I really don't. More importantly, neither does anyone else. Only about 200 people on a planet of 7 billion actually care about your feelings, and that's if you're lucky. The sooner you grasp this lesson, the better off you will be. And since almost no one gives a damn what you do, say, think, or feel, appealing to your feelings when you encounter differences of opinion is not only illogical, but useless.

What happened to me to make my brain go this wrong? The short answer is: living life with my eyes open. Keep in mind that I'm more intelligent than you are. The fact that you can't understand the way I think doesn't make my brain wrong, it merely means you aren't keeping up. But more important is the fact that I'm considerably more experienced than you are. I've had three decades to observe the differences between all those school lessons about valuing equality, diversity, and vibrancy and the way human beings actually behave. Equality is a myth; it doesn't exist anymore than fairies and unicorns do. As for women's rights, well, a young woman as intelligent as you should be able to handle the math that dictates what happens to a society when an insufficient number of young women marry and have children. Since women's rights are very strongly correlated with demographic decline, they are not sustainable and are, in fact, societally deleterious. They are not so much wrong as fatal when viewed from the macro perspective.

I do believe women should have the same legal rights and protections afforded to unborn children. There is no contradiction there. You see, I don't believe that unborn children should be given the right to vote or permitted to murder other unborn children either.

I understand you have your own goals. That's fine. The problem is that women are not only valuable to society, they are invaluable. They are necessary. The one and only thing both society and the human race actually need from you is for you to marry and raise children. If you're not going to do that, then it really doesn't matter if you're going to become a human resources manager with an engineering degree or drop out of school and become a stripper. If you're only going to do what any man of similar capabilities can do, then you are an evolutionary dead end and as unimportant to society as the average man is.

In the entire history of the human race, the actions of a few thousand men have actually made much of a difference one way or the other. If that. But without women deciding to marry and have children, the species would die out. Do you really want to limit yourself to the same sort of irrelevance as the average man?

Another thing you have no reason to know is that young women are reliably bad at foreseeing what they will want to do in the near future. I graduated with a number of women like you. None of them thought they were interested in marriage and children until they were about 27. Then they suddenly changed their minds and some of them were very upset that they had spent the previous ten years pursuing goals that were now unimportant to them. I even wrote a column about it called Spiting Their Pretty Faces back in 2003, you can google it. Think about 2003. You were ten. Are your goals the same now as they were then? If not, then how can you be certain that your goals, and your opinion about marriage and children, will be the same when you are 30?

In any event, I wish you good fortune regardless of what path you eventually choose.

Regards, etc.
Vox

_____________________________

I thought Mr. Day made some interesting, if harsh, observations.

Thoughts on this? Is he being unfair? Honest? Truthful? Hateful?

Hey feminists: You're kind of lame

I don't know how many of you saw the controversial Super Bowl ad featuring Tim Tebow and his mom. This is the ad got NOW's panties in a wad because (gasp) it implied that abortion was wrong.

Well, all the hoopla from the feminist groups happened before anyone saw the actual ad. They just objected, you know, on principle. (If feminist principles isn't an oxymoron.)

Here's the actual ad. Very mild. It shows Pam Tebow chatting about her pregnancy. At the very end, Tim affectionately tackles his mother, and she scolds him for interrupting. Cute.

So - once the ad aired and everyone began asking, "Sheesh, what's the big deal?", the feminists (unable to object on the grounds of principles) start stuttering about violence.

Yeah, seriously. NOW president Terry O'Neill said that bit of the ad "glorified violence against women."

"I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it," she told the Los Angeles Times. "That's what comes across to me even more strongly than the anti-abortion message. I myself am a survivor of domestic violence, and I don't find it charming. I think CBS should be ashamed of itself."

O'Neill's reaction "drew guffaws even from hardcore abortion advocates."

This just cracked me up and shows the ridiculous lengths to which feminist groups will twist and turn in an effort to show decent people in a revolting light.

Abortion advocate Amanda Marcotte had this post on Twitter that has drawn a reaction from pro-life advocates: "Hey Mom! Tried to kill you from the womb and failed. How about a blind side tackle? Violence against Moms."

Fortunately the feminists' absurdities are coming back to bite them in the butt. Pro-life groups got a tremendous - and positive - exposure from the weeks of hoopla surrounding the ad.

Americans United for Life Action president Charmaine Yoest told LifeNews.com, "This ad was funny, light-hearted, and had a positive message for everyone. The hate-filled reaction from pro-abortion groups reveals a radical abortion-at-any-cost agenda that is far out of step with the American people. Congratulations to Focus on the Family for inspiring us all in the face of extremism."

Monica Miller of the Center for a Pro-Life Society noted, "the very fact that pro-abortion people made a stink about it in the weeks leading up to the Super Bowl, was a plus for the pro-life movement."

"The threat that a pro-life commercial was to air during the Super Bowl caused millions of people to focus on the abortion issue--and the pro-abortionists looked foolish, narrow-minded, paranoid and ridiculous," Miller added.

"Now that the real ad has aired--and the abortion issue was never addressed--the pro-abortionists look even more ridiculous."