More Gender Roles Musings

My English critical thinking class seems to be in the full swing of the gender roles discussion; it is our first essay! This follows a rhetorical analysis paper we did on an excerpt (from “Gender Blending: Confronting the Limits of Duality) about what is ‘masculine’ and what is ‘feminine’ in North America and the social schemas of man and woman; authored by Aaron Devor (published 1989). I honestly have no issues with his writing because it is well organized with an introduction, arguments, body defining ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ and a conclusion. He makes real observations and sound contrasting between the gender roles but it is with his conclusion that I have issue as it is far too short. He takes all of time to set the reader up properly and he concludes that the gender schemes are a matter of, “systematic power imbalances based on gender discrimination.” While I can tolerate his lack of articulation with such a huge idea, and agree with him, I believe I better sum it up with (keep in mind I’m writing it to context):

“In conclusion America was originally established as a patriarchal system in which male attributes were valued more than women attributes and because of this women have been wrongfully discriminated against. Still to this day in the 21st century America witnesses to the discrimination of women in the workplace, politics, civil rights and religion because of the gender schema placed on each sex. While there is still more work to be done in releasing ourselves from these gender schemes we must appreciate how far America, and even the world, has come and it is important to look back over the past to see what successes have been made.”

With that said I will jump to the classes’ interaction on this topic. As the except was analyzed in groups you got the feeling that people were mostly in agreeance with Devor but couldn’t quite seem to associate with what he was stating. For example, we could all agree that ‘masculine’ was being powerful, of prowess, forthright and ‘feminine’ was subdued, polite, and reserved but we couldn’t agree to how that actually applied to today. Devor’s writing would have us believe that the sexes are still in competition to one another versus both sexes complimenting one another. The teacher seemed a little concerned we weren’t getting the message as each student spoke up and explicitly or implicitly stated the gender roles have been blended and blurred. Followed was a student’s comment on how old the except was, “Near twenty years,” and how old Devor’s references were, some thirty years old which was agreed makes a big difference in context. I could see the light shining through slowly that everyone wasn’t buying the line. And then it finally hit me and I put in my voice.

“It isn’t that what is ‘feminine’ and what is ‘masculine’ has changed, as if that was the problem all along, it that’s as a society we value both gender roles more equally. Rather than these roles being in competition for value they are viewed today as complimenting one another and thus more equally valued.”

With this you could tell the final nail was sunk into the coffin of any hopes to bemoan the fact that there is such a thing as ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’. Many of the students followed with agreeance in their own ways. The African man piped up and said in his thick accent, “Yes, because with my parents my mom stayed home and cared for the children while my dad worked and fed the family. But it is not like that anymore, because in my family at the end of the month I ask my wife, ‘What bills are you paying and what bills am I paying’?” The teacher voiced her opinion that she was unsure of this fact and readmitted the question testing to see if we were sure the gender roles are more equally valued. Again more students reaffirmed what everyone and myself had been saying. I brought up the example of the show, “Queer Eye For The Sight Guy,” in which men favorably take on ‘feminine’ traits of manners, communication, thoughtfulness, etc and this is far more accepted today. It is also far more acceptable for women to reject men forthright and state their opinions.

Class was coming to a close and our teacher had to hand out the essay one topic. As I packed my items away I listened to her describe the coming writing task. We are to take Devor’s writing and compare it to one of today’s TV shows and see if his observations have remained true. Immediately this took me as very odd. I’d think an honest essay would examine whether or not Devor’s except is applicable at all to today, not some TV show. So I said my thoughts, “That seems a little odd in that Devor’s except is an honest examination of the ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ genders in real life in North America but TV shows are purely an exaggeration of life. This assumes that TV shows actually represent real life today, which is not true as they take the highlights and make a show about it; like Seinfeld.” She replied quickly, “But that’s a comedy what about ‘Gray’s Anatomy’?” Hoping I’d think that was more real. However, I rejected that and replied, “When I was becoming an EMT I was in an ER room and it was extremely boring and the coolest thing that happened that night was a kid came in with a broken arm,” the classroom laughed as I continued, “and there was no such thing as adulterous affairs, arguments, gun shot wounds all in one shift. It is exaggerated and so are ‘reality shows’.” She couldn’t reply to this as we in a previous class discussed how fantastical shows such as Survivor were because of all the editing.

Luckily for the teacher time was up and we were all ready to leave and she dismissed us with the promise to continue this in the next session. Nevertheless, I believe I made a sound argument for not using TV in such an analytical essay. So we shall see, if she will not change her mind I will use such shows as, “Sex In The City” and “Will And Grace” to illustrate how much American has changed. Therefore, in conclusion it is not about the wiping away of what is ‘feminine’ or ‘masculine’ the argument that we should be discussing is how each is valued. The fact is there is male and there is female and they are both different and similar and both are needed to complete the circle of life within a family and community. I believe America and other societies, should be more dynamic in their blending of the genders but still respect the fact that we are man and woman. An example of this is in my own house, I often will do the house chores while my wife will tend to her business. I have no problem with it and nor does she. I don’t feel any less masculine nor does she feel any less feminine. There are many example of this in our marriage yet I remain the husband and she remains the wife with love and respect.

Someone Said It Better

I was planning on writing something regarding safety and assurance and freedom and risk, but someone beat me to it, and did a vastly better job than I could have hoped to do myself.

Orson Scott Card, in his regular “Uncle Orson Reviews Everything” column approached the subjects of the Minneapolis bridge collapse, the Utah mine collapse, government protection versus intrusion, and lifes’ general unfairness from a unique perspective. Apparently Orson was recently entirely at fault in what could have been a serious accident which merely totaled two cars instead of people. He recognizes the frailty of life and feels it with a particular sharpness right now. I felt his care through his words.

This is a dangerous world. None of us has anywhere we can go that is safe. Eventually, every single one of us is going to die. Along the way, we’ll suffer losses and pain and we will be harmed by the actions of others.

There is no promise of tomorrow. From the Christian perspective we thank God because His mercies are new every morning. Each morning He doesn’t just allow, He causes the sun to rise on both the just and the unjust.

Since our news media are no longer governed by civilized or civilizing principles, caring only about what makes “a good story” or “good television,” it is up to the people involved in the actual events to behave with decorum.

Maintaining a sense of decorum is amazingly important in this era of “reality TV” and public debauchery. The media cares about money, not morals. And particularly in a culture where, increasingly, IMmorals sells much better, we cannot count on the good and the right to be well represented. Instead, it behooves us when faced with tragedy to carry ourselves with honor, humility, and patient self-sacrifice. Somebody does not need to pay unless they are grossly negligent or maliciously intent on causing the harm done. And even then, in the heart of the tragedy is not the time to look or point, unless the culprit and their motive is clear, and time is us essence to their apprehension. Rather, it is for us to look to the hurt and offer assistance and comfort and support, when those are most needed. It is not assistance to call for heads to roll, it is not comfort to point fingers of jealous blame, it is not support to pontificate on what might’ve been.

Anyways, read Mr. Cards article, you’ll find it after a brief review of his beefs with a newly ruined revised game I’ve never heard of and Amazon.com’s terribly designed and thought-out back-end user interface.

“I’m OK With You Not Voting.”

I saw a statement from John Stossel, 20/20 reporter, this morning and it got me thinking.

“[S]tudents often ask what can be done about the ‘problem’ of young people who don’t care enough to vote. I always say that I don’t see it as much of problem ‘because most of you don’t know anything yet. I’m OK with you not voting!’ The students laugh, but I’m not joking.“

I agree. Often, voters make decisions without considering their options or looking at the secondary effects of political policies. Take, for example, Social Security.

I was talking with a friend the other day about the relative benefits of a 401(k) versus Social Security.

We were discussing our God-given responsibilities to care for our families and, if given a choice (we don’t have one right now, but hypothetically.) how this responsibility would affect our decision whether to put all our eggs into Social Security or into a 401(k).

At my friend’s current salary, we calculated that he will put $300,000 into Social Security (including the employer portion) over the next 40 years.

Then we calculated the “return” on his investment.

Social Secuirty: If Social Security pays my friend $25,000 a year, he must live 12 years beyond “retirement” to recoup his investment into Social Security. Unfortunately, at this rate, it is not likely he will recoup his investment because his life expectancy is only 75.15 years (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html).

Although his wife will receive a small stipend, his children will get nothing from his investment. Further, $25,000 is close to or below the current federal poverty level. In 40 years, it will be even more so. In fact, it will probably be unlivable.

To be technical, some of these figures are variables. As Social Security becomes more unsustainable, benefits will be cut by increasing the “retirement” age. Also, the average life expectancy will probably be a few years higher in 40 years because of advances in nutrition and medical technology.

401(k)’s: Now for the alternative: If my friend puts the $300,000 into a 401(k) over 40 years until the age of 65, he will have $3,452,839.

Further, if he dies at 75, his wife will have plenty live off of and he will be able to pass the remainder on to his children (more Biblical mandates).

To finish up, here’s the remainder of Stossel’s quote:

“… I only started to think I knew what ought to be done after years of reporting and reading voraciously to absorb arguments from left and right. The idea that most voters vote without having done much of that work is, frankly, scary.”

Scary indeed. We live with the repercussions every day.

Evil Still Exists & Forgiveness: Islam Versus Christianity

The International Herald Tribune, Europe edition, writes a story on the case of 10 doctors and nurses who worked in a hospital in Libya and were arrested 10 years ago on charges they’d knowingly and maliciously infected several hundred children with HIV. This was the Libya of Qaddafi, brazen and belligerent supporter of terrorism and tin-hat despot. Qaddafi has since renounced all ties with terrorism and has by all accounts become quite the nice guy on the African continent, but apparently his underlings and the mobs which rule the provinces and cities are still small evil men.

You can read all the details of this terrible story, but consider this: evil comes in all shapes and sizes, labels and categories, but the religion of peace once again shows while it may consider itself peaceful, it’s god and therefore it’s very identity is unforgiving.

Adherents of Islam, Muslims, hope that their righteous acts will outweigh any marks against them and that their god, Allah, will be merciful to them when they reach his judgment. God, worshiped by Christians, is also a just God. When His commands are violated, the price must be paid. God is also a merciful God, not that He does not hold sin against a person, but He desires that person to be free from sin and its eternal punishment. To bridge this obvious divide He sent Jesus to live a perfect, sinless life, and to die a horrid death. Crucifixion is an incredibly torturous death, the Romans even invented a whole new term for pain “ex crucio”, literally from the or of the cross, to describe the pain suffered by those being crucified. We have taken the term, transliterating it into “excruciating”. Harry Potter experiences the pain in the Cruciatus Curse, where the spell caster speaks the word “Crucio”, a deep and bloody history for a word of terrible import. But it was through this excruciating pain and terrible death that Gods justice was satisfied. The punishment was taken away from us. This is salvation: God is Holy, He allows no sin into His Glory. God wants us to be near Him, to enjoy His Glory. We are sinful and unable to enter His Holiness. God sent Jesus, Holiness and perfection embodied, to live among us and teach us His way. Jesus did not sin, and therefore, but accepting death at out hands He took out punishment on Himself. This allows God to forgive us, His justice is satisfied and His mercy is set free to us. We must accept the forgiveness, admit our own inability to become holy on our own strength, and accept His covering and cleansing for our sins. There is no chance, there is no worry. Once we have accepted Christs’ payment we are free to do as we ought, secure in the knowledge that before God we will be clean and pure, and the only judgment will be over our work bring glory to Him.

That is true forgiveness, that is what separates Islam from Christianity. There are good people and bad people who claim both faiths. But at the heart, the Christian has true forgiveness given them, and is able therefore to show true forgiveness, while the Muslim has not received forgiveness and therefore finds it difficult to give forgiveness.

Compare also the thoughts on retribution: The Muslim must do things and accomplish works to bring before Allah to present in hopes of exceeding his sin balance. The Muslims described in the article above are expecting remuneration to the tune of 10 Million Euros per child infected, this in excess of the approximately 10 million per child already invested in Libya by various members of the EU with the specific intent of getting these ten people freed.

Rights Versus Rights

The term “rights” is often misconstrued to include entitlements not necessarily human or constitutional rights. I saw this quote recently and it resonated well.

“Liberals love to talk about this or that human right, such as a right to health care, food or housing. That’s a perverse usage of the term ‘right.’ A right, such as a right to free speech, imposes no obligation on another, except that of non-interference. … If one person has a right to something he didn’t produce, simultaneously and of necessity it means that some other person does not have right to something he did produce. That’s because, since there’s no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy, in order for government to give one American a dollar, it must, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. I’d like to hear the moral argument for taking what belongs to one person to give to another person.”

~ Walter Williams

Medical Theory Affected By Evolution Hypothesis

Reading this article I was struck by how different the views of medicine are now that so much of scientific theory is based on the evolutionary hypothesis. For any who don’t believe that how you understand the origins of life determines how you view the nature of life, let this be fact enough to convince you.

The entire concept of useless organs is based on the idea that we are the result of random evolutionary processes bereft of design or purpose. Besides the statistical and factual errors which are never addressed by the hypothesis of evolution, the ideological errors are just as glaring. The difference in perspective between one who believes that God designed man at once in a whole, complete unit versus one who believes that man is the result of natural selection regardless of whether or not it was divinely directer (theistic evolution) is nothing short of colossal in its effect on how we live.  If random chance defined our beginnings and our mortal lives, there is no right besides might (tyranny of the majority), and there is no purpose beyond personal pleasure (why deny when this is your only chance to satisfy?). Conversely, if we were designed and created on purpose by an intelligent being we live for Him and His purpose, or we live without reason in a world where reason is available.

It’s as though we choose to be apes when sentience has been offered to us.

It is true that there are times when organs are damaged or infected or in other ways causing more harm than good, but to the extent that we label organs useless we only underline our own ignorance of the body and its functions. In the same way a phone has a distinct and designed purpose, whether or not we know what it is or understand its purpose, an Appendix may be inflamed and must be removed but it does have a purpose, regardless of whether or not we know or understand it.

Public Servant Strikes Immoral?

Who would believe that the father of alphabet soup, the champion of Big Labor who used big government price and spending controls to rescue the U.S. economy from the Great Depression (Actually, WWII rescued the U.S. economy from the Great Depression.) believed that public sector strikes were immoral.

Unlike today, in the 40’s and 50’s, the notion that teachers should engage in collective bargaining – much less go on strike to get districts to meet their demands – was controversial.

Resistance came even from the ranks of traditional organized labor. In 1959, AFL-CIO President George Meany declared: “It is impossible to bargain collectively with government.”

Public servants are just that: public servants. When public servants strike, they disparage their role as public servants and betray the public they serve. Sadly, the public, who often believe the rhetoric of striking public servants, pay both the injuries incurred during strikes and the increased, and sometimes unsustainable, benefits, salaries and working conditions “won” by the strike.

The Price Of Taxes

In my new state, Illinois, there is a heated debate going on in Springfield regarding how to pay for the massive increases in state spending. The Governors primary plan involves a 1% gross-receipts tax on all businesses with annual revenues greater than 5 million dollars. Governor Blagojevich has made class envy a major part of his message and programs, claiming, for instance “The system is not fair. It puts too much of a burden on middle class families and doesn’t ask enough of big corporations.”

Ignoring the issues of the rightness or wrongness of the need for more money and the increased spending it represents, the concept of taxes on ‘big business’ and the class envy that represents is ugly and morally wrong.  It costs the regular tax payer more no matter who the taxes are directed at, and it foments envy between members of the same society, damaging the culture and the economy further than just the cost of the tax increases.

Businesses must balance many different inputs and outputs, costs and revenue, in order to survive. The two fundamental aspects of the business/populace relationship are employment and consumption: Businesses hire people and compensate them tangibly for their labor, and businesses provide products to others (businesses or the general populace) to make more money. The old paradox, you need money to make money is especially true in the business culture in a capitalist system. If a business does not have money it must fire or lower the wages of its employees and/or raise prices on it’s products to get more money. Similarly, when the costs of business go up, they must also fire people, lower their wages, or raise their products costs.

Taxes are a cost. Do you ever wonder why businesses love Taiwan? Flat tax, no loopholes. Everybody pays the same percentage. If you make a little you pay your percentage of a little, if you make a lot, you pay your percentage of a lot. If you raise the costs of business artificially in one location at least two things occur: The businesses raise the cost of their products and services and they look elsewhere to do business. When a business moves out of a location, those employees not willing or able to relocate are now unemployed (which may not be a bad thing in this economy, with unemployment at historic lows, chances are they’ll find a better job that pays more) and there is less money going around the local economy. Prices of that businesses products also go up because they must now pay increased shipping costs to get their products back to the local economy.

It is not unfair or unjust for a business to pass its costs along to its consumers. The whole point of a business is to balance the desire for a product or service with the cost of making or providing that product or service. If the costs go up, for the business, the costs go up for the consumer. This is not rocket science.

The second, and perhaps more pernicious, issue with raising taxes on ‘big business’ is epitomized in the very phrase ‘big business’. What is bad about big business? Did you know that Walmart is the leading employer in the US and also the leading employer of older citizens? Most of the friendly old people who do small jobs at Walmart are unable to work most other places because of increase health insurance costs they represent (another government mandated do-gooder idea which diminishes freedom and costs us all so much more) and because they have trouble learning the new tools or performing the hard labor. Big business means big employer. Big employer means lots of people who have paychecks and homes and a sense of self worth based on true achievement. To set the ‘little man’ against ‘big business’ is to cause an unjust and irrational envy and hatred of one of the most powerful elements of our economy and culture. Any psychologist will tell you that hatred is bad, it causes harm to the psyche and if acted upon, it can cause harm to people (see the terrible tragedies of ideological terrorism where hate breeds destruction). Causing harm is morally and ethically wrong.

Governor Blagojevich, in craven pandering to class envy, has damaged people and lives by fomenting a hatred of the very hands which feed us, our jobs and the businesses that provide them. Ergo, Governor Blagojevich is wrong, morally and ethically wrong. I will not go so far as to say he is evil, though I don’t rule that out. I will leave the judgement of motives to God, He’s so much better at it than I.

Today’s Interesting Stuff

It’s an old letter, but it bears rereading:

To al-Qa’ida terrorists in Iraq:

I see that you have captured a U.S. Marine, and that you plan to cut off his head if your demands are not met.  Big mistake.  Before you carry out your threat I suggest you read up on Marine Corps history.  The Japanese tried the same thing on Makin Island and in a few other places during World War Two, and came to regret it.  Go ahead and read about what then happened to the mighty Imperial Army on Tarawa, Iwo Jima and Okinawa.  They paid full price for what they did, and you will too.

You look at America and you see a soft target, and to a large extent you are right.  Our country is filled with a lot of spoiled children who drive BMWs, sip decaf lattes and watch ridiculous reality TV shows.  They are for the most part decent, hard working citizens, but they are soft.  When you cut off Nick Berg’s head those people gasped, and you got the media coverage you sought, and then those people went back to their lives.  This time it is different.  We also have a warrior culture in this country, and they are called Marines.  It is a brotherhood forged in the fire of many wars, and the bond between us is stronger than blood.  While it is true that this country has produced nitwits like John Kerry, Michael Moore, Howard Dean and Jane Fonda who can be easily manipulated by your gruesome tactics, we have also produced men like Jason Dunham, Brian Chontosh and Joseph Perez.  If you don’t recognize those names you should.  They are all Marines who distinguished themselves fighting to liberate Iraq, and there will be many more just like them coming for you.

Before the current politically correct climate enveloped our culture one of the recruiting slogans of our band of brothers was “The Marine Corps Builds Men.”  You will soon find out just how true that is.  You, on the other hand, are nothing but a bunch of women.  If you were men you would show your faces, and take us on in a fair fight.  Instead, you are cowards who hide behind masks and decapitate helpless victims.  If you truly represented the interest of the Iraqi people you would not be ambushing those who come to your country to repair your power plants, or sabotage the oil pipelines which fuel the Iraqi economy.  Your agenda is hate, plain and simple.

When you raise that sword over your head I want you to remember one thing.  Corporal Wassef Ali Hassoun is not alone as he kneels before you.  Every Marine who has ever worn the uniform is there with him, and when you strike him you are striking all of us.  If you think the Marines were tough on you when they were cleaning out Fallujah a few weeks ago you haven’t seen anything yet.  If you want to know what it feels like to have the Wrath of God called down upon you then go ahead and do it.  We are not Turkish truck drivers, or Pakistani laborers, or independent contractors hoping to find work in your country.  We are the United States Marines, and we will be coming for you.

Our military is the right stuff. If only our leadership (besides Bush and those stalwart few who, like Lieberman and Thompson, put no cowardly qualifications on their patriotism) would accept that and allow them to fight their fight.

If WWII Was An MMPORG

(Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game, ie. fake life for those without real lives)

Be careful reading this, profanity is rather strong. But for those willing to brave the junk, and with a n00b lvl of l33t sp34k, you are in for the read of the day.

You Might Be Too Educated If…

And for that tag line above. No doubt you’ve already pasted it in google and read the answer, but if you haven’t…

Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Roughly translated means: “If you can read this, you’re overeducated.”

Call A Kid Smart And Ruin Their Life

Well maybe not that bad, but it certainly does not help their chances.

I’ve written about this recently but I ran across another article on the issue of children who know their smart versus children who are used to having to try to succeed. In considering this issue I find my own reactions to be similar to the child who knows they’re smart. I don’t try very hard. I love to learn, it’s one of the greatest perks of being a geek: I’m expected to learn and know. But when I don’t succeed I become discouraged very quickly, falling prey to thoughts of insufficiency and other sundry terrible things. My rather positive disposition tends to offset this effect for me, but it is still hard to keep playing a game when I’m being beaten. In computer games I’m more likely to find the ‘cheat codes’ and play the game using an invulnerability mode or other enhancement. I tell myself and others that it makes the game more enjoyable to me, which is true, but it is only a surface evidence. I play games with assistance because I become irritated when I try and fail and try and fail, and I don’t try again.

They say the first step towards fixing a problem is recognizing you have one… Well, consider this problem well and truly recognized.

Gender-Pay Inequality Isn’t

Listening to Michael Medved on the radio on my way home from work recently, I heard him interviewing an author of a study regarding the disparity of pay between male and female workers. A major tenet of the feminist ideology is that men make more than women, universally. Apparently it is true that on average, women do make less than men. But sexist policies and male-run workplaces are the least of the causes, if at all. I do not recall the name of the author Michael was interviewing and not having a MedHead subscription I was unable to look through the archives. But…

In an article in Reason Magazine, Steven Chapman writes on the study:

On its face, the evidence in the AAUW (American Association of University Women) study looks damning. “One year out of college,” it says, “women working full-time earn only 80 percent as much as their male colleagues earn. Ten years after graduation, women fall farther behind, earning only 69 percent as much as men earn.”

But read more, and you learn things that don’t get much notice on Equal Pay Day. As the report acknowledges, women with college degrees tend to go into fields like education, psychology and the humanities, which typically pay less than the sectors preferred by men, such as engineering, math and business. They are also more likely than men to work for nonprofit groups and local governments, which do not offer salaries that Alex Rodriguez would envy.

As they get older, many women elect to work less so they can spend time with their children. A decade after graduation, 39 percent of women are out of the work force or working part time — compared with only 3 percent of men. When these mothers return to full-time jobs, they naturally earn less than they would have if they had never left.

Steve goes on with additional and interesting facts and findings by other researchers and concludes:

June O’Neill, an economist at Baruch College and former director of the Congressional Budget Office, has uncovered something that debunks the discrimination thesis. Take out the effects of marriage and child-rearing, and the difference between the genders suddenly vanishes. “For men and women who never marry and never have children, there is no earnings gap,” she said in an interview.

That’s a fact you won’t hear from AAUW or the Democratic presidential candidates. The prevailing impulse on Equal Pay Day was to lament how far we are from the goal. The true revelation, though, is how close.

Steve does include one paragraph in which he discusses the varying expectations and general responsibilities of men versus women in society. He ponders whether the men in families are compelling their wives to stay at home with the children while they go work. While I’m sure there are cases of this, as a general fact, the differences in nature between men and women are such that women do a better job, generally, at raising children as an at-home parent than men. Women are not necessarily compelled to stay home to raise children more than they desire to stay home.

And even those arguments have no standing in the presence of the damning question: Is not motherhood a high calling equal to or greater than nearly any other calling a woman could choose? Why are stay-at-home mothers considered second class (mostly by freakishly feminazi fem-bots)? My dad fixes peoples telephones, he has done this and other work for the phone company for around 30 years. My mom went to college to study nursing and spent several years as an RN working with premature babies. Then she stayed home and raised us. She’s spent 27 years of her life now (that’s over half) raising a new generation, pouring herself into our education, our relationships, our joys and sorrows, our friends, our lives. What is second rate about that.

It would seem, and this is the greatest joke of all surrounding the whole idea of feminist propaganda, that a feminist ideal woman is a man, climbing the soulless corporate ladder, bringing home the bacon day after day until the day they die. What’s so great about that?