Author: has written 5265 posts for this blog.

Jill has been blogging for Feministe since 2005.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

104 Responses

  1. Zula
    Zula November 3, 2011 at 10:32 am |

    Every time someone starts waxing poetic about the “good ol’ days” with stay-at-home moms, I have to wonder if they ever actually researched the past that they so adore. Women have been working outside their homes since time immemorial… at least, those who are poor have been. Usually they were working in the homes of “stay-at-home” moms.

  2. Andie
    Andie November 3, 2011 at 10:55 am |

    argument 1: Although I like the rebuttal posted here better, my first thoughts about this was that it’s probably not the amounts of sex that leads to depression but the amount of slut-shaming both external and internalized that occurs when a woman…. *gasp* enjoys sex.

    argument 2: Many women are opting not to get married at all. Which is TRAGIC, i know, because everyone knows our ultimate goal should be to find a man and pop out babies AS SOON AS WE POSSIBLY CAN.

    argument 3: To me this is more an indictment of our current econimic model rather than an indictment of feminism. We wanted the OPTION to work outside of the home (and you’re right, women have already been doing this for YEARS) but now our economic model makes it nearly impossible for an average family to live off of a single income. The fact that so many kids are in daycare or with nannies is a result of this inability to have EITHER parent stay at home.. not just because those nasty selfish feminists didn’t want to bother raising their own kids.

    argument 4: Gender essentializing much Mr. Guy? I have nothing to add here, you’ve pretty much covered it, Jill.

  3. auditorydamage
    auditorydamage November 3, 2011 at 11:06 am |

    Shorter Dennis Prager: Life was so much better when women were barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen, and owned by a manly man.

  4. Shannon Drury
    Shannon Drury November 3, 2011 at 11:06 am |

    Frankly, I’m surprised that Christine Hoff Summers wasn’t given this assignment. Or is asking for a lady writer to announce that feminism is useless far too feminist an act for the National Review?

  5. EG
    EG November 3, 2011 at 11:06 am |

    Zula: Every time someone starts waxing poetic about the “good ol’ days” with stay-at-home moms, I have to wonder if they ever actually researched the past that they so adore. Women have been working outside their homes since time immemorial… at least, those who are poor have been. Usually they were working in the homes of “stay-at-home” moms.

    Also…weren’t a lot of those women who were able to stay at home unhappy? Betty Friedan’s point was popular. It spoke to a lot of women who were miserable staying at home. Or did the Rolling Stones just make up “Mother’s Little Helper” out of whole cloth?

    But you know, whatever. I’m sure this dude is totally right. Not being abused, fighting back against rape, being able to support myself, not being constantly disrespected and groped/assaulted…all that pales in the face of the horrible fate of guys who don’t have preset roles to fall back on any longer.

  6. Stentor
    Stentor November 3, 2011 at 11:18 am |

    I’m filing argument #4 away for next time someone tries to claim that it’s feminists who hate men. It’s pretty insulting to men to claim we’re all big babies who will be lost if society doesn’t rigidly prescribe us a role and our fragile little egos will be crushed if society doesn’t put us in charge of everything just for being men.

  7. Martin!
    Martin! November 3, 2011 at 11:20 am |

    Excellent rebuttals. This kind of horrible anti-feminist article gets trotted out every few months, so it’s nice to see a solid deconstruction of precisely why it’s total hogwash.

  8. auditorydamage
    auditorydamage November 3, 2011 at 11:20 am |

    Waitasec, this was from the National Review?

    ‘scuse me while I reiterate a point I made in the Derbyshire thread – you can’t spell “moron” without “NRO”.

  9. bleh
    bleh November 3, 2011 at 11:23 am |

    Why am I supposed to care that most men find equality emasculating? Is what they want meant to be my priority? Cuz it ain’t!

  10. DP
    DP November 3, 2011 at 11:23 am |


    argument 3: To me this is more an indictment of our current econimic model rather than an indictment of feminism. We wanted the OPTION to work outside of the home (and you’re right, women have already been doing this for YEARS) but now our economic model makes it nearly impossible for an average family to live off of a single income. The fact that so many kids are in daycare or with nannies is a result of this inability to have EITHER parent stay at home.. not just because those nasty selfish feminists didn’t want to bother raising their own kids.

    I fully support equal opportunity in the workplace and all the demands of feminism including generous pat/maternity leave, childcare, etc.

    But supply and demand is a thing. If it was feasible for a family of 4 or 5 to be supported on a single income in, say, 1949, and what followed was a massive injection of new labor – both in terms of the baby boom and the expansion of women’s roles in the workforce – you’re going to need MASSIVE economic growth (some of which did happen) to provide enough work for all that new labor.

    Otherwise, wages will stagnate or decline, and you’ll end up needing two earners to make up the same lifestyle that one could previously provide.

    It’s not an indictment, but when you add tens of millions of new workers to the workforce, the capitalist systems demands either more jobs or lower wages per job.

  11. zuzu
    zuzu November 3, 2011 at 11:26 am |

    Women never worked outside the home before feminists made them?

  12. Thomas MacAulay Millar
    Thomas MacAulay Millar November 3, 2011 at 11:27 am |

    Prager basically admits that marriage ought to be a tooth-grinding slog in the service what the civilization he prefers rather than a joyous personal relationship, so unless one believes that, everything else he says about relationships can be safely ignored. I’ve criticized him here and here, the tooth-grinding slog bit where he almost literally says “lie back and think of England”.

    The stuff about changing work patterns can be safely ignored unless paired with economic analysis — the distribution of wealth has a lot more to do with who has to work to support a family, and discrimination laws give families with women in them more ability to make ends meet than they’d have without them.

    Finally, this dreck about men being emasculated by mere equality as compared to patriarchy: Not so, for those of us with perspective. I’m married to an equal partner. I don’t feel emasculated. I doubt Hugo Schwyzer or Michael Kimmel feel emasculated. Those of us who are feminists in feminist marriages are just fine with our masculinity. We don’t need a social structure that puts people below us to define ourselves, and the less patriarchy we’ve got the more comfortable I am in my own skin as a man.

  13. mono_si
    mono_si November 3, 2011 at 11:42 am |

    Thank God that real men like Dennis Prager are here to show me how emasculated I am. If you need me, I’ll be rebalancing my entire life, in order to comply with his antiquated social codes.

  14. Brett K
    Brett K November 3, 2011 at 11:43 am |

    Zula:
    Every time someone starts waxing poetic about the “good ol’ days” with stay-at-home moms, I have to wonder if they ever actually researched the past that they so adore. Women have been working outside their homes since time immemorial… at least, those who are poor have been. Usually they were working in the homes of “stay-at-home” moms.

    Yes, exactly. In fact, prior to the eighteenth century, even most wealthier women worked, if not “outside the home” (which is sort of an anachronistic concept pre-1800), in some kind of economically productive labour. It was not affordable even for the middle class to live on a single income. Anyone who thinks that no woman ever considered getting a job before 1970 needs to read a history book and STFU.

  15. Rich
    Rich November 3, 2011 at 11:45 am |

    Prager is a bit of a moron. The argument that men are less happy because women are “more liberated” is one I’ve heard countless times from unhappy dudes. Usually these dudes are just not happy with their own situation in life and want to put the blame on those “evil women”. That this anger towards women can be easily transferred to any group in society is the scary part. People like Prager are looking for scapegoats and his thoughts just don’t stand up under scrutiny.

  16. speedbudget
    speedbudget November 3, 2011 at 11:54 am |

    Thus, the decade or more during which women have the best chance to attract men is spent being preoccupied with developing a career.

    ARRRRRGH. Can we PLEASE stop with this idea that being 30 means you are some used-up, old-ass wrinkled HAG?????

    I met the man of my dreams at 34. You know why? Because by then I knew what I wanted, I knew what I needed, I didn’t take shit from men anymore, and I wasn’t DEPENDENT. I had a career that paid my bills and then some, which means I don’t have to stick in a bad relationship cause I won’t be able to survive on my own. I guess that’s a model that works for “manly-men” who need to coerce women into staying with them, but if you want a healthy, wonderful, fun, adult relationship, that does not work.

  17. EG
    EG November 3, 2011 at 11:58 am |

    DP: If it was feasible for a family of 4 or 5 to be supported on a single income in, say, 1949,

    And for whom, precisely, was this feasible? My stepfather is an only child. Both his parents worked, one on the day shift, one on the night shift, at the local factory to support their family. It’s not like they lived high on the hog, either.

  18. 10G
    10G November 3, 2011 at 12:08 pm |

    “But most women are not programmed to prefer a great career to a great man and a family. They feel they were sold a bill of goods at college and by the media”

    PROVE it, Prager. Oh that’s right, you CAN’T because you’re COMPLETELY WRONG. It’s actually the OPPOSITE–women were socially programmed to want to be the little domestic slaves and baby-machines that conservative white dudes like YOU wanted so your widdle-biddy egos weren’t threatened. Cite your source, asshole…..just makes me grateful that Prager is aging and his kind will shuffle off this mortal coil soon….jeeebus, already.

  19. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub November 3, 2011 at 12:14 pm |

    speedbudget: ARRRRRGH. Can we PLEASE stop with this idea that being 30 means you are some used-up, old-ass wrinkled HAG?????

    Lord, this. I get far more interest from men now that I’m in my 40′s than I did in my 20′s, and frankly, I would have slit my wrists if I’d gotten married in my 20′s. Geez. Only an ignorant d00d would think it’s horrible that women not focus on finding a MAY-UN.

    Also, both of my grandmothers worked outside of the home. When my father’s mother got married, the phone company let her go because wives weren’t supposed to work. They hired her back as a temp (so no pension or other benefits) and she worked for them as a temp for 20 years. And worked most holidays (like Christmas and Thanksgiving) to boot. So. . .yeah. It’s time for the anti-feminists to pull their heads out of their asses.

  20. Richard
    Richard November 3, 2011 at 12:21 pm |

    My favourite comment found under this article:
    “I’m sorry, i’m too depressed to finish reading your article because of all the sex i’ve been having. boy, do those orgasms make me sad…”

    And this whole ‘most men want to be honoured’ thing is utter crap. If your entire argument revolves around dudes not being able to cope with equality then may I please suggest you stop trying to speak for ‘most men’. Speak for yourself but don’t try and drag us down with your sinking ship of gender roles.

  21. Betsy
    Betsy November 3, 2011 at 12:25 pm |

    I also have to point out re: #1 that feminism never “told young women to have sex just as men do.” It argued that sex was not something that was shameful, and that women should be able to make whatever (non-exploitative, non-coercive) sexual choices they wanted to make without being punished for them any more than men were.

    Somehow, I don’t remember the page in Our Bodies, Ourselves that told me I had to go have lots of casual sex to be happy or fulfilled.

  22. Athenia
    Athenia November 3, 2011 at 12:34 pm |

    “Most men want to be honored in some way — as a husband, a father, a provider, as an accomplished something; they don’t want merely to be “equal partners” with a wife.”

    I fail to see his point. “Honoring” someone has nothing to do with being “equal partners.” Dude can provide diaper changes and he’ll still be a husband and father.

  23. Randomizer
    Randomizer November 3, 2011 at 12:35 pm |

    Prager is an ass and his arguments prove it.

    The whole issue of gender role anomie is so much more complex than ‘I’ve lost my daddy and husband role and don’t know what to do!’ It effects men and women both, though in different ways.

    Future Shock ain’t just about figgerin out the microwave.

  24. DP
    DP November 3, 2011 at 12:51 pm |

    EG: And for whom, precisely ,was this feasible?

    I mean, some reasonably affluent subset of the population, I assume. My family is from South America so I can’t speak to what my ancestors did, though my grandmother definitely worked after my grandfather left her.

    Obviously, for a large portion of the poor population, 2-income-families have always been the reality, one way or another. Man tills the fields, woman sells goods in the market, or whatever.

    There was, however, a certain economic class, probably created by the massive economic stimulus of the war and some technological revolutions which allowed the stereotypical “50′s family’ of working man, stay-at-home mom and 2.2 kids+dog to exist. It certainly wasn’t all of America, and it was probably limited to working/middle class urban and suburban whites, but it was a thing.

    And if it’s gone, there are a lot of reasons. One of them, though, is that more labor == a lower price for labor in a capitalist system. And that isn’t necessarily a GOOD thing – I’d argue it’s na inherent flaw – but it is what it is.

  25. ch
    ch November 3, 2011 at 1:06 pm |

    That sex thing (argument #1) also makes zero logical or mathematical sense: If we accept his premise that men have always been having commitment-free casual sex, but women have only started doing so since the advent of feminism, then it’s always been the case that a woman couldn’t “at least hope for at least the possibility of a long-term commitment”. Well, she could hope, but since men were always having casual sex rather than relationships, this hope would supposedly go unfulfilled (one wonders, then, how all that marriage he talks about later was happening). Whereas now, either party can hope for a long term relationship, or talk about how maybe they’d like a long term relationship, or just have casual sex for the fun of it. Rather than the good old days of men screwing women for pleasure without commitment while the woman lies back and thinks about long-term commitment. (Disclaimer: I’m sure that at least some women were having better sex than this even in the “good old days”).

  26. Rob in CT
    Rob in CT November 3, 2011 at 1:22 pm |

    The devaluation of being a husband and father? What society is this wacknut describing (I ask, as husband and father)?

    I too take exception to the idea that we fragile men cannot handle the dissolution of gender roles. I *like* to cook. While I don’t love chores (who does?) I’ll be damned if I’m not doing my fair share. I enjoyed taking 4 months off work to stay home with my (then) infant daughter, after mommy’s leave ran out. The fact that my wife makes more money than me doesn’t bother me in the slightest (more money for us!).

    Anyway, one does just have to love the spectacle of a guy telling the little ladies what a failure feminism has been.

  27. Laurie
    Laurie November 3, 2011 at 1:27 pm |

    Anyway, one does just have to love the spectacle of a guy telling the little ladies what a failure feminism has been.

    I know! It’s amazing — this guy’s sheer lack of any self-awareness or humility whatsoever. What kind of person thinks he knows better than an entire class of people comprising 50% of the human race what’s best for them? A patriarchal moron, that’s who!

  28. Seth Eag
    Seth Eag November 3, 2011 at 1:39 pm |

    Not to nitpick, but I really despise “causes depression” arguments in regards to anything. Depression causes depression.

    Also, like in most critiques of feminism, I think Prager hits on a grain of truth when he points out that elevating “careers” (meaning, in this sense, the accumulation of material wealth) above other things has been something of a destructive force, but, again, like in most critiques of feminism, this seems to be something that only effects women and their “programming”. For men, being obsessed with financial gain is perfectly acceptable and can exist wholly in tandem with “running a family”. The question of what defines “success” is, I think, a good one that should be explored, but so far anti-feminists haven’t have only used it to score a cheap point.

  29. DP
    DP November 3, 2011 at 1:42 pm |

    Jill:
    Just want to point out here that the commonly-accepted argument that in the 1950s men earned enough to be single-earning providers for their families is actually a fallacy. In the 1950s, the poverty rate was 22.5 percent; since women entered the workforce in larger numbers and started attending college in larger numbers, it has declined. Even bad economic conditions haven’t brought it back to 1950s levels.

    Interesting. So the whole Leave it To Beaver thing is really a total media myth, then…that kind of life was only accessible to the Don Draper types who were actually quite wealthy?

    (Yes, my image of mid-century American life is basically formed by TV shows…)

  30. Tina
    Tina November 3, 2011 at 1:46 pm |

    DP: And if it’s gone, there are a lot of reasons. One of them, though, is that more labor == a lower price for labor in a capitalist system. And that isn’t necessarily a GOOD thing – I’d argue it’s na inherent flaw – but it is what it is.

    You have the relationship between women and labor reversed. First the jobs were available, then women entered the workforce. So this idea that the economy suffered because of some movement towards women entering the workplace all of a sudden in great numbers is simply false. They did start entering the workforce in greater and greater numbers but only because new opportunities allowed them to. Women made great strides in their civil rights and becoming independent BECAUSE there was a need for their labor in the workplace. Women didn’t hurt the economy, the economy helped women.

  31. Hugo
    Hugo November 3, 2011 at 1:56 pm |

    Thomas, you’re right. I don’t feel emasculated.

    Jill, great rebuttal to all of this ridiculousness.

    In two sentences feminism gave me the chance to be valued — as a man — for who I am and not merely for what I can do. Feminism is the reason I’m a participant in, rather than simply a provider for, my family.

  32. DP
    DP November 3, 2011 at 2:02 pm |

    Tina: *Quote redacted because the comment system keeps making it garbage*

    The women went into the workforce because all the men were out fighting and dying. It’s sort of similar to what happened in Europe after the Black Plague – so many laborers died, the ones were who left were able to exercise more power and earn higher wages.

    With WWI and WWII, there was more work for the women to do because there were fewer men to do that work, so a sexist system turned to women in a moment of desperation.

    NOTE – my argument is not women went to work and teh economy went to suck. My argument is just that, if someone points out that, if you increase the pool of labor, you have to increase the number of jobs or decrease the average wage. Under the current system.

  33. tinfoil hattie
    tinfoil hattie November 3, 2011 at 2:05 pm |

    One thing I’ve never understood is: with whom were all these (presumably het) men having all these testosterone-driven, can’t-help-ourselves, a-man-has-needs casual encounters nefore feminism ruined everything?

    Were there just two or three designated “town sluts,” as I learned in 11th grade sex ed? (Yes, This was an actual thing I learned in public school in the sex-crazed 70s.)

    Seriously, it’s as though no one has ever done the actual math.

  34. tinfoil hattie
    tinfoil hattie November 3, 2011 at 2:10 pm |

    Also: women who ran the factories and built the weapons used in WWII were exhorted to go home when the men came back from the war – so the men would feel needed and important and not all emasculated by working with ladyfolk.

  35. Julia
    Julia November 3, 2011 at 2:36 pm |

    DP: The women went into the workforce because all the men were out fighting and dying. It’s sort of similar to what happened in Europe after the Black Plague – so many laborers died, the ones were who left were able to exercise more power and earn higher wages.

    You are wrong there, women did indeed get into the work force briefly during WWII but there were excluded from the workplace as soon as the war ended, and only very slowly started being re’intergrated in the workplace.

    Also you have the thing backwards:In the beggining of capitalism, women (and indeed children) did work in factories. What happened is than men workeres/ syndicalists fought really hard against women working in factories, with the excuse that is was not a work for women. And when they managed to drive women out of the work force, they were of course rewarded with higher wages, exactly because they were supposed to be suppoting an entire family with their salary.

    So, what happened in the 50´s-60´s when women started entering massively (again) in the work place? It wasn´t an problem, because, due to the ecnomic devolopment, there were jobs for everyone. In fact, some theorists say, that in part, women were allowed relatively easily in the workforce, because capitalsm needed more workers at the time. Sure it was a combination of factors, but it didn´t happen only because suddenly capitalists saw the light.

    When women entered the work force, there was need for more workers. Now maybe there is not, but what does that mean? That women shouldn´t enter in the first place? But they were there in the first place, only to be kicked out. So as you see, the comparison you are making doesn´t make any sense…

  36. La Lubu
    La Lubu November 3, 2011 at 2:50 pm |

    Dennis Prager….where have I heard that name before? Oh yeah, he’s the dipshit who complained about Rep. Keith Ellison taking his oath of office on the Quran (Thomas Jefferson’s Quran, I believe).

    For all Prager’s blather about conservative religious values, he’s on his third marriage himself. Asshole.

  37. HH
    HH November 3, 2011 at 2:57 pm |

    ☆☼☆Brilliant! Well-written, researched *&* Brilliant!☆☼☆

  38. HH
    HH November 3, 2011 at 2:58 pm |

    Prager and other cavemen are yearning for ‘A golden age’ that never was!–That’s what is so burning….ugh–this fantasy of the perfect ‘arrangement’ where men and women were in their place (and so by the way were minorities–’in their place’ too!) they ignore the horror behind the curtain…it’s galling really.

    I value my education and independence more than I can say–and guess what–*So does my man*! He has been helped tremendously by my education, wit, experience and intelligence; he wouldn’t have it any other way.☸✧☸✧☸✧

  39. Bagelsan
    Bagelsan November 3, 2011 at 3:01 pm |

    I enjoyed taking 4 months off work to stay home with my (then) infant daughter, after mommy’s leave ran out.

    A guy who works with me had a similar experience when his wife had a baby recently; by the time her maternity leave ended she was like “THANK GAWD” and couldn’t get back to work fast enough, and he was thrilled to take over for a while and not in nearly as much of a hurry to leave as his wife was once their kid was old enough for daycare. And the guy’s father is likewise head-over-heels about the baby — he didn’t get to see his own children much when they were very young so now my coworker can barely pry him away from his first granddaughter during visits. :)

  40. Seth Eag
    Seth Eag November 3, 2011 at 3:29 pm |

    All of this talk of economics really does underline the paradox of modern conservatism’s fusion between support for free markets and “biblical” values. I’ve discussed this in more depth on my own site, but basically: Prager supports a economic programme that needs women in the workplace to sustain itself, but he follows a theology that thinks such things are wrong and immoral. How can he have it both ways?

  41. A straw woman argument « Ice Cream Headache

    [...] traffic to it, as well as other angry bloggers, who will repeat the cycle. (This goes for you too, Feministe). Share this:FacebookRedditTwitterMoreEmailDiggLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. from [...]

  42. Jadey
    Jadey November 3, 2011 at 3:39 pm |

    Seth Eag: All of this talk of economics really does underline the paradox of modern conservatism’s fusion between support for free markets and “biblical” values. I’ve discussed this in more depth on my own site, but basically: Prager supports a economic programme that needs women in the workplace to sustain itself, but he follows a theology that thinks such things are wrong and immoral. How can he have it both ways?

    I’ve looked at research on this very phenomenon from a psychological perspective, and the best I can offer at the moment is social dominance theory, and the employment of flexible ideological positions in service of a more fundamental drive to preserve social inequality (which dovetails nicely with social justice perspectives on kyriarchy and privilege, of course), although the specific mechanics are still being worked out. None of it is revelatory from a social justice standpoint (like I said, kyriarchy), but it’s good that the science is catching up and can lend some empirical insights as well.

  43. Seth Eag
    Seth Eag November 3, 2011 at 4:14 pm |

    @Jadey Interesting off-topic side-note to that: Major Corporations come out against DOMA. Essentially they’re saying that Gay Marriage is in their business interests. Not to construct a straw man, but I’m willing to bet Prager opposes both measures that would limit corporate power to influence politics and gay marriage.

  44. zuzu
    zuzu November 3, 2011 at 4:29 pm |

    Jill:
    JJust want to point out here that the commonly-accepted argument that in the 1950s men earned enough to be single-earning providers for their families is actually a fallacy. In the 1950s, the poverty rate was 22.5 percent; since women entered the workforce in larger numbers and started attending college in larger numbers, it has declined. Even bad economic conditions haven’t brought it back to 1950s levels.

    In any event, the economic conditions in the US of the 1950s were a historic fluke, as the postwar economy expanded in an atmosphere of no competition (due to Europe and Asia being in ruins and requiring goods and services to rebuild), with strong unions, low housing costs, and education paid for by high taxes on the rich and the GI Bill.

    And, you know, that whole segregation/enforced pay discrimination based on race, sex, marital status, religion and other statuses.

  45. Agent J
    Agent J November 3, 2011 at 5:07 pm |

    I don’t think Prager phrased “problem” #4 the way he should’ve.

    It’s not that Men NEED to feel BETTE OR SUPERIOR than women…

    What some feminists refuse to acknowledge is that a man can feel like a “manly man” in a completely equal and supportive relationship.

    Men want to be looked at as strong in some way..doesn’t have to be physical strength but..we like when a woman looks to us for comfort or protection…we like when you say you feel safe in our arms…etc. etc. It gives us purpose..because at the end of the day, even NICE GUYS really just want to make you guys happy..we want to be valuable to you.

    That doesn’t mean you have to revere is..do all the house work, and then sleep with us whenever we want.

    On the contrary, I would have no problem propping a woman up. I think women are better than men..in almost every aspect of life, they are better. And I would treat a woman like she was. BUT…that doesn’t mean I don’t want to feel like a MAN…a strong provider who takes care of my girl and our kids.

    What is so bad about that? It’s not that we find meaning in life by dominating women..we can feel “strong” in a relationship where you are the Queen Bee and we are your slaves…but JESUS ladies…at least give us that.

  46. Tony
    Tony November 3, 2011 at 5:34 pm |

    Whenever I see one of these polemics it makes me weary because the arguments never seen to change, only the language in which they are couched. Take the 1837 Pastoral Letter, one of the first backlashes against womens’ rights in America:

    “If the vine, whose strength and beauty is to lean upon the trellis work and half conceal its clusters, thinks to assume the independence and the overshadowing nature of the elm, it will not only cease to bear fruit, but fall in shame and dishonour into the dust.”

    e.g. womens’ rights will ruin women.

    In 2011 it is stated more succinctly: “… the majority of women who are promiscuous do pay prices. One is depression.”

    Or this: “But when she assumes the place and tone of a man as a public reformer, …her character becomes unnatural.”

    e.g., womens’ rights are against the laws of nature.

    2011: “…most women are not programmed to prefer a great career to a great man and a family.”

    Or this: “…our care and protection of her seem unnecessary, we put ourselves in self defence against her, she yields the power which God has given her for protection”

    e.g., if women get too strident, men will go on strike.

    2011: “…If you wonder why so many men choose not to get married, the answer lies in large part in the contemporary devaluation of the husband and of the father — of men as men, in other words.”

    It’s a good thing those 1830s women didn’t take the advice to heart and end it there ;)

  47. Tony_
    Tony_ November 3, 2011 at 5:47 pm |

    PS here’s Sarah Grimke’s response to the Pastoral Letter, which contains some amazingly progressive statements for 1837. (Yes I’m a hopeless history geek)

  48. EG
    EG November 3, 2011 at 8:06 pm |

    Agent J: It’s not that we find meaning in life by dominating women..we can feel “strong” in a relationship where you are the Queen Bee and we are your slaves…but JESUS ladies…at least give us that.

    So who’s taking that away from you? Go ahead, be strong. But I’m not going to be weak so you can feel stronger than you are.

    Agent J: even NICE GUYS really just want to make you guys happy..we want to be valuable to you.

    Load. of. crap.

    I’m glad you and your friends want to make women happy. That’s nice. One way you could exercise your vaunted strength would be in standing up to those other men, not by riding to our rescue, but every day, in everyday ways. When your coworker catcalls some girl on the street. When your father lets your mother do all the work clearing the table after dinner while he sits and enjoys his coffee. When your cousin bitches about how much child support he has to pay his ex, just because he knocked her up. Go ahead. Be strong. Stand up to other men.

  49. EG
    EG November 3, 2011 at 8:07 pm |

    If you wonder why so many men choose not to get married, the answer lies in large part in the contemporary devaluation of the husband and of the father — of men as men, in other words.

    This is one of my favorite parts. See, when there are high rates of single women, it’s because ohmyGodsomethingiswrongwiththoseladies! seehowunhappytheymustbe! But for dudes, it’s a choice.

  50. rayuela23
    rayuela23 November 3, 2011 at 8:12 pm |

    My favourite quote is this:

    “…outweigh the gains for women, let alone for men and for society.”

    Women =/= Society

  51. TMay
    TMay November 3, 2011 at 8:39 pm |

    So according to the writer of the article, Jill, the best relationships are those after age 35. A problem arises, and Prager did not create it. It is better to have children before age 35 as there is greater fertility and is healthier for the women and more children end up being born healthy if the mother is younger than 35. So if a man is thinking, and if he wants to have children, just as his female peers are deciding that they are ready to get married and then start to think about having children, the thinking man who wants the odds of healthy children to be high will choose a younger woman who has a greater chance of giving him healthy children. So Jill’s system doesn’t work for the majority of women based on reality, even though in Jill’s imagination and she wishes her wishes were so. It is preferable to be married a few years before getting pregnant, which means that the woman will be even older than 35. And it turns out that that the likelihood of men’s sperm being healthy also goes down with age, it is not just the woman’s eggs which have deteriorated in quality due to having been around since before the mother’s birth 35-40 years ago. Granted for some women, it does work out. They might be able to produce most likely one child if they are lucky.

    My guess is that Prager is older than Jill and has had more time to see how things turn out.

    Talking about biology, did you know that there are certain birds that push the eggs out of a bird’s nest and replace it with their own so that they don’t have to be bothered raising their own young? Even the bird kingdom does not have female birds who push their own eggs out of their own nest. Dr Laura has mentioned how even bird brains sometimes appear to have more sense than humans with their big brains because female birds insist on being courted by a male bird, and in nature build a nest before laying fertilized eggs. Comparing the bird who raises her own young versus the bird who raises another bird’s young, which one would Darwin consider to be more successful? The ideal remains the ideal. Those who can’t have the ideal do their best. Some people are so nurturing they are like people who are attracted to teaching pre-school, which is not everyone in the population. Adoption means a third party, often a bureaucrat, gets to look over your age and weight and income and mental health and values and the health of your relationship, and decides which child you get, to decide whether to give you a child, with surprise visits to check on your house-keeping for about two years, and they can change their mind, and the biological mother or father can change their mind. And most of the time one has not had control over what the mother was eating, how much alcohol she was consuming, what drugs she took, nor her stress levels while pregnant. It doesn’t sound like a whole bunch of freedom to me.

    It is a matter of values. A woman who values having healthy children and wants to raise the children with the biological father in a publicly committed relationship, acts in one way; and women who value sexual freedom act in another way. Female children raised with their biological father have a greater chance of not being brutalized or sexually assaulted than children raised with non- biologically related men in the house. In traditional marriage, there are two adults to the youngster, there is a stand in, there is a provider, there is a protector. Sure sounds like natural selection to me.

    And luckily in the west and in this day and age, we have divorce to get out of bad relationships.

    Women often regret having STD’s, which can cause sterility, increase the chance of cancer, greater chances of miscarriages, they can catch venereal warts, or herpes, and might undergo abortions, and that is not even getting into the fringes of experimentation. Genetic scientists cost a lot when you get down to freezing eggs and implantations. Recipe for happiness? “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.”

    People in happy marriages are happier than singles.

    Kate Bolick is hoping to pull out of a hat a new institution in the next year or two that can compete with marriage which has been around for a hundred thousand years.

    You think that working 9-5 is the greatest thing ever?

    The self esteem movement has been very successful. It has taught a generation that they can throw out everything that came before them, all the brilliant minds, and they will be as successful socially as they would be if they left it to themselves technologically to discover and invent on their own the use of fire, the wheel, alcohol, writing, math, the lever, the screw, the comb, the hairbrush, the toothbrush, hot baths, bricks, concrete, glass, glasses, china, hot coffee, iron, money, musical writing, the clock, printing, the cotton gin, cotton, silk, the steam engine, the toilet, toilet paper, the umbrella, a gun, oil, aspirin, the match, antibiotics, immunization, electricity, hair conditioner, the automobile, the radio, the fridge, the telephone, an airplane, the Salk vaccine, plastic, birth control, disposable diapers, the microwave, a calculator, the computer, the internet, etc. How far will they get on their own within the space of their own lifetime? About the social equivalent technologically as barefoot, raped, pregnant, with Rastafarian hair, hungry, cold, and wearing a fig leaf, with a short life span. They’d be lucky if they could create a basket, and a sandal, and create shelter similar to a basket, and urinate in the forest, and if they learned to plant seeds.

    Most likely, men miss traditional marriage less than women miss traditional marriage, especially if women are putting out.

    Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

  52. karak
    karak November 3, 2011 at 9:05 pm |

    You know, I do love and honor and respect my father, as a man and as my dad. His role in my life growing up was immense. His presence is irreplaceable. He knew his “role” was to teach me to use power tools, long division, and how get a splinter out of a foot with a pocketknife. He also taught me that men are perfectly capable of cooking, tear up at sad movies, and become furious with rage when women are mistreated (well, when anyone’s mistreated).

    And he and my mother have a hugely equal marriage, with complimentary skills and different strengths.

    I have no idea how a person in a healthy relationship ISN’T accorded respect and honor. If your entire purpose in life is based around bossing your wife… that’s kind of sad.

  53. Tei Tetua
    Tei Tetua November 3, 2011 at 9:20 pm |

    I often mistype feminism as “feminsim” too.

  54. librarygoose
    librarygoose November 3, 2011 at 9:58 pm |

    @TMay,

    There are so many problems with everything you said. I cant even process where to begin. So I’ll go with: another interesting biological fun fact is people aren’t birds, and the Nile is indeed not just a river in Egypt. It also runs through Ethiopia, Uganda, Sudan, and Burundi. You at least got that right.

  55. Brett K
    Brett K November 3, 2011 at 10:05 pm |

    librarygoose:
    @TMay,

    @TMay,

    There are so many problems with everything you said. I cant even process where to begin. So I’ll go with: another interesting biological fun fact is people aren’t birds, and the Nile is indeed not just a river in Egypt. It also runs through Ethiopia, Uganda, Sudan, and Burundi. You at least got that right.

    But… the bird brains! They’re better than our brains! Because natural selection!

  56. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve November 3, 2011 at 10:33 pm |

    Argument: The first was the feminist message to young women to have sex just as men do.

    One positive we can take from this argument is Prager’s newfound acceptance of homosexuality. After all, these men clearly weren’t having sex with women, who just didn’t do that sort of thing back then.

  57. EG
    EG November 3, 2011 at 10:58 pm |

    TMay: And it turns out that that the likelihood of men’s sperm being healthy also goes down with age

    This is totes true, which is why I’m really only interested in fucking men in their 20s these days. What? With my antiquated eggs, I don’t want to risk my future kids’ health any further.

    You see, pumpkin, the thing you’re forgetting is that all a woman needs to have a kid if she wants one is money and sperm. Men actually need to convince women to commit at least nine months of her life, and/or stay with them for years and years if they want children. I don’t think it’s the men who are really biologically in a position to be getting too picky.

    TMay: Granted for some women, it does work out. They might be able to produce most likely one child if they are lucky.

    Got stats? Because I’ve known more than woman who did not start reproducing until the advanced age of 36, but who nonetheless has managed to have more than one kid. I’ve also known people who want no more than one kid.

    TMay: Comparing the bird who raises her own young versus the bird who raises another bird’s young, which one would Darwin consider to be more successful?

    Well, if Darwin would consider a bird more successful, then what does one’s actual happiness matter? I mean, I might be just as happy and fulfilled with and feel the same intense love and bond toward a child genetically unrelated to me, but what can any of that compare to the edge certain birds have in natural selection? Clearly, sir, you have trumped any argument that might arise.

    TMay: A woman who values having healthy children and wants to raise the children with the biological father in a publicly committed relationship, acts in one way; and women who value sexual freedom act in another way.

    True fact: women who value sexual freedom never also value having healthy children and never want to raise said children with the biological father in a publicly committed relationship. Another true fact: women who value healthy children and want to raise said children with the biological father in a publicly committed relationship never also value sexual freedom. There is no overlap in this completely imaginary Venn diagram!

    TMay: Female children raised with their biological father have a greater chance of not being brutalized or sexually assaulted than children raised with non- biologically related men in the house.

    Cite? Control for other factors, such as class, access to social services (i.e. are these children being abused at greater rates or are they able to report the abuse at greater rates?), previous patterns of abuse?

    TMay: In traditional marriage, there are two adults to the youngster, there is a stand in, there is a provider, there is a protector.

    Of what traditional marriage do you speak? In the western world, prior to reliable birth control, a youngster was lucky to get any individual attention at all, given the crowd of siblings. Poor people had to work all day and put their kids to work. Rich people paid others to raise their kids.

    TMay: Sure sounds like natural selection to me.

    Another fun fact: the middle-class suburban household of the 1950s in the US is totally the pinnacle of evolution. Every other form of family/household organization throughout history, no matter how successful or how long it lasted, was merely leading up to the glorious achievement that was suburban Illinois, circa 1954 (no cutting on Illinois; suburban Illinois is where my father grew up). Everybody who was miserable in that set-up: too bad! you’re just wrong! suck it up for the sake of evolution! Everybody who has been very happy in a different set-up: what’s wrong with you? you’re messing up our evolutionary path! stop it this instant!

    TMay: Women often regret having STD’s, which can cause sterility, increase the chance of cancer, greater chances of miscarriages, they can catch venereal warts, or herpes, and might undergo abortions, and that is not even getting into the fringes of experimentation.

    Fortunately, men never regret STDs, which never have any negative consequences for them whatsoever. Also, only women can become sterile. Or catch venereal warts. Or herpes. And as everybody knows, having herpes simplex 2 is the most horrible fate possible. It’s not even a little bit like having herpes simplex 1 (cold sores), which you can get sharing a glass of water, and is no biggie.

    TMay: People in happy marriages are happier than singles.

    Good point. Most single people are totally thinking to themselves “Gee, I could marry Pat here, and live happily with him/her, or I could stay single. What to do, what to do?” It’s not like single people who are willing to consider marriage but haven’t gotten married (yet) are thinking “Shame I haven’t yet met anybody whom I love and want to spend the rest of my life with.” Anyway, it is also a true fact that if you just suck it up and marry the first person who wants to fuck you, you will totally be able to turn it into a happy marriage, so it doesn’t matter whether or not you think you’ve found someone you want to marry yet.

    Hey, Einstein, what are the happiness rates for single people as opposed to those in unhappy marriages?

    TMay: You think that working 9-5 is the greatest thing ever?

    I think it beats the hell out of working 14-hour days for 6-7 days a week, which is what was going down before workers organized. I also think it beats the hell out of being totally dependent upon somebody else for my daily bread. But I do agree that it’s not as good as being independently wealthy.

    TMay: barefoot, raped, pregnant, with Rastafarian hair, hungry, cold, and wearing a fig leaf, with a short life span.

    What’s wrong with dreadlocks? No, seriously. What’s wrong with rasta hair? The average white person has to put in some serious effort to achieving them. In fact, just so as you know, black people have to put in serious effort to achieving and maintaining dreads as well. I like ‘em.

    And…”raped”? You do realize, right, that one of the whole issues around which feminists have made a huge amount of progress is in identifying rape, punishing rapists, and providing ways for women to articulate their experiences surrounding rape, right? Why don’t you go read up on what society’s attitude toward rape was like before

    And…”pregnant”? Isn’t the whole point of your screed that women should shut up about our goals and dreams so we can pump out babies by 22 because Darwin? Wouldn’t “pregnant” be a good thing in your value system?

    You know what keeps women from being pregnant when they don’t want to be? It ain’t patriarchy.

    It’s feminism.

    TMay: Most likely, men miss traditional marriage less than women miss traditional marriage, especially if women are putting out.

    Cites? Considering that the 1950s marriage model benefitted men at much higher rates than it benefitted women…I rather doubt it.

    TMay: Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

    Truer words were never written, sir.

  58. Tony_
    Tony_ November 4, 2011 at 12:11 am |

    So according to the writer of the article, Jill, the best relationships are those after age 35.-snip

    No, she was referring to the fact that divorce rates are heavily related to the age of marriage. Women (and men) who marry in the early 20s and are less educated, are far more likely to divorce later than women (and men) who marry at an older age, and apparently this relationship lasts all the way until over 35. That doesn’t mean that “the best relationships are those after age 35.” What’s the best relationship for you depends on what you want and what your circumstances are. Those are not the same for everybody. But it’s a statistical fact that there are certain factors correlated with a more stable marriage, and age happens to be one of them. A great deal of the drop in the divorce rate since the 1970s, can be attributed to women (and men) marrying later. Instinctively, the logic behind it is something you should be able to understand, given your commentary- a 30 year old woman is a lot more likely to know what she wants out of life and judge a potential partner than a 20 year old woman. She’s also more likely to have the career and financial resources to contribute to reducing economic stress on the marriage- which is unfortunately one of the big causes of divorce.

    As to the rest of your comment- you seem very convinced that your way is the superior way, and you have a lot of little remarks and judgments thrown out to support that littered throughout it.

    The problem with your case is that as more and more people have had the freedom to choose, they increasingly haven’t been choosing the path you want. While many people still choose the traditional family, people voting with their figurative feet have been choosing later marriage, later childbirth, and more unconventional arrangements. And not just in the United States, and not just in the West. It’s not Kate Bolick or a few feminist writers wistfully hoping for a new world order. It’s something that’s simply happening. I don’t think conservatives will win this ‘battle’ because in the end people will do what makes them happy and quite often that means making more time for themselves during young adulthood than our grandparents did.

    However, if you are really serious about encouraging earlier household formation and childbirth because you think it is some sort of societal good that should supersede individual happiness, I would suggest looking into economic justice. Because the number one reason why people who do want marriage and children postpone is because they feel they can’t afford it. The first demographic statistic to plummet in the economic crisis was the birth rate and the rate of household formation, and it is a real tragedy in that case because it is people who do want to start families younger, but can’t.

    Also, the alternative to children being born to unwed mothers is not children being born in traditional marriage, it is children not being born at all (Japan and Korea, with 2% and 7% of children born out of wedlock, respectively, have the lowest birth rates in the OECD. The US and France, with over 40% and 50%, respectively, have the highest. The correlation is significant across all the major OECD countries). Conservatives goals are conflicted here and it’s another area where their call to social engineering back to the 1950′s is not going to work.

  59. TMay
    TMay November 4, 2011 at 2:57 am |

    “Female children raised with their biological father have a greater chance of not being brutalized or sexually assaulted ”
    You asked me to cite a source.
    Ok. Here is one:
    “Children Safest in Intact Families
    Special Report – May 3, 2011
    http://ncfamily.org/stories/110503s1.html

    Children living with their married father and mother are significantly safer from physical, emotional, and sexual abuse than children living with single or cohabiting parents, according to the latest data on child abuse and neglect from the federal government. The federal study, the “Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NCIS-4) Report to Congress,” is a “congressionally mandated, periodic research effort to assess the incidence of child abuse and neglect in the United States.”

  60. Li
    Li November 4, 2011 at 4:53 am |

    Without even reading your research, I can tell you that it doesn’t support the hypothesis you think it does, because living with married parents =/= raised with biological father. Unless you’re living in some kind of alternate universe in which the transaction of gametes is required for marriage. Which would explain a lot…

  61. Ugsome
    Ugsome November 4, 2011 at 5:07 am |

    This is the same whiner who complained lost August that despite feminism women still want men to pay for dates. Well, stop “dating” and start making friends, Denny. Dumbass. Can’t stand him.

  62. La Lubu
    La Lubu November 4, 2011 at 6:45 am |

    My guess is that Prager is older than Jill and has had more time to see how things turn out.

    Yes. After all, he’s had time to get two failed marriages under his belt. Hell, Jill doesn’t even have one. Talk about experience!

  63. Rob in CT
    Rob in CT November 4, 2011 at 8:24 am |

    “You’ll see, feminists! You’ll see! You’ll miss the patriarchy when its gone! Then you will regret what you’ve done to meeeeeeeeee!”

    Hahahahaha!

  64. EG
    EG November 4, 2011 at 9:16 am |

    From the same study:

    “The majority of all children countable under the Harm Standard (81%) were maltreated by their biological parents. This held true both for the abused children (64% were abused by biological parents) and for those neglected (92% were neglected by biological parents).”

    Clearly, going by troll logic, biological parents are a danger to their children. Women who value healthy children would obviously give the kiddo away to nonrelated strangers ASAP.

    “The NIS-4 findings on the strong correlations between socioeconomic status and all categories of maltreatment are consistent with earlier NIS findings on household income. As with the previous results, the recent observations cannot be plausibly explained by the claim that lower socioeconomic families are simply more visible to the community professionals who provide most of the data. The NIS sentinels observe substantial numbers of children and families at the middle- and upper-income levels.”

    Interesting. It seems, as a matter of public policy, that those concerned about the abuse of children would do well to get their obsessions with women’s sex lives under control, and instead work to end poverty.

    Shocking. Poverty is a greater danger to kiddos than Mommy’s sex life. I wonder…could the higher incidence of abuse in nonmarital households have anything to do with the stressors of poverty causing both relationship discord and child abuse/neglect? Could poverty force women to stay with a man whom they know to be a danger to their children? I wonder…

  65. Matt
    Matt November 4, 2011 at 9:39 am |

    TMay:

    So according to the writer of the article, Jill, the best relationships are those after age 35. A problem arises, and Prager did not create it. It is better to have children before age 35 as there is greater fertility and is healthier for the women and more children end up being born healthy if the mother is younger than 35. So if a man is thinking, and if he wants to have children, just as his female peers are deciding that they are ready to get married and then start to think about having children, the thinking man who wants the odds of healthy children to be high will choose a younger woman who has a greater chance of giving him healthy children. So Jill’s system doesn’t work for the majority of women based on reality, even though in Jill’s imagination and she wishes her wishes were so. It is preferable to be married a few years before getting pregnant, which means that the woman will be even older than 35. And it turns out that that the likelihood of men’s sperm being healthy also goes down with age, it is not just the woman’s eggs which have deteriorated in quality due to having been around since before the mother’s birth 35-40 years ago. Granted for some women, it does work out. They might be able to produce most likely one child if they are lucky.

    My guess is that Prager is older than Jill and has had more time to see how things turn out.

    Talking about biology, did you know that there are certain birds that push the eggs out of a bird’s nest and replace it with their own so that they don’t have to be bothered raising their own young? Even the bird kingdom does not have female birds who push their own eggs out of their own nest. Dr Laura has mentioned how even bird brains sometimes appear to have more sense than humans with their big brains because female birds insist on being courted by a male bird, and in nature build a nest before laying fertilized eggs. Comparing the bird who raises her own young versus the bird who raises another bird’s young, which one would Darwin consider to be more successful? The ideal remains the ideal. Those who can’t have the ideal do their best. Some people are so nurturing they are like people who are attracted to teaching pre-school, which is not everyone in the population. Adoption means a third party, often a bureaucrat, gets to look over your age and weight and income and mental health and values and the health of your relationship, and decides which child you get, to decide whether to give you a child, with surprise visits to check on your house-keeping for about two years, and they can change their mind, and the biological mother or father can change their mind. And most of the time one has not had control over what the mother was eating, how much alcohol she was consuming, what drugs she took, nor her stress levels while pregnant. It doesn’t sound like a whole bunch of freedom to me.

    It is a matter of values. A woman who values having healthy children and wants to raise the children with the biological father in a publicly committed relationship, acts in one way; and women who value sexual freedom act in another way. Female children raised with their biological father have a greater chance of not being brutalized or sexually assaulted than children raised with non- biologically related men in the house. In traditional marriage, there are two adults to the youngster, there is a stand in, there is a provider, there is a protector. Sure sounds like natural selection to me.

    And luckily in the west and in this day and age, we have divorce to get out of bad relationships.

    Women often regret having STD’s, which can cause sterility, increase the chance of cancer, greater chances of miscarriages, they can catch venereal warts, or herpes, and might undergo abortions, and that is not even getting into the fringes of experimentation. Genetic scientists cost a lot when you get down to freezing eggs and implantations. Recipe for happiness? “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.”

    People in happy marriages are happier than singles.

    Kate Bolick is hoping to pull out of a hat a new institution in the next year or two that can compete with marriage which has been around for a hundred thousand years.

    You think that working 9-5 is the greatest thing ever?

    The self esteem movement has been very successful. It has taught a generation that they can throw out everything that came before them, all the brilliant minds, and they will be as successful socially as they would be if they left it to themselves technologically to discover and invent on their own the use of fire, the wheel, alcohol, writing, math, the lever, the screw, the comb, the hairbrush, the toothbrush, hot baths, bricks, concrete, glass, glasses, china, hot coffee, iron, money, musical writing, the clock, printing, the cotton gin, cotton, silk, the steam engine, the toilet, toilet paper, the umbrella, a gun, oil, aspirin, the match, antibiotics, immunization, electricity, hair conditioner, the automobile, the radio, the fridge, the telephone, an airplane, the Salk vaccine, plastic, birth control, disposable diapers, the microwave, a calculator, the computer, the internet, etc. How far will they get on their own within the space of their own lifetime? About the social equivalent technologically as barefoot, raped, pregnant, with Rastafarian hair, hungry, cold, and wearing a fig leaf, with a short life span. They’d be lucky if they could create a basket, and a sandal, and create shelter similar to a basket, and urinate in the forest, and if they learned to plant seeds.

    Most likely, men miss traditional marriage less than women miss traditional marriage, especially if women are putting out.

    Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

    The best part is no one has to respond to your arguments because natural selection. I am pretty sure stupidity is selected against. FYI, you do not understand natural selection.

  66. Athenia
    Athenia November 4, 2011 at 9:56 am |

    @ TMay

    Ah, yes, the two parent household question! And where are your stats on gay parents?

    Those gay households, always throwing a wrench into heterosexual households.

  67. jrockford
    jrockford November 4, 2011 at 10:19 am |

    Seth Eag:
    All of this talk of economics really does underline the paradox of modern conservatism’s fusion between support for free markets and “biblical” values. I’ve discussed this in more depth on my own site, but basically: Prager supports a economic programme that needs women in the workplace to sustain itself, but he follows a theology that thinks such things are wrong and immoral. How can he have it both ways?

    My father comes from the essentialist school of thought as far as marriage and gender roles go, and the way he explained it to me, it doesn’t seem like it’s completely incompatible with capitalism. When I’ve made the argument that for most people a one income household isn’t feasible in this day and age, and that people can’t really afford to have as many kids as his parents have, he argues that it’s a matter of misplaced priorities. If people spent less money on toys, vacations, frivolities, fun things, they could survive as a one income baby factory just fine. I’ve read through a lot of Prager’s columns for amusement, and my guess is that his position is similar to my father’s: It’s your duty to sacrifice comfort, enjoyment and leisure to have as many good white Christian babies as possible, and once you realize how much fun having 8 kids is, you’ll totally forget about that trip to Costa Rica you never got to take. In sum, we’re a selfish and therefore morally bankrupt generation.

    Of course, if families in the United States adopted such austerity en masse and poured all their money into child rearing it would create all new problems for capitalism. That’s another post entirely though I suppose. What I find most interesting about is that the right decries any perceived duty to “the state”, but prescribes all sorts of duties to the much more exclusionary “nation.” The underlying anxiety is that white Christians are going to be outbred by perceived outsiders.

  68. Vinicius Siqueira
    Vinicius Siqueira November 4, 2011 at 10:57 am |

    About the first Argument…

    That’s the same argument to continue with the patriarch society. If the members of a family are sad, blame de strutural modification, but, never the deep space between the anachronistic struture and the new, more equitable, social relations. I think that the coercion of our patriarchal society do all the new relation seems “bad” (you know, always when you feel the superego guilty and so on…).

    That’s it.

  69. jose
    jose November 4, 2011 at 11:45 am |

    I resent what Prager has written about me.

  70. Off White
    Off White November 4, 2011 at 1:24 pm |

    The worst thing about feminism is that it isn’t more widely accepted yet.

    Nice rebuttals Jill.

  71. Alara Rogers
    Alara Rogers November 4, 2011 at 2:03 pm |

    Comparing the bird who raises her own young versus the bird who raises another bird’s young, which one would Darwin consider to be more successful?

    I think Darwin would consider the bird who raised another bird’s young to be helpers who would help her care for her own young to be *enormously* successful.

    Feminist since age 3! Met a guy in 1999 who had two kids, when I was 29! Cohabited with him, raising his kids with him, until age 34, when I married him, and then had not one but *two* of my own bio kids, and the kids I’ve been raising with my husband are enormously helpful in taking care of their little brother and sister. Meanwhile, marrying when I had an established career has allowed me to be able to support our family while my husband tried to start a business (he’s an entrepreneur; you do support entrepreneurs, right? I mean, otherwise you must be a SOCIALIST), so now, while the business has its ups and downs, there’s every reason to believe we can send all our kids to college and prepare them all for jobs in the professional workforce, so *they* can be successful.

    So I win at Darwin. Whee!

    Also, when women have sexual freedom, which also includes the freedom to abstain if they choose, the freedom to be monogamous if they choose, the freedom to have kids and the freedom to not have kids, they’re much more likely to marry and have kids with a man with whom they are sexually compatible in the first place, significantly decreasing the chance that said man will dump them for someone younger and sexier when they are already mothers and committed, because *men* like it better (generally) when the women they are having sex with are enthusiastically enjoying it. Thus, women having sexual freedom in their youth actually translates to fewer unhappy and incompatible marriages (and since, in the past, women really had no recourse if their husbands just took a mistress and started living with her, or walked out the door and disappeared, it may be that *divorce* is more common now but it’s certainly not the case that women didn’t get dumped by their husbands in various ways in the past).

  72. ARB
    ARB November 4, 2011 at 2:06 pm |

    @ Jadey I’m so glad to see your plug for Social Dominance Theory! I’ve met Dr. Pratto and a number of her Ph.D. students and recently finished reading her book. Apparently they’ve tried to break SDT out of the walls of the University, but without much luck. I highly recommend everyone interested in social justice to read their book: http://www.amazon.com/Social-Dominance-Intergroup-Hierarchy-Oppression/dp/0521805406

  73. Ashleigh
    Ashleigh November 4, 2011 at 5:02 pm |

    hahahahahaha! this guy’s just upset because he can’t play the role of the alpha male! grow up and maybe go find your balls if you ever had any.

  74. speedbudget
    speedbudget November 4, 2011 at 6:12 pm |

    Comparing the bird who raises her own young versus the bird who raises another bird’s young, which one would Darwin consider to be more successful?

    Just a wild guess, but the one who tricks the other one into raising her young, since her young gets raised and her genes are passed on with a minimum of effort on her part.

  75. zuzu
    zuzu November 4, 2011 at 6:44 pm |

    TMay: Dr Laura has mentioned how even bird brains sometimes appear to have more sense than humans with their big brains because female birds insist on being courted by a male bird, and in nature build a nest before laying fertilized eggs.

    Yes, that noted scientist, Dr. Laura.

    Just what is her doctorate in, again?

  76. zuzu
    zuzu November 4, 2011 at 6:51 pm |

    Tony_: A great deal of the drop in the divorce rate since the 1970s, can be attributed to women (and men) marrying later.

    Well, that and the pent-up demand for divorce has lessened now that it’s no-fault almost everywhere.

  77. Glundank
    Glundank November 4, 2011 at 9:27 pm |

    Someone is still truly churning out articles like these? I thought those arguments died out after the suffrage movement.

  78. Kristen J.
    Kristen J. November 4, 2011 at 10:23 pm |

    zuzu: Yes, that noted scientist, Dr. Laura.
    Just what is her doctorate in, again?

    Asshattery. She was at the top of her class.

  79. DouglasG
    DouglasG November 4, 2011 at 11:15 pm |

    [My guess is that Prager is older than Jill and has had more time to see how things turn out.

    Yes. After all, he’s had time to get two failed marriages under his belt. Hell, Jill doesn’t even have one. Talk about experience!]

    From the dinner scene in “Lane Miserables”:

    Wind: “And some things can’t be saved – like my marriage!”
    Penny: “It’s okay, Wind; you’re better off without her.”
    Wind: “Really? Hey, what does that mean?”
    Summer: “Yeah, Penny, what do you know about marriage?”
    Penny: “Well, I haven’t had as much experience as you two at failing at it.”

  80. igglanova
    igglanova November 4, 2011 at 11:32 pm |

    TMay: Comparing the bird who raises her own young versus the bird who raises another bird’s young, which one would Darwin consider to be more successful?

    So, I know this was a while ago, but I find this kind of woeful misunderstanding of science irresistible. The fact that cuckoos and other birds continue to thrive suggests that the two strategies are equally successful. Although, that really depends on your definition of ‘successful’, which is always at least a little contentious. Non-parasitizing creatures will always outnumber parasites, but that’s not a commentary on how ‘successful’ a parasitic species is; it just means that parasitic strategies cannot become the dominant strategy of life, since by definition they rely on a host population.

    This also leaves aside what a garbled fuckin mess that whole comment was, but whatever.

  81. superior olive
    superior olive November 5, 2011 at 1:00 am |

    zuzu: Yes,that noted scientist, Dr.Laura.

    Just what is her doctorate in,again?

    I’d take fitness advice from Anne Murray over Dr. Laura anyday.

  82. TMay
    TMay November 5, 2011 at 5:08 pm |

    “That noted scientist, Dr. Laura. Just what is her doctorate in, again?”

    Physiology which is the science of the function of living systems. What science is your PHD in?

  83. TMay
    TMay November 5, 2011 at 5:21 pm |

    “You know what keeps women from being pregnant when they don’t want to be? It ain’t patriarchy.
    It’s feminism.”

    Boy you must have had weak women in your family tree! I’m not sure where your lack of respect for the women who came before you came from. Personally the matriarchs in my family and the matriarchs I have known were powerful women. They lived through “hostile environments” like pogroms and murderous rapists, passed through borders which were literally deadly, and immigrating on a boat that took weeks to cross the Atlantic to come to a foreign land and learned the languages, and wars and the depression etc and it was easier for them to find work when they arrived than for the men, and they had to make their own bread and pies and soups and jello. They gave birth when “childbirth was natural and deadly” before the discovery by male scientists (aka dead white men, like Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr and like Lister) of germ theory. Life’s vicissitudes were hostile, like a shortage of food, like winter and like losing 6 babies that they gave birth to in the first few years before one survived. They gardened. They bartered at open air farmer’s markets. They cooked. They did not have a bathroom in the house, running water hot nor cold, electricity, centralized heating other than a fire or the cast iron stove, sewing machines, telephones, refrigerators, vacuums, disposable diapers, washing machines, dishwashers, snow removal machines, microwaves, cars, credit cards, bank accounts, air conditioning. They took care of themselves, their husbands, their children, and their aging parents without old age homes and nurses, nannies, pre-schools, Chinese food restaurants, pizza, McDonald’s, nor take-out.

    They didn’t have time to hang around, licking their wounds over someone having made a non-sexual statement that made them feel ”uncomfortable”, and I think they would have returned your attitude with attitude of their own. I think they could run circles around you. They fed the poor, visited the sick, and raised coins for charity. They helped their friends, family and community. They recycled naturally. They were grateful, hopeful, ambitious, opinionated, saw reality, dealt with it, and had dreams. They continued to be grateful when they found out that the decisions made by the matriarchs who preceded them meant that what they went through was nothing compared to what their cousins went through, like the Holocaust, which I would call a major “hostile environment” intentional planned premeditated mass murder.

  84. Jjuliaava
    Jjuliaava November 5, 2011 at 5:44 pm |

    Agent J:
    I don’t think Prager phrased “problem” # 4 the way he should’ve.
    BECAUSE IT IS NOT REALLY A PROBLEM?! RIGHT.

    It’s not that Men NEED to feel BETTE OR SUPERIOR than women…
    OH ITS NOT HUH?

    What some feminists refuse to acknowledge is that a man can feel like a “manlyman” in a completely equal and supportive relationship.
    WHAT SOME MRAS SEEM TO THINK THAT ALL US LITTLE WOMENFOLK NEED A MAN TO BE COMPLETE

    Menwanttobelookedatasstronginsomeway. .doesn’thavetobephysicalstrengthbut.. we like when a woman looks to us for comfort or protection… WHO DO I NEED PROTECTION FROM? FEMINISTS??
    welikewhenyousayyoufeelsafeinourarms… I THINK SOME MEN FEEL SAFE IN OTHER MENS ARMS– JUST SAYIN etc.etc.Itgivesuspurpose.. becauseattheendoftheday A LOOONG WORK DAY?? POOR MANS…
    evenNICEGUYSreallyjustwanttomakeyouguyshappy..we want to be valuable to you.
    HOWS ABOUT YOU START BY VALUING THE SUPPOSED EQAUL PARTNER YOU HAVE BY KNOWING SHE DOESN’T NEED YOU BUT MAYBE SHE WANTS YOU.

    Thatdoesn’tmeanyouhavetorevereis.. doallthehousework,and thensleepwithuswheneverwewant. OK GOOD BECAUSE RAPE

    Onthecontrary, Iwouldhavenoproblem propping a woman up. YOU KNOW LIKE A PUPPET REGIME?
    Ithinkwomenarebetterthanmen..
    inalmosteveryaspectoflife,t hey are better
    . And I would treat a woman like she was. BUT… that doesn’t mean I don’t want to feel like a MAN…
    HOW DOES A MAN FEEL LIKE A MAN???? WHAT A STRANGE THOUGHT! I AM SURE THERE ARE MYRIAD WAYS TO FEEL LLIKE A MAN INCLUDING BEING HELD IN A PASSIONATE EMBRACE BY A MAN… HMMMM…

    What is so bad about that? It’s not that we find meaning in life by dominating women.. we can feel “strong” in a relationship where you are the Queen Bee and we are your slaves… but JESUS ladies… at least give us that.
    GREAT. SLAVES. POOR MANS ARE SLAVES IF THEY DON’T FEEL THEIR HELPLESS WOMAN DOEN’T CONSTANTLY REASSURE THEIR MANLYMAN- MAN IS NEEEEDED. JESUS.

    I think I just did a little vomit in the back of my throat— I was trying to talk breathy baby-talk so you could feel like I NEED you, but it made me wretch..
    What is the mfing deal with men needing to feel I need a man!???? WTF? Go be a dad and feel needed.
    I don’t need a man to raise my child or to buy a house or to get some rest at the end of my long work day or feel “protected” or provided for or shit even to get pregnant!
    So maybe a NICE GUY would get a grip on himself and realize that he should want to feel wanted by his signif other– not NEEDED. Because not every fing thing in life should revolve around men wanting to feel like men– whatever that even means. Lets teach our children that feeling valued depends upon her/his own personal outlook and it is unfair to put that on someone else they are in a supposed egalitarian relationship with.
    Go home and tell your wife that she makes you feel protected and safe.

    jesus.

  85. Jjuliaava
    Jjuliaava November 5, 2011 at 6:02 pm |

    OH HELL NO TMAY!!!!

    I was pregnant at 21 the guy left us and I have never had men in and out of my child’s life–never had an std– never. been celibate since 2001 thanx azzhol
    omg i wanna reach through my computer screen and choke a mfer out.

    according DePaulo’s Singled Out: How Singles Are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After
    a suggested read for tmay…
    IT IS ACTUALLY HIGHER RATES OF DRUG ABUSE AND PRISON TIME FOR PEOPLE RAISED IN HOMES BY FATHER AND STEP-MOTHER. AND SINGLE MOMS ARE A VERY CLOSE SECOND PLACE TO MARRIED PARENTS. SO FOFF AND GET BENT.
    HEY YOU JERKS ARE THE ONES WHO WANT ABORTION ILLEGAL AND I DIDN’T HAVE ONE AND I HAVE BEEN A SUCCESS; MY CHILD A STAR PUPIL WITH SCHOLARSHIPS. WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM ME– THE DAD WALKED OUT ON US.
    IT IS UNREAL THE HATE FOR WOMEN
    THE HATE FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN RAISED BY WOMEN
    DISGUSTING.

  86. Maria
    Maria November 5, 2011 at 7:27 pm |

    What I’m most upset about is that no one challenged the assertion that “most women without men do worse than fish without bicycles”.

    The struggles of fish without bicycles are so often ignored…

  87. Dominique
    Dominique November 5, 2011 at 7:54 pm |

    TMay:
    “You know what keeps women from being pregnant when they don’t want to be? It ain’t patriarchy.
    It’s feminism.”

    Boy you must have had weak women in your family tree! I’m not sure where your lack of respect for the women who came before you came from. Personally the matriarchs in my family and the matriarchs I have known were powerful women. They lived through “hostile environments” like pogroms and murderous rapists, passed through borders which were literally deadly, and immigrating on a boat that took weeks to cross the Atlantic to come to a foreign land and learned the languages, and wars and the depression etc and it was easier for them to find work when they arrived than for the men, and they had to make their own bread and pies and soups and jello. They gave birth when “childbirth was natural and deadly” before the discovery by male scientists (aka dead white men, like Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr and like Lister) of germ theory. Life’s vicissitudes were hostile, like a shortage of food, like winter and like losing 6 babies that they gave birth to in the first few years before one survived. They gardened. They bartered at open air farmer’s markets. They cooked. They did not have a bathroom in the house, running water hot nor cold, electricity, centralized heating other than a fire or the cast iron stove, sewing machines, telephones, refrigerators, vacuums, disposable diapers, washing machines, dishwashers, snow removal machines, microwaves, cars, credit cards, bank accounts, air conditioning. They took care of themselves, their husbands, their children, and their aging parents without old age homes and nurses, nannies, pre-schools, Chinese food restaurants, pizza, McDonald’s, nor take-out.

    They didn’t have time to hang around, licking their wounds over someone having made a non-sexual statement that made them feel ”uncomfortable”, and I think they would have returned your attitude with attitude of their own. I think they could run circles around you. They fed the poor, visited the sick, and raised coins for charity. They helped their friends, family and community. They recycled naturally.

    Your female ancestors were strong because they were being oppressed by a patriarchal environment, you stupid asshole.

    The men obviously didn’t have to be as “strong”, as you put it, since they were not being beaten down as much.

    And btw – I have no fucking intention of living through that kind of nightmare you described, and will fight and organize to my last breath so that no woman does. That’s what feminism is for, and should be for.

  88. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable November 5, 2011 at 8:37 pm |

    Jjuliaava, in case you don’t hear it enough, you’re badass.

  89. EG
    EG November 5, 2011 at 10:07 pm |

    TMay: Boy you must have had weak women in your family tree! I’m not sure where your lack of respect for the women who came before you came from. Personally the matriarchs in my family and the matriarchs I have known were powerful women. They lived through “hostile environments” like pogroms and murderous rapists, passed through borders which were literally deadly, and immigrating on a boat that took weeks to cross the Atlantic to come to a foreign land and learned the languages, and wars and the depression etc and it was easier for them to find work when they arrived than for the men, and they had to make their own bread and pies and soups and jello. They gave birth when “childbirth was natural and deadly” before the discovery by male scientists (aka dead white men, like Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr and like Lister) of germ theory. Life’s vicissitudes were hostile, like a shortage of food, like winter and like losing 6 babies that they gave birth to in the first few years before one survived.

    1) What on earth do you imagine this statement has to do with the part of my comment that you quoted? I said that feminism, not patriarchy, is what enables women to avoid pregnancy when they don’t want babies. This was in response to your statement that without patriarchal progress, we’d be rasta-haired and pregnant.

    What, in your mind, does that have to do with calling the women in my family weak? What is this “hostile environment” thing you keep quoting? It’s as if I said “It’s a good thing we have indoor plumbing, because that’s what keeps us from living in filth,” and you said “How dare you insult the bravery of men in generations past?” The two things actually have nothing to do with each other.

    2) Given that incidence of pregnancy goes way down just as soon as women are able to get their hands on reliable birth control, I’m just gonna guess that women of generations past would have really liked not to be constantly pregnant, in labor, and/or nursing, let alone grieving the deaths of baby after baby. And that is actually relevant to what I wrote.

    Dominique: I have no fucking intention of living through that kind of nightmare you described, and will fight and organize to my last breath so that no woman does. That’s what feminism is for, and should be for.

    Right on, sister (if you don’t mind me calling you that). For truth.

    PrettyAmiable: Jjuliaava, in case you don’t hear it enough, you’re badass.

    Also for truth. Jjuliaava, you are awesome, and your kid is lucky to have you as a mom.

    Jjuliaava: he should want to feel wanted by his signif other– not NEEDED.

    Honestly? I think this is really what anti-feminist men fear. If we don’t need them, then they’re going to have to make sure we want them. And that makes them deeply, deeply insecure. Even John Stuart Mill noted this in On the Subjection of Women, when he noted that even though society claims that being a wife and mother is woman’s natural inclination, society’s actions suggest that it’s entirely unnatural, i.e. if women are allowed the opportunity to do anything else they will opt not to be wives and mothers. Men are truly terrified that when we don’t “need” them, we’ll have no reason to keep them around.

  90. evil fizz
    evil fizz November 5, 2011 at 11:10 pm | *

    TMay, a little present for you. Please feel free to rejoin the conversation after mastering the basics of arguments with citation and basic courtesy to other commenters.

  91. Larry Linn
    Larry Linn November 6, 2011 at 10:14 am |

    From the Beck School of Philosophy, at the Father Guido Prager Five Minute University, memorize the curriculum:
    1-Note a simple observation or personal antidote;
    2-Generalize it;
    3-Declare it as wrongful (do not waste time with any research);
    4-Improvise an over simplistic solution.
    We shall e-mail your Ph.D. Degree to you in a few seconds.

  92. LongHairedWeirdo
    LongHairedWeirdo November 6, 2011 at 10:42 am |

    I notice that Prager uses his radio show as a source for his information. This sounds like a possible source of bias to me. Does he have a control group that doesn’t listen to a pathetically illogical, fallacy-loving blowhard regularly?

    It’s not that I’m saying he’s stupid *just because* he’s using such a biased sample, and that means his listeners are listening to someone stupid because he’s using the sample – that would smack of circular reasoning. But he has carefully, and thoroughly, established a lack of sound reasoning and a love of fallacies over several years.

    However: I will answer some of his questions.

    Yes, feminism says that women should have sex as “men” do. That’s “men” not “males with the maturity of boys”. If Prager thinks women are aping male behavior, and male behavior is awful and unhealthy, maybe his concern should be male behavior.

    (Career before marriage? Never saw that advocated by feminism. But it seems that economic necessity does stress that – if we had a society in which one didn’t have to have an at-least-potential-career before marriage, then perhaps no one would delay marriage in pursuit of a career. But we have one where, if you’re not established by the time you’re 30, you’re not likely to get established.)

    “Feminism” did not cause people to work outside the home in ever greater numbers; economic injustice bears more responsibility for that necessity. However, I *do* hope that Prager has spent several years keeping house and raising children, thinking that he had no other choice – *none*, because that was his proper place – before he chose to complain that work outside the home was called to be more uplifting.

    And finally, if he’s such a wuss that he can’t find a proper role for himself without women having a particular role that they must play, well, that’s *his* problem. He’s the wuss. Blaming feminism for his being a wuss is rightly considered an example of the pathetic fallacy.

    (I do so love it when fallacy names make up a good pun.)

  93. zuzu
    zuzu November 6, 2011 at 12:51 pm |

    TMay: Physiology which is the science of the function of living systems.

    The physical function on living systems, and most likely the function of human physical systems. What does that have to do with bird behavior?

  94. DaisyDeadhead
    DaisyDeadhead November 6, 2011 at 1:10 pm |

    George Gilder? I am supposed to take somebody seriously who quotes George Gilder?

  95. ZoBabe
    ZoBabe November 6, 2011 at 1:18 pm |

    Ain’t that the crux of it? You are supposed to take them seriously, but they’re just so f*&#ing ridiculous.

  96. Annaleigh
    Annaleigh November 8, 2011 at 11:41 pm |

    TMay: “Female children raised with their biological father have a greater chance of not being brutalized or sexually assaulted ”

    Well that’s a fucking riot. The safest two years of my life thus far were the two years following my mother taking me and leaving my dad. Less than one year after we returned to him, he nearly killed me. I was eight years old at the time. He was never sexually abusive, but there were abusers in and around the family. Nothing of that sort happened for the two years I lived in a single-parent family, but that too started up again with someone else within a year of returning to dear old tyrant.

    Yep, survey says you’re an unmitigated asshole.

  97. Alcharisi
    Alcharisi November 9, 2011 at 12:46 am |

    a.)Shorter TMay: tl;dr.
    (And, as if it needed saying, bravo to everyone who slogged through that dreck and responded so eloquently.)

    b.) Unfortunately for my blood pressure, Dennis Prager’s writing on homosexuality is relevant to my grad research. The dartboard my girlfriend got me for hannukah last year is proving in this regard to be the best gift ever.

  98. m Andrea
    m Andrea November 9, 2011 at 1:04 pm |

    his is the same whiner who complained lost August that despite feminism women still want men to pay for dates. Well, stop “dating” and start making friends, Denny. Dumbass. Can’t stand him.

    Apparently you don’t know any women who identify as non-feminists (or who turn out to be funfems). I cannot count the number of times I’ve heard young women and teen-age girls vehemently insist that the dood needs to pay for the date. They get massively outraged when the suggestion is introduced, and will literally turn their back and walk away if anyone persists with that line of thought. It is really ONLY in feminist spaces where women will see the need to practice equality.

  99. m Andrea
    m Andrea November 9, 2011 at 1:21 pm |

    Keep in mind, it’s been only the last year or so, ever since the republicans have ramped up their overt hatred of women, that I’ve personally witnessed a larger number of young women who have been willing to sorta identify themselves as feminists. And come to find out, most of them only want the more egregious examples of misogyny to stop.

    They will go right back to performing at the local strip club (or whatever else they do to worship male supremacy) when the overt misogyny stops. It appears as if most of the people here are totally unfamiliar with my own lived experiences.

  100. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub November 9, 2011 at 2:03 pm |

    m Andrea: They will go right back to performing at the local strip club (or whatever else they do to worship male supremacy) when the overt misogyny stops. It appears as if most of the people here are totally unfamiliar with my own lived experiences.

    I know strippers who are also pretty damn militant feminists, and not what you’d call the “fun” kind. They don’t do it to “worship male supremacy” (any more than my neighbor’s secretarial job is worshiping corporations) but to make a living and support their kids.

  101. EG
    EG November 9, 2011 at 3:23 pm |

    m Andrea: They will go right back to performing at the local strip club (or whatever else they do to worship male supremacy)

    My understanding, imperfect as it may be, is that most women who perform at local strip clubs are not doing so because they are antifeminists, or because they are “funfems,” or in order to worship male supremacy. My understanding is that most women who perform at local strip clubs are doing so because it is the best option they have for money-making.

  102. Politicalguineapig
    Politicalguineapig November 9, 2011 at 3:53 pm |

    Sheelezebub and EG: I’ve seen m.Andrea in action before. While I’d love to sit back and watch the throwdown, please be aware that she lives in her own little world and no amount of argument will make her admit to any facts that don’t match up to her version of reality.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.