«

»

May 25 2006

Urgent Blamer Intervention Request

Blamer Eileen has dispatched to Twisty HQ an impassioned communiqué appealing for aid in combating the sexist subtext of a fuckardly editorial infesting her local paper. Quoth Eileen:

Dear Twisty,

I am in desperate need of some patriarchy-blaming help. I love your site, and was hoping that you and/or your kind readers might help me craft a response to an editorial published in my local paper. This editorial (the kind written by the editors, not the guest kind) is about a (theoretical) gender gap in higher education.

Here’s a choice bit from the middle:

“When there are markedly more educated women than men, marriage rates and birth rates are distorted.

Don’t believe us? In highly educated Germany, nearly 40 percent of educated women have never had children. As a result, this country has one of the lowest birth rates in the world and an aging native-born population.

The cause behind it seems to be this: highly educated, professional women are having trouble finding male equals as partners. When that’s added to the fact that these same women have many more professional and personal choices than their mothers and grandmothers used to, many are simply electing not to get married or have children.”

The rest is here.

Now, I always get an oogy-gut feeling when I see headlines like “Our New Gender Gap”. But this time I moved straight into sputtering mode. All I could come up with was “Dear editors, WOMEN ARE NOT BABY MACHINES.”

I would like to send them something a little more coherent. They print pretty much every letter they get (I guess that goes in the ‘pro’ column for small-town life), so you can see why I’m hoping for the help of the larger patriarchy-blaming community.

Thanks bunches, Eileen

I ask you, who among us has not experienced the oogy-gut feeling when presented with the icy glare of patriarchy? So help a sister out, girls. Save Eileen from despair.

48 comments

3 pings

  1. speedbudget

    Maybe you could write a letter stating simply that maybe if MORE women would get educated and held out for a better guy than those currently available, more guys would step up to the plate. Or something like that.

  2. Kerlyssa

    Mandatory Uni attendence for all!

    …somehow, I don’t think this is what the author is getting at.

  3. mel

    We should all bombard the publication with responses. It might open the owner’s fuckardly eyes to the fact that women have had it up to HERE with that bullshit!

  4. radfemlezzie

    “When that’s added to the fact that these same women have many more professional and personal choices than their mothers and grandmothers used to, many are simply electing not to get married or have children.”

    My response might be, “And your point is?”

  5. Blume

    Sputtering is right. I have a hard time formulating a cogent response to this editorial as a whole. While nearly every paragraph inspires a withering one-line comeback, the premises and assumptions that underlie the whole are just so, so far away from anything I would consider enlightened.

  6. Chris Clarke

    To the editor:

    I share your noble concern about the potential social damage wrought by unattached young men unable to find a spouse who will accept a mate of a lower educational level.

    But it hardly seems fair to expect bright, educated, single and childless-by-choice women to sacrifice their own futures — and, given the risks of childbirth, possibly their lives as well — in order to secure marginally brighter futures for their less-well-educated male cohort.

    Fortunately, a partial solution exists, and its beneficial effects can be witnessed to the immediate south of your fine state. Allowing same-sex marriage would enable men currently unable to find suitable and willing spouses of the same social and educational class to form families and thus fail to become career criminals, while those educated women who chose to could more easily find mates with whom they can share their intellectual interests and cultural pursuits. (If one of the chief joys in an educated marriage is lounging together over the New York Times Sunday Crossword, how is the cause of family values advanced by forced marriage to the Junior Jumble set?)

    And as scientific studies show that as many as a quarter of babies born to married women were not fathered by the spouse, with the percentage higher in Red States, an increase in same-sex marriages would not necesasarily limit the number of young Granite Staters born each year.

    Clearly, the future of the family demands the legalization of same-sex marriages. Please think of the children! Thank you.

  7. thebewilderness

    I think it’s one of those inexplicable mysteries of human nature. Whe you give people an education and a few choices, they just don’t want to grow up to be servants any more. Isn’t that odd. Faugh.

  8. Hogan

    I guess my non-sputtering question would be why an editorial on men not going to college focuses so much on women’s behavior. As if women had some responsibility for that. Or as if procreation were the real purpose of male higher education.

    But I just looked at the reports on the website for the New Hampshire Commission on the Status of Men (wtf?), and I have no idea when I’ll be done sputtering.

  9. thebewilderness

    Reading through the article again, I cannot help but wonder, are they catching on that we intend to destroy the patriarchy?

  10. Ms Kate

    Funny, nobody used to give a shit if women were much less educated than their husbands or were “economically disengaged” from their communities.

    Why is it a problem when men are expected to get their acts together in order to find mates?

  11. Sylvanite

    Yeah, so why aren’t men electing to go to college? And do statistics from Germany really carry over to the United States? Why do my comments today consist almost entirely of questions?

    Seriously, though. Europe as a whole has a lower birthrate than the United States, to the best of my recollection. Why didn’t the editors use American statistics on birthrates? Lazy? Anyways, I’m a college-educated woman, and my fiance only has a high-school education, so am I just an anomaly?

    I like Chris Clarke’s proposed letter to the editorial board.

  12. nancy73

    After daydreaming about purchasing a satisfyingly monstrous Amazonian parrot so that I would have an appropriate place to put this editorial, I went back and read it again. The following paragraph really bothered me:

    So we’re concerned that fewer men are going to college, because this means that fewer will be able to take part in the high-tech (and high wage) economy of our region’s future. (emphasis mine)

    And what would be the problem with women taking over those jobs, since they are the ones who are pursuing higher education in greater numbers than the men in the region? Does New Hampshire still have jobs where only men are qualified to work them? What would really happen if women statistically made more money than men?

    Why, men would feel inadequate, that’s what. And the patriarchy wouldn’t ever stand for that.

    That’s why we should ask them to take a seat when it does happen. Just to be polite.

  13. CafeSiren

    Dear Editors,

    As a highly-educated professional woman, I feel it my duty to respond, point-by-point, to your recent editorial on yet another crisis caused by the fact that women have, shockingly, surpassed men in something. Allow me to address this piece-by-piece, with apologies for the length of my response:

    Long-time readers of the Courier know our paper has discussed the importance of skilled labor in creating lasting economic gains for our North Country communities. So we’re concerned that fewer men are going to college, because this means that fewer will be able to take part in the high-tech (and high wage) economy of our region’s future.

    What is the nature of this “concern”? It seems to me that the natural consequence of having more educated women means that more women will be participating in the economic boom. Is this a bad thing? As long as there are educated people, whether male or female, the economic gains will continue. Or are you assuming that women cannot be part of the skilled labor pool?

    …these same women have many more professional and personal choices than their mothers and grandmothers used to, many are simply electing not to get married or have children.

    Again, the nature of the “problem” is unclear: Is it that these women have found fulfillment outside of a typical family structure? In the 80′s, bright, professional women who also wanted to have families were repeatedly told that they couldn’t “have it all” – this despite the fact that men have never had to choose between family and career. Perhaps the problem is that women who want both family and career are forced to choose between the two – an untenable choice that men have never had to make. The solution to this “problem” seems to be to acknowlege and honor educated women’s contributions to the state economy, and to structure workplace policies to help working mothers, and raise men to believe that they share an equal responsibility in household management and parenting (this opposed to the man who “helps out” around the house) so that women who wish to have both career and family don’t have to choose between the two.

    Unless, of course, the “problem” that you’re speaking of is that more women are choosing not to have children for their own reasons. If that’s the problem, then I’m afraid you’re on your own. Women are human beings, and will occasionally make choices that other people don’t like. The only alternative seems to be compulsory maternity.

    If the downward trend in male college attendance continues, we fear the problem will only get worse. The result of this in future decades could be devastating: fewer two-parent homes and millions of men detached from family and mainstream society.

    Whoa! Hold up there, pardner! Earlier in this editorial, the problem seemed to be declining birth rates. Yet here, the problem is that women ARE having babies.

    We raise this issue not to denigrate the success women have had in improving their lot over the past forty years. These are real achievements that deserve our support. We raise this issue simply because we are concerned.

    This is disengenuous in the extreme. Your editorial mentions a host of problems (state economy, declining birth rate, increasing number of single-parent families, and even general societal breakdown), but only one causal factor: that men are increasingly less educated than women. The implied solution seems to be to reverse this apparently alarming trend. But how would this be showing “support” for women’s accomplishments?

    We urge the New Hampshire Commission on the Status of Men to tackle this problem.

    And I urge the same commission, as well as the author of this editorial, to go fuck themselves, either singly, or as a group.

    Yours,

    cafesiren

  14. TP

    The problem as I see it is two-fold.

    First, it’s obvious that your uneducated young men are not stepping up the plate when it comes to forcing women to have babies against their wills. Perhaps slipping a little testosterone in their beers will motivate them sufficiently to get them back out in the streets and back alleys raping every woman they can get their hands on. Internet pornography might be sapping our young men of their precious bodily fluids. Perhaps a study might be funded to research this problem at great length and expense.

    Next, your laws protecting the rights of women are probably way too strong. Let’s not make the mistake of assuming that beings who are put on this planet for titillating our over-active sex drives, and bearing and raising our children, are entitled to the same rights as human beings, who are exclusively heterosexual men. If strong laws are put into place to condemn sexually active women to the legal equivalent of concubinage, and require all sexual activity to result in pregnancy and child birth, no matter how the child might be conceived, then you will see birth rates rise dramatically.

    Referring to laws like these as anti-abortion is a flawed way of framing the debate. Perhaps they could be called Male Liberation laws, since men are suffering from all the freedoms that have been lately granted to the beings God Himself put on this earth to serve our wills, and entertain us without the confining and concealing benefits of clothing.

    Remedy these two ultra-modernistic and degenerate problems and you will be rewarded with as many babies as your women can carry until they are too old to carry any more, at which time they should supply a cheap and ready labor pool until they meet their early deaths, which should save us quite a bit of Social Security money.

  15. CafeSiren

    Sorry for screwing up the formatting tags in the middle of that last post. But hopefully it’s pretty clear where I’m quoting, and where I’m ranting.)

  16. Betsy

    You could say that society’s “need” for more babies shouldn’t be cited as a basis for withholding education and resources from women.

    If reproduction is really a valid societal goal (I won’t get into the merits of that — let’s just pretend for a moment that it is), then maybe “society” should consider a few structural changes that make it more attractive to have children.

    I personally haven’t started a family because there is no possibility of my having a wife. (

  17. CafeSiren

    Ooh! Plus, I second Hogan’s rhetorical question. It’s ever so much more concise than my rant.

  18. Betsy

    National health insurance for everyone might also make it more attractive to have kids.

    Extending marriage to everyone might make it more attractive for those who can’t currently get married to have kids.

    Protecting gay people’s right to have custody and care of their children might make it more attractive to have kids.

    Training up a generation of men with better nurturing and caring skills might make it more attractive to have kids.

    A society that promotes and respects breastfeeding at all locations where it is appropriate for adults to eat might make it more attractive to have kids.

    Replacing our lousy time-off laws with longer vacations and better family leave requirements, like those in other countries, might make it more attractive to have kids.

  19. Betsy

    Or maybe if childbearing and childrearing is such an incredibly valuable and necessary resource for society, we should just go ahead and pay women to do it.

  20. grrr kitty

    As a female, I’m hard-wired to want only the best potential father for my future generations. The un- (and under-) educated need not apply. In other words, boys, if you expect to crack my bedroom door, you’d best start cracking the books.

  21. bluewolfcv

    Dear Editor,

    Would you consider sitting quietly while studying to be a “manly” activity? What about taking off work to attend to a sick child? Are either of these things that “real men” do? My guess is going to be no, none of them are. And that’s exactly why you see so many women entering higher education and avoiding childbearing.

    The US has become so engrossed in this idea of “manliness” that, from a very young age, boys are indoctrinated to live up to those false and damaging ideals. Anything that is not “manly” is deemed as inferior and therefore subject to ridicule and loss of social face. I posit, therefore, that more women than men entering universities and women avoiding childbearing is a simple cause of this warped nature of masculinity in the United States.

    If good grades and good classroom behavior became ideals that everyone, regardless of gender, espoused, then I believe you would see proportional percentages of women and men entering higher education. When society begins rewarding boys for good grades (an indication of college ambitions), then more boys will try to achieve such marks and thus be capable of gaining entrance to college. Once there, they will be more likely to actually study and work instead of partying like drunken neanderthals, thus earning their bachelor’s degrees.

    If society espoused that men are just as responsible for children as women are, then more women would be willing to have children. When the burden is shared, it becomes less on all parties. A working woman who has no desire to derail her career to be the full-time caretaker of a child, might be willing to have a child knowing that her partner is willing and able to devote an equal amount of time to the needs of the child. But due to the social stigma that house husbands regularly face, make this option less attractive to men who would otherwise be more than willing and satisfied taking care of a family.

    This insane social fascination with a warped definition of “manliness” damages both women and men, whether they be seeking an advanced degree or an equal partner. People of both genders should be supported for who they are, whether it be the career minded woman or the man who just wants to stay home and take care of the kids. If people are encouraged and nurtured to follow their own path, instead of the paths praised and lauded by society, more men will take on the challenge to succeed in school and be an equal partner in the needs of their children.

  22. kathy a

    men will inevitably get into trouble if they don’t have women to anchor them?

    new hampshire has a commission on the status of men? the website says that part of the mission of this government agency is to examine biases and stereotyping. the recommendations are this nifty mix of “boys need special help to compete in school,” male teachers need extra incentives so they will teach, special domestic violence training should be given to officials to overcome the alleged bias against men, evidence rules should be reconsidered in domestic violence court cases, child support should not be too expensive for men, etc.

    translation: once some of the barriers to women succeeding were removed, women began succeeding. that hurts the self-esteem of boys, and that’s not fair. besides, if the boys can’t find girls, they’ll get in trouble, wreck the state, and there won’t be any more babies, and that’s not fair.

    this editorial very much denigrates the achievements of women over the past 40 years, albeit in a backhanded way. women now have more choices [almost as many as men have] and are permitted the chance to compete in a broad range of arenas, but women are still expected to perform certain gender-specific duties to society. this editorial identifies one of those duties as childbearing, and another as controlling the misbehavior of young men, for “when men are not connected, economically and socially, to the stability of families, they are at greater risk for a whole host of social problems.”

    facing competition from women is not the same thing as a bias against men. being expected to abide by the law, support oneself, and behave as a decent human are personal obligations, not the job of the women around one.

  23. e fulton

    The problem is not that men are not educating themselves. The problem is not that women are, as the article implies, too picky with their wanting an equal partner. In fact, most of the “problems” asserted by the editorial are not problems at all.

    However, many of the data points that they throw out (in a disorganized fashion, I might add) do form an aggregate problem. If men are undereducated compared to women are will earn less over their lives than women, isn’t the real problem that women are not marrying these less educated men so that they can stay home with the kids? The real problem appears to be that we’re so bundled up with stereotypes about male wage earners and female mommies that we can’t find a way for people to find decent living situations?

    As a high-earning woman, I don’t so much need what is commonly expected from a husband — I need what is commonly expected from a wife. If these men who aren’t interested in college could take high school classes in home economics — cooking, sewing, etc. — and child development, then they’d be better prepared to stay home and all of the worries of the editorial board would be assuaged. Men would be involved in society, they would be putting skills to good use, two-(straight-)parent families would be preserved, and women’s successes over the years would indeed be respected. Throw in some decent health care and it would be dandy!

    Thing is, if men in any large number became stay at home dads, the cultural outrage would be deafening, with talk of emasculation and all sorts of other misogynistic ranting. But if men don’t want to get educated, why should they presume to find driven, educated women as their mates? If women are driven and educated, why should they have to struggle to balance their work and family concerns — a balance made more difficult by their still having to shoulder the overwhelming burden of home and child-care responsibilities — all the while carrying some guy who couldn’t even bother to go to college? If the idea is to pair up driven, educated women with uneducated, lower-earning men, then those men have to find a way to make themselves more attractive to those women, and the best way for them to do so is to clean the house, take care of the errands, watch the kids and have dinner ready for their wives when they get home. I guess that’s just too logical to be worth suggesting, but hey — as a striving woman, I’m compelled to try to make things better.

  24. jami

    first, you can’t really undo the whole “educated woman” thing. that cat’s out of the bag.

    so making the huge assumption that uneducated german men actually want these dreadfully unborne children, i would advise that they make themselves more attractive, the way women have been struggling to do for centuries. laugh at her jokes — it makes her feel powerful. get a flattering hair cut. stop wearing sweatpants. buy sexy underwear. don’t sleep with her until the fifth date — it will drive her wild! fill your shelves with self help books.

    or they could show some damned gumption once in a while and get educations and real jobs.

  25. MissPrism

    Dear Sir,

    As your editorial points out, the inevitable flipside of allowing women access to education is that some will become educated. Furthermore, the sinister corollary of allowing women not to marry and bear children is that some of them may choose not to marry or bear children.

    I suspect that these are more than unpleasant side effects! Call me a conspiracist, but I am starting to believe that providing women with freedom to make “choices” about their own lives was the covert aim of the so-called feminist movement all along.

    I hope they’re happy now.

    Yours faithfully,
    Laetitia Prism

  26. leen

    MissPrism, you made me snort my milk.

    I (being the same Eileen as the one whose local paper printed this piece o’ crap) am loving the responses so far. As I compile a letter, I will have to fight to keep my level of snark to a minimum. It will be a tough fight, but I will try.

    I don’t know if it’s any solace, but even the non-crazy articles are equally crappy. Consider this lovely bit:

    However, Payette noted that Johnson’s early departure will would help both parties address their needs.
    “With this action, Superintendent Johnson will be able to address his needs,” he said.

    I notice that Memorial Day means my letter-writing deadline has moved up to Friday noon! I will post my final draft as soon as I send it.

  27. CafeSiren

    Hey guys, guess what? The editorial page for the Littleton Courier has a public comment section in a box just to the right of the piece we’re discussing. Why not weigh in over there as well?

    Last blamer in is a rotten egg!

  28. antelope

    So these days white men get to join women, minorities, the disabled, the poor, etc. as people who get comssions to study, report, and make recommendations about them because they are basically defined as a problem to be solved.

    Personally, I’m kind of happy that men are joining that club. I strongly suspected that they were a problem all along.

    Chris Clarke – I agree with your solution 100%. Better yet, same sex marriage would not only allow men to still marry someone at a similar educational level, it would also mean that over-educated women CAN have their careers and babies too – we simply let the same sex couples adopt our babies! Two men get to experience the civilizing effects of family life for the price of just one baby, so we’ll have ‘em all tied down in no time!

    In fact, once this becomes commonplace, I think women should even be able to drop by & play pattycake or take the kid out for a movie once in a while, but of course as a non-custodial parent she can hand them back as soon as they start to poop, cry, whine, or ask for the keys to the car.

  29. mrs_enid

    My eyes bleed everytime some nerdlet makes an impassioned plea for highly-educated women from Western countries to breed more. Last time I checked, there wasn’t an underpopulation problem on Planet Earth. This is especially true in the consumptive, Western world. Hmmm, maybe this guy is less concerned with the state of the planet and more concerned with maintaining the status quo and encouraging his idea of the “right” kind of person to breed? Just a hunch.

  30. Ms Kate

    You know what would fix this “problem”? Universal funding of higher education.

    Women go to college when men don’t because men have more choices for making a decent living. I have done health and safety work with trades people. Women are steered away from trades and are steered toward college. They also face a work environment and market which value men more than women. Why bother with that?

    More men than women also join the military, where they often learn a trade they will take with them when they leave.

    Faced with huge college costs versus apprenticeship and training costs for being an electrician, guess what wins?

  31. Mandos

    men will inevitably get into trouble if they don’t have women to anchor them?

    IMO, it’s about a deep-seated fear that men are socially dispensible.

  32. Sola

    The editors are alarmed over a *4 percent* decline in male college attendance that took 33 years to occur. They’re concerned by a *5 percent* difference between women and men. From these tiny statistics they predict a bleak, childless society haunted by snarling male pariahs.

    It seems to me that the editors are *really* concerned about the fact that women are finally achieving slightly more than men in this one tiny aspect of society. They’re going to college in slightly larger numbers.

    Oh, no! Women are achieving a teensy bit more than men in one category among the many we could measure! This is a reversal of the natural order! It’s downright sick! WHAT ABOUT THE POOR MEN???

    The last time I checked, a man with a high school education still made more money than a woman with a college degree. Someone tell me if this has changed.

  33. Aussie Liz

    I dips me lid to you all – with particular lid-dipping to CafeSiren and Miss Prism this fine morning. A well known patriarchy-applauder said that humour is logic, only dancing. He had the concept right, and you have the logic dancing to a merry little song. Laugh and learn, sisters. I look forward to the draft, Leen – snark away!

  34. scratchy888

    I think you need to say that there is something esoteric hidden within difficult texts, which women can be educated to decode. And, indeed, educated women do decode these hidden messages! What do they find inside? Nothing but contempt for the male appendage and all of its horrors! Ah, ynow you know now why the Taliban is worried about women being educated.
    (reductio ad absurdum)

  35. leen

    People, I could NOT DO IT. I could not get rid of the snark. Well, may this snark be a boojum and vanish away the entire editorial board (two of the five on the board are women, I’m pretty sure).

    Editor:
    As a highly-educated professional woman, I feel compelled to respond to your recent editorial on yet another crisis caused by the fact that women have, shockingly, surpassed men in something. I am entirely confused as to why an editorial on men not going to college focuses so much on women’s behavior (and most specifically their childbearing behavior), but there it is.

    “So we’re concerned that fewer men are going to college, because this means that fewer will be able to take part in the high-tech (and high wage) economy of our region’s future.”

    It seems to me that the natural consequence of having more educated women means that more women will be participating in the economic boom. How is this a bad thing? As long as there are educated people, whether male or female, the economic gains will continue. Or are you assuming that women cannot be part of the skilled labor pool? Will society really crumble if women make more money than men? But who’s going to do all the housework?

    As your editorial points out, the inevitable flipside of allowing women access to education is that some will become educated. Furthermore, the sinister corollary of allowing women not to marry and bear children is that some of them may choose not to marry or bear children.

    I suspect that these are more than unpleasant side effects! Call me a conspiracist, but I am starting to believe that providing women with freedom to make “choices” about their own lives was the covert aim of the so-called feminist movement all along.

    I hope they’re happy now.

    Obviously, thanks to MissPrism, Hogan, Nancy, CafeSiren, and everyone for loaning me your words and vim! And giant thanks to Twisty, the vim-mest of us all, for providing such a lovely blame-space. It’s so cozy.

  36. gordo

    I wrote this one to the editor, but it’s not clear if it got through:

    Your editorial brought up an alarming point: the gender gap in education is producing a generation of educated women who are reluctant to marry the current crop of men.

    To solve this problem, shouldn’t boys be given training in home economics?

    I think most of these educated women would be happy to have a husband who could ensure that their wives have a clean house, scrubbed children, and a hot meal waiting for them when they come home from a hard day at the office.

    *****

    I was sorely tempted to steal Miss Prism’s letter.

  37. Gunnhildur

    “…this country has one of the lowest birth rates in the world and an aging native-born population.”

    Never mind that the birth rate is higher among immigrants, brown babies are obviously worthless.

  38. Betsy

    Bluewolfcv — and e fulton — amen, sisters!

  39. Hattie

    I believe that the low birth rates in Italy and Germany are because the men are no damn good and no woman with half a brain would tie herself down to one of them.

  40. Sara

    Darling editor,

    What a shocking thought! It seems the entire infrastructure of the great state of New Hampshire is about to crumble as surely as the face off the Old Man in the Mountain just because today’s women have become independent enough to choose male life partners on the basis of character rather than wage-earning potential, if at all. Thank goodness you’ve pointed it out in time.

    Naturally, I have a solution for you: unchecked immigration. I’m sure there are hordes of Canadians massing at your border, putting their lives at risk to cross in the night, all for a shot at the New Hampshire dream. I say, let them in! Thus your fears of inadequate repopulation can be solved with the mere opening of a gate.

    Of course, any women among them, once they get a taste of sweet, sweet New Hampshire freedom, might find themselves wanting to go to college and get jobs in finance and technology, too, so you shouldn’t count on all of them breeding, either. And probably about four percent of the men who come in will be underachieving deadbeats. But at least there will be more people, and some of the women will surely be wretched and desperate enough to try to latch onto whatever affluent, educated men still run free — or even the uneducated but employed — and reproduce for a living.

    What a relief! God knows, what this planet needs more of than anything else is more human beings, especially in New Hampshire.

    Fondly,
    A Neighbor in Massachusetts

    [I'm still debating whether to post this in the Courier comments. I love what everybody else wrote.]

  41. Hogan

    I just realized why there’s a commission on the status of men: we (men, I mean) live in a culture that encourages irresponsibility, doesn’t value education, and corrodes family ties. Clearly, men are the new blacks.

    So where will we find our Bill Cosby?

    (Also? It should be “live free AND die.” That just bugs the hell out of me.)

  42. hedonistic

    Here’s mine:

    Being a highly educated single woman, I was going to add my comments to the mix. Clearly, the editor is concerned with a non-problem.

    Unfortunately, I took the time to read everyone else’s contributions first, and peed my pants from laughing, so now I have to go change my clothes instead. Perhaps another time?

  43. LolaSanchez

    Dear Editors,

    Thank you for an excellent, albeit superfluous, editorial on the inevitable outcome of allowing women to become more educated and independent. You swiftly made it clear that women must be stopped immediately from believing that they are anything more than incubators for the state incapable of holding jobs in the high-tech industry despite all their education. Brilliantly, you even managed to fold the debate over immigration policy into the piece by establishing that only “native born” babies are acceptable when it comes to replenishing the nation’s population stores.

    I suggest that along with this plea to the NH Commission on the Status of Men (kudos to your state for creating such a body way ahead of more traditionally reactionary states) you make copies of Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale available to all its members. I believe they will find it most inspiring.

    Sincerely,
    A reader from New York

  44. j_lovescoffee

    I notice the author – despite railing against the dangers of single parent or double-working-parent homes – did not suggest that less-able-to-provide-for-the-family men stay home and raise the children.

  45. hedonistic

    Name: H.P.
    Date: May 26, 2006
    You stated that where women are more educated than men, birth rates are distorted. Distorted from WHAT, may I ask? A time when women had no choice but to cleave to a man for food, shelter and relative safety? A time without birth control? A place with few real choices?

    Are you suggesting that the women in this community are not living up to their obligations to breed, perform unpaid domestic servant work, and generally take responsiblity for men’s behavior?

    I have an idea: Give the high-tech jobs to the women, and train the undereducated men to cook, perform housekeeping chores, and carefully nurture the next generation. This way, educated, professional women will be happy to marry them, knowing that the house will be properly kept, her children will be raised well, and dinner will be on the table by 6pm every night.

    There! Problem solved!

    **************
    (thanks to the folks upthread for giving me such poach-able material)

  46. _rachel_

    Blah blah first-time blamer. I am impelled to delurk so that I may compliment Chris Clarke, CafeSiren, and e fulton for their excellent letters. Brava!

  47. CafeSiren

    ‘Leen, will you update us if and when any reaction shows up in the paper? My bet is that the patriarchy just ignores us, and hopes we will go away.

  48. trini hall

    As women become educated ther is a lot of tention in the home. Two people coming home from work frustrated, because of being fed up of being bossed around by the Boss. No on to ease the stress since both of them are tired. So no easy to get angry with each other and tension builds up and so go to bed angry no love making. Or both of them tired from the demands of the work place and so to tired to make love. This is one of the things that contributes to the decrease in birth rate.

  1. Screaming into the Void » Blog Archive » Crazy Busy Lately

    [...] So I haven't had time to write.  But I saw a post over at 'I Blame the Patriarchy' today which I felt like commenting upon (except I don't want to start an account just to comment – I have too many accounts for various things as it is!)  [...]

  2. Adventures in Ethics and Science

    Let my people (let themselves) go….

    Blogging has been light because grading has been heavy. But Chad has a post that started me to thinking. (Danger! Danger!) And, since he has stated his desire to avoid a flamewar at this time, it seems only fair that……

  3. Smite Me! [.net] » Blog Archive » Another crisis, averted.

    [...] the world, not trying to add another prick to The Patriarchy’s pool! Perhaps I should file an Urgent Blamer Intervention Request with Phil, caretaker of the Twisty [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>