You can’t manage your work life if you can’t talk about it

Penelope, I agree with every single sentiment in your post.

I agree with transparency.
I agree with period sex.
I agree with you and everyone having the right to make their own choices (esp. with their own bodies) and communicate their opinions, even (and esp.) when they push buttons because buttons force reaction and reaction triggers honesty and honesty catalyzes change.

AND, I agree that it all has everything to do with work, cause work is a massive integral often grossly-consuming part of life.

The fact that people aggressively assume you are a foul-mouthed rabble-rouser instead of an incredibly perceptive, real (and therefore imperfect) person/woman who has seen, experienced, and read a few things in her time is appalling to me, and they should be far more ashamed of themselves than you should ever think of feeling.

AND, the fact that this one tweet (of 1000s) is what makes you significantly and globally more newsworthy instead of your insightful intellect is a big fat light shedding itself on the tragedy that is mainstream media banging down and building up the same doors they burn down to get their big story.

Thank you for being entirely you.
I am grateful, for what it’s worth.

I propose, "More women cause abuse and serious neglect of the most children!"

How can this be? Women cause the most child abuse?

Let us look at the facts from a scholarly study, "Women comprised a larger percentage of all perpetrators than men."

During 2006, an estimated 905,000 children were determined to be victims of abuse or neglect. Among the children confirmed as victims by CPS agencies in 2006:

Each State has its own definitions of child abuse and neglect based on minimum standards set by Federal law. Federal legislation provides a foundation for States by identifying a minimum set of acts or behaviors that define child abuse and neglect. The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act as amended by the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003, defines child abuse and neglect as:

1. Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or

2. An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.

Who abused and neglected children?

I quote the facts and data, “In 2006, nearly 80 percent (79.4%) of perpetrators of child maltreatment were parents, and another 6.7 percent were other relatives of the victim. Women comprised a larger percentage of all perpetrators than men, 57.9 percent compared to 42.1 percent.”

We as women need to use logic and facts, not the appeal to emotions and false assumptions.

We as women should be honest about simple facts!

I still suggest “Feminists are inherently illogical.”

Beth V.

* * * * *
References:

Dr. J. A. Gaudiosi, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, 1250 Maryland Avenue, SW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20024.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families. Child Maltreatment 2006 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2008).

The quest for “equality” is perhaps the greatest example of the neurotic human chasm between what “we claim to want” and what “we really want.” It is like people who say they want to skydive, and they really believe it, but just until they take that first look out of the plane.

Sure, some people do it. But then again, how many people do you know that actually jump out of planes?

Even if we reduce it to the most practical and euphemistic of terms, very few people desire “equality” between the sexes. Indeed, very few people ever even consider what that would mean!

Do we want women subject to the draft and compulsory service in ground combat should a crisis emerge that requires such action? If your answer is no then you don’t want equality!

Women don’t even have to register for selective service. It is a boys only club and that is how most people want it!

Practical? Perhaps.

Equal? Not on your life.

And we don’t see N.O.W. or other women’s organizations clamoring at the halls of power to include women in such mandatory hardship. It’s telltale signs like that which distinguish between the pursuit of “equality” and the “pursuit of power.”

Which is where most people get confused.

That confusion is based on “antiquated feminist mythology.” We have a collective tendency to think that equality is only about access to wealth, independence and privilege. We think that parity is in the zeros on a paycheck or the letters behind a persons name.

That is only half of it. And it is, curiously, the only half we usually consider. That half-blind mentality has given us interesting concepts like “equal but special” and “feminism with chivalry.”

They are the oxymoron’s of the new age, and though we rarely say them aloud, we practice them as a matter of routine.

And the end of the day it’s all nonsense. We (and I do mean women and men) don’t want women in the socialized role of protectors. When something goes bump in the night, how many women are going to say to their husbands “Stay here, honey, I’ll go check it out?” How man men would let them?

We don’t want women in the role of social provider, either. I read a recent survey where 44% of women reported that they would be offended if expected to pay their way on dates. A much greater percentage said they didn’t or wouldn’t do it, but close to half found the idea so objectionable that they would take offense to it.

Equality, when its meaning is not distorted, is a cruel master. And since we don’t care too much for harsh reality in todays world, we just play a game of make believe with the word.

Women claim to embrace equality to pursue power, and men claim to embrace equality to pursue women.

But neither really mean it.

Beth V.

I again make my offer to anyone who would like a publishing credit to email me at marriagecoach 1 at yahoo dot com.

I am looking for reasoned logical arguments about how men are being abused in our society and that reverse sexism is rampant in this country where it is the men who are now being victimized.

Can A Woman Be "The Family Terrorist?"

As a woman, there seems to be a blanket of silence over the huge figures of violence expressed by women! There is something pathological about the terrorist’s motivation, for it is based not so much on reality as on a twisting, a distortion, a reshaping of reality.

That said, in a recent video and column on ‘The Family Terrorist’ (or, ‘If Momma Ain’t Happy’) and takes a look at some “ugly truths about behaviors of women” within their families; behaviors that are “appallingly” common, generally excused and even “laughed away” by society.

One excellent quote from the article by Erin Pizzey concerning mothers who emotionally terrorize their families is, "Through the subtle creation of perpetual turmoil this terrorist may drive other family members to alcoholism to drug addiction, to explosive behavior, to suicide. The other family members therefore are often misperceived as the family problem, and the hidden terrorist seen as the “saintly woman” who puts up with it."

We are confronted daily by the difficult task of women in problematical families. In my review of family violence, I have come to recognize that there are women involved in emotionally and/or physically violent relationships who express and enact disturbance beyond the expected (and acceptable) scope of distress.

Such individuals, spurred on by deep feelings of vengefulness, vindictiveness, and animosity, behave in a manner that is singularly destructive; destructive to themselves as well as to some or all of the other family members, making an already bad family situation worse.

These women I have found it useful to describe as “family terrorists.”

I understand, men also are capable of behaving as family terrorists. We have had thousands of international studies about male violence but there is “very little” about “why or how women” are violent! There seems to be a blanket of silence over the huge figures of violence expressed by women!

Because family terrorism is a tactic largely used by “women” in domestic violence field. The potential for family terrorism may rest dormant for many years, emerging in its full might only under certain circumstances. I found that in many cases it is the dissolution, or threatened dissolution, of the family that calls to the fore the terrorist’s destructiveness. It is essential to understand that prior to dissolution, the potential terrorist plays a role in the family that is by no means passive. The terrorist is the family member whose moods reign supreme in the family, whose whims and actions determine the emotional climate of the household. In this setting, the terrorist could be described as the family tyrant, for within the family, this individual maintains the control and power over the other members’ emotions.

The family of the “emotional terrorist” well may be characterized as dysfunctional, and unhappy, but it is the terrorist or tyrant who is primarily responsible for initiating conflict, imposing histrionic outbursts upon otherwise calm situations, or (more subtly and invisibly) quietly manipulating other family members into uproar through guilt, cunning taunts, and barely perceptive provocations. (The quiet manipulative terrorist usually is the most undetected terrorist. Through the subtle creation of perpetual turmoil, this terrorist may virtually drive other family members to alcoholism, to drug-addiction, to explosive behavior, to suicide. The other family members, therefore, are often misperceived as the ‘family problem’ and the hidden terrorist as the saintly woman who “puts up with it all.”)

While the family remains together, however miserable that “togetherness” might be, the terrorist maintains her power. However, it is often the separation of the family that promises to rend the terrorist’s domain and consequently to lessen her power. Family dissolution, therefore, often is the time when the terrorist feels most threatened and most alone, and, because of that, most dangerous.

In this position of fear, the family terrorist sets out to achieve a specific goal. There are many possible goals for the terrorist, including: reuniting the family once again, or ensuring that the children (if there are children in the relationship) remain under the terrorist’s control, or actively destroying the terrorist’s spouse (or ex-spouse) emotionally, physically, and financially.

To take an extreme parable, when it was evident to Adolph Hitler that winning the War was an absolute impossibility, he ordered his remaining troops to destroy Berlin: If he no longer could rule, then he felt it best for his empire to share in his own personal destruction. Similarly, the family terrorist, losing or having lost supremacy, may endeavor to bring about the ruin (and, in some extreme cases, the death) of other family members.

The family terrorist, like the political terrorist, is motivated by the pursuit of a goal. In attempting to “disarm” the family terrorist, it is to try and recognize and understand the terrorist’s goal.

The source of the terrorist’s goal as in the case of the political terrorist, usually can be understood to spring from some “legitimate” grievance. The grievance’s legitimacy may be regarded in terms of justified feeling of outrage in response to an actual injustice or injury, or the legitimacy may exist solely in the mind of the terrorist. Whether this legitimacy be real or imagined, the grievance starts as the impetus for the terrorist’s motivation. One hallmark of an emotional terrorist is that this motivation tends to be obsessional by nature.

Whence this obsession? Why this overwhelmingly powerful drive? In many cases, that which the terrorist believes to be the grievance against the spouse actually has very little to do with the spouse. Although the terrorist may be consciously aware only of the spouse’s alleged offense, the pain of this offense (real or imagined) is invariably an echo of the past, a mirrored recreation of some painful situation in the terrorist’s childhood.

I will not describe here in any detail the types of childhood that tend to create the subsequent terrorist. I will say, however, that invariably the terrorist’s childhood, once understood, can be seen as violent (emotionally and/or physically). Also invariably, the terrorist can be regarded as a “violence prone” individual. I define a violence prone woman as a woman who, while complaining that she is the innocent victim of the malice and aggression of all other relationships in her life, is in fact a victim of her own violence and aggression. A violent and painful childhood tends to create in the child an addiction to violence and to pain (an addiction on all levels: the emotional, the physical, the intellectual, the neurochemical), an addiction that then compels the individual to recreate situations and relationships characterized by further violence, further danger, further suffering, further pain. Thus, it is primarily the residual pain from childhood – and only secondarily the pain of the terrorist’s current familial situation – that serves as the terrorist’s motivating impetus. There is something pathological about the terrorist’s motivation, for it is based not so much on reality as on a twisting, a distortion, a reshaping of reality.

Because the emotional terrorist is a violence-prone individual, addicted to violence, the terrorist’s actions must be understood as the actions of an addict. When the family was together, the terrorist found fulfillment for any number of unhealthy appetites and addictions. When that family then dissolves, the terrorist behaves with all the desperation, all the obsession, all the single-minded determination of any addict facing or suffering withdrawal.

The single-mindedness, the one-sidedness of feeling, is perhaps the most important shibboleth of the emotional terrorist. Furthermore, the extent of this one-sidedness is, perhaps the greatest measure and indicator of how extreme the terrorist’s actions are capable of becoming.

Any person suffering an unhappy family situation, or the dissolution of a marriage or relationship, will feel some pain and desperation. A relatively well-balanced person, however, will be not only aware of their own distress but also sensitive, in some degree, to the suffering of the other family members. For example, reasonably well-balanced parents, when facing divorce, will be most concerned with their children’s emotional well-being, even beyond their own grief. Not so the emotional terrorist.

To the family terrorist, there is only one wronged, one sufferer, only one person in pain, and this person is the terrorist herself. The terrorist has no empathy and feels only her own pain. In this manner, the terrorist’s capacity for feeling is narcissistic, solipsistic, and in fact pathological.

Again, I will not attempt here to detail the factors in childhood that lead to the creation of an emotional terrorist. What is evident, however, in the terrorist’s limited or nonexistent ability to recognize other people’s feelings, is that the terrorist’s emotions and awareness, at crucial stages of childhood development, were stunted from reaching beyond the boundaries of self, due to a multiplicity of reasons. Later, the adult terrorist went on to make a relationship that was, on some level, no true relationship, but a reenactment of childhood pains, scenarios, situations, and “scripts.” Throughout the relationship, the solipsistic terrorist did not behave genuinely in response to the emotions of other family members but self-servingly used them as props for the recreation of the terrorist’s programme. And when that relationship finally faces dissolution, the terrorist is aware only of her own pain and outrage and, feeling no empathy for other family members, will proceed single-mindedly in pursuit of her goal, whether that goal is reunion, ruin, or revenge. The terrorist’s perspective is tempered by little or no objectivity. Instead the terrorist lives in a self-contained world of purely subjective pain and anger.

Because conscience consists so largely of the awareness of other people’s feelings as well as of one’s own, the emotional terrorist’s behavior often can be described to be virtually without conscience. In this lack of conscience lies the dangerous potential of the true terrorist, and again the degree of conscience in evidence is a useful measure to anticipate the terrorist’s destructiveness.

An additional factor, making the terrorist so dangerous, is the fact that the terrorist, while in positively monomaniacal pursuit of her goal, feels fueled by a sense of omnipotence. Perhaps it is true that one imagines oneself omnipotent when, in truth, one is in a position of impotence (as in the case of losing one’s familial control through dissolution). Whatever the source of the sensation of omnipotence, the terrorist believes herself to be unstoppable, and unbound by the constraints or conscience or empathy, believes that no cost (cost, either to the terrorist or to other family members) is too great to pay toward the achievement of the goal.

The terrorist, and the terrorist’s actions, know no bounds. (The estimation of the extent of the terrorist’s “boundlessness” presents the greatest challenge to my work). Intent only to achieve the goal (perhaps “hell-bent” is the most accurate descriptive phrase) the terrorist will take such measures as: stalking a spouse or ex-spouse, physically assaulting the spouse or the spouse’s new partners, telephoning all mutual friends and business associates of the spouse in an effort to ruin the spouse’s reputation, pressing fabricated criminal charges against the spouse (including alleged battery and child molestation), staging intentionally unsuccessful suicide attempts for the purpose of manipulation, snatching children from the spouse’s care and custody, vandalizing the spouse’s property, murdering the spouse and/or the children as an act of revenge.

Yes, both men and women are equally guilty of the above behavior, but on the whole, because it is men’s dysfunctional behavior that is studied and reported upon, people do not realize that to the same extent women are equally guilty of this type of violent behavior. My working definition, then, of a “family terrorist” or an “emotional terrorist” is: a woman who, pathologically motivated (by unresolved tendencies from a problematical childhood), and pathologically insensitive to the feelings of other family members, obsessionally seeks through unbounded action to achieve a destructive (and, therefore, pathological) goal with regard to other family members.

Of course, this defining profile pertains to individuals in differing degrees. Many people, unhappy within a relationship or made unhappy by the dissolution of a relationship, may lapse into periods of “irrational” behavior. What characterizes the terrorist, however, is that the vindictive and destructive behaviors are consistent; the moments of calm and periods of lucidity are the lapses, temporary lulls in the storm.

There are also women who, suffering chagrin and misery during or after the life spans of a relationship, appear far more self-destructive than destructive to anyone else. For the other partner, contemplating leaving this kind of individual, the very thought of leaving such a person is made difficult and untenable. To be sure, many women exist, extremely dependent within their relationships, who, probably having suffered severe emotional betrayal during their childhood, genuinely feel that their life outside a relationship would be so lonely as to be unbearable.

It is difficult to leave such a woman, and the man attempting to leave may well feel that, by leaving, he would be responsible for delivering a mortal blow to an already pathetic wretch. Men also, are often kept in their relationships, which can only be likened to “personal concentration camps,” by the fact that they feel a genuine feeling of “chivalry” towards their partner. Women tend to put so much more of themselves into their relationships and therefore suffer when these relationships fall apart.

There is a valid question as to whether or not this sort of suicidally-inclined individual may be deemed a terrorist. (To many minds, this kind of individual, no doubt, would seem to fall more within the category of “emotional black-mailer.” ) I believe that, sadly, there are people, deeply damaged by their childhood, who genuinely cannot face life by themselves.

In some individuals, the authentic (though unhealthy) longing for death is a longing planted within them since early childhood, and there is very little a partner can do to alter the apparently inevitable course of that longing.

In men struggling either in relationships or with the dissolution of a relationship, They are faced with many questions, all relevant to gauging the woman’s terrorist potential:

Will the woman persevere in her efforts to financially ruin her partner?

Is she sincere when she promises to kill her partner, or have him killed, should he ever become involved in a new relationship?

Are the threats of suicide genuine or manipulative?

Will she carry out the promises of using the law to “kidnap” the children in order to hurt the ex-partner?

Will she brain-wash the children to such an extent that her ex-partner dare not form a new relationship?

In situations of emotional and family terrorism, there are two areas of focus: practical measures of protection (“strategies for survival”) on the part of family members, and therapeutic work with the terrorist himself or herself. I must reiterate at this stage, that both men and women are capable of terrorist tactics. Women, as I have shown, use far more subtle tactics, i.e., that of the terrorist as opposed to outright war.

The first step, on the part of other family members, toward limiting the terrorist’s destructive potential is to understand the terrorist to be a terrorist. In a recent example, a Mr. Roberts described how, during his marriage, he and his children faced a daily onslaught of verbal abuse from his wife. Mrs. Roberts was also physically violent to the children. Now that he has asked for a divorce, she is making use of every weapon in her arsenal. In the children’s presence, she has used drugs and drunk alcohol to the point of extreme intoxication. She has staged several unsuccessful suicide attempts in front of the children, threatened over the telephone to “do something stupid,” promised to kill Mr. Roberts new partner, and assured Mr. Roberts that when she has finished with him he will not have a penny to his name. To Mr. Roberts, all of this behavior seemed perfectly usual.

After all, he had witnessed this sort of commotion for thirteen years of their marriage. When it was suggested to him, “What you endured is emotional terrorism,” he suddenly and for the first time was able to see his situation clearly. Now, he realized, his wife’s behavior was neither appropriate nor acceptable. No, this was not the treatment that every man should expect from his wife, either in or out of marriage. No, he does not want his children to be subjected to such extreme behavior any longer.

The fact of recognizing a terrorist is the essential first step. Then, because a terrorist is fueled by a feeling of omnipotence and is prepared to behave without bounds, usually encouraged by feminist therapists who insist that their clients suffer from “low self esteem,” pragmatic measures must be taken to define clearly the boundaries of acceptable behavior.

Unfortunately the legal situation which many divorce agreements mandate is open-ended. Certainly, when both parties to a divorce are reasonably well-balanced, it is entirely fitting for the settlement to be flexible enough to incorporate changing financial circumstances, child-care capabilities, and visitation rights. When, however, one party to the divorce is an emotional terrorist, then both the confrontational divorce procedure and the resultant open-ended divorce settlement provide infinite opportunity for the courts, lawyers, and the entire battery of psychologists called in for evaluations, to be used as the terrorist’s weapons. In these cases, the court and the divorce procedure provide no boundaries for the terrorist; instead they allow the terrorist to continue to behave boundlessly.

For this reason, when dealing with a terrorist, it is best for the divorce procedure and final decree to be as swift, as final, as absolute, as unequivocal as possible. Every practitioner or attorney handling divorces is familiar with clients described as “litigious.” [ “Tar baby” is a popular term among Colorado lawyers.] Only when “litigiousness” is seen as a manifestation of terrorism can the course to swift and precise legal settlement be steered.

To limit the terrorist’s feelings of omnipotence, there are many effective measures. The guiding principle, as in the handling of political terrorists, must be: “There is no negotiating with terrorists.” Endless telephone calls, conversations, confrontation, trial “get-back-togethers,” correspondence, visitations, gestures of appeasement, and efforts to placate the terrorist’s demands, all serve to reinforce the terrorist’s belief that she is accomplishing something. Only determined resolution in the face of terrorism shows the terrorist that her power is limited.

Furthermore, for anyone dealing directly with the terrorist, reassurances, “ego boosts,” and consolations are lamentably counterproductive. Mrs. Roberts soon found for herself a feminist therapist staunchly supporting the erroneous belief “All feelings (and therefore behaviors) are valid.” Mrs. Roberts is told by this therapist that she has a right to feel and to behave in any manner she chooses, in callous disregard for the devastation inflicted upon the children. Such reassurances serve only to fortify the terrorist’s already pathological, solipsistic, and eternally self-justifying perspective.

If wishing to undertake the second sphere of disarming a terrorist – personal intervention with the terrorist herself – one must be prepared to be straight, honest and very direct. In dealings with women as terrorists, it is shown on occasion that one quite simply can point out to the terrorist, “You are behaving like a terrorist. This is what you are doing. This is how you are being destructive. This is the destruction you are heading towards,” and the terrorist, seeing themselves clearly for the first time, might be encouraged to reconsider their behavior. More commonly, however, extremely deep therapy is required. For the terrorist’s behavior to change, there must first be a solid and fundamental change within the terrorist’s physiological constitution.

Usually it is only by an in-depth excavation and resolution of early childhood pain that the terrorist can begin to gain a real, true, and level-headed perception of her own current situation. Direct intervention with a terrorist – like all forms of therapeutic intervention – can hope to achieve change only if the individual concerned wishes to change and possesses that vital yet ineffable quality: the will to health. When the will to health is lacking, there can be no change. If the terrorist cannot or will not change, one can only help the other family members to be resolute, be strong, and, whenever possible, be distant.

When feminists like Robin Morgan (editor of MS magazine and contributor to The Guardian) make statements like, “I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.”

We may better understand the counter-culture and activitist thoughts about "Can a Woman be the Family Terrorist."

In the study "Husband Abuse: Equality with a Vengeance?" Joanne C. Minaker, and Laureen Snider in the Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice – September 2006, the original problem of “wife abuse,” which feminists constituted in the 1970s, has morphed into “domestic violence” and then into “husband abuse.”

They present a case study of the newly discovered problem of “husband abuse,” which they argue exemplifies the complexities of neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism, and feminist engagement with the criminal-justice state.

They argue that the myth that men are battered as often as women, an argument that challenges decades of feminist research, theory, and activism, is constitutive of a backlash against women’s safety and feminist “victories.”

They caution that such claims must be read as more than anti-feminist backlash but are increasingly becoming the new “common sense,” the dominant lens used by policy makers, media, and influential interest groups. They demonstrate how the very successes of feminism, combined with neo-liberal governance, the burgeoning power of men’s movements, and new communication media, have given rise to new subjects, mentalities, and practices.

As the claim that male and female partners are equally prone to violence resonates with discourses of equality and reinforces constituencies promoting criminal-justice “solutions” to all social problems, the result is "equality" with a vengeance!

There seems to be a blanket of silence over the huge figures of violence expressed by women! There is something pathological about the terrorist’s motivation, for it is based not so much on reality as on a twisting, a distortion, a reshaping of reality.

Respectively,

Beth V.

What is the “Feminist” dilemma?

Over the past several decades, we as American women have gradually overcome the legal and cultural barriers to equal opportunity. We as women now receive well over half of all B.A.s and M.A.s, and working women have become the rule rather than the exception. We as women are becoming physicians, lawyers, CEOs, and scientists and are founding their own businesses in record numbers.

In the “Feminist” dilemma, most here argue that even though women's opportunities are now equal, women's and men's choices are not always the same.

Ironically, the achievement of women's equality poses a serious dilemma for contemporary feminists, who do not want to “acknowledge” that some of women's choices, such as studying literature rather than math, or leaving the work force to raise children, or even working part-time, lead to fewer women in top jobs.

The “flaw in contemporary feminist” thinking, I contend, is its insistence that anything less than statistical parity with men in any field–or even on college sports teams–is proof of discrimination against women.

The “Feminist” dilemma describes a wayward feminist movement that does not want to acknowledge women's real accomplishments because their existence marks the end of the movement's reason for being.

Rather than celebrate victory in their pursuit of women's equality, today's “feminists” feign defeat.

They “adopt the rhetoric” of victimization, suggesting that women can never succeed on their own, and they “crusade for preferential programs for women” in education and the workplace. Politicians and businesses fear becoming feminist targets and so lack the courage to challenge feminists' claims.

I have explained how the contemporary feminists' ideological campaign in the courts and in Congress is “undermining the principles” of our economic system–and how these efforts actually “do not help” women's progress!

I have explained how “The Feminist” will spark controversy and change the way we think about equality between men and women. It will be an eye-opener for anyone with an interest in law, politics, economics, and women's issues!

Feminist need research and honesty!

The women’s organizations have become “dishonest political” organizations, bent on “their own survival” and which “skew facts and figures” in order to “propagate the myth” that women are still “victims in our society” in need of “special” protection.

Their organizations survival is dependent upon the success or failure of this myth. We need to “expose” how these “organizations twist” and “bend the truth” to suit their “own” purposes.

The playing field has not only been leveled, it is tilting the other way!

I and others assert, the feminist movement seems much more “socialistic” than democratic.

Feminist need research and honesty!

Beth V.

I didn’t read through all of your comments. I don’t have the patience. I think your Twitter post was in poor taste despite the good arguments that you laid out. I don’t care that talking about these issues enhances the female experience, because I don’t believe that at all. Miscarriage and abortion is extremely personal and whereas miscarriages do occur at work, it is not going to help the “female experience” by talking about it with co-workers. Talking about it helps, but only with certain people. If you want to blab your business around than great, but keep in mind a lot of people don’t want to hear it.

Now, I remember why I stopped reading your blog.

Also, as an adopted child, I am totally against abortion from all fronts. I am so thankful that my birth mother chose to give life to me so that I can have a shot at life. I was adopted into a wonderful family complete with two other adopted children and four other siblings (from birth). There are so many couples who want to have children and are on waiting lists to adopt children because there aren’t enough children available for them. What a sick world we live in when people have abortions and flaunt it around Twitter when there is a woman on her knees somewhere crying because she can’t have a child. I would love to meet my birth mom someday so I can thank her for not having an abortion.

You may not have wanted that child, but someone else did. If you’re going to have sex, even if you’re using protection, at least learn to deal with your consequences instead of hiding and covering up from them. How does that fit into the Brazen Careerist’s self-centered life?

@John Wilder – Your logic is seriously flawed. I won’t count all of the ways. At the very least, I think you forgot to include the sperm donor in your list of people that should be charged with murder in your f-ed up world. A man is just as capable, if not more so, of preventing pregnancies.

John, I often think this whole thing would be so much easier if there was a defining moment when a fetus becomes a baby/person. Oh wait – there is. Birth. I don’t think there could possibly be a more clear moment. Been there twice myself. Hard not to miss.

I judge conduct and attitudes not people. Just as I judge NAMBLA (THE nORTH aMERICAN mAN BOY lOVE aSSN). Killing innocent unorn babies is always wrong and I judge that and speak vehemently against anyone who supports it. It is vile and reprehensible.

yeah like havin sex