Interesting Article On Feminism.

[Fiannan]

So a woman was called insufficient and abnormal. But who on earth called a beautiful, emotional, intuitive, sexy woman who is also a good housewife, a caring mother and faithful wife like that? Was the name given by the followers of patriarchy or feminism?

Equality or equal rights?

Feminists are very good at double-dealing. They can argue passionately about women being as competent as men in any walk of life. At the same time, they never miss an opportunity to demand that the proposals based on their idea of equality e.g. quotas for seats in Parliament, recruitment benefits and preferential treatment, minimum fixed wage, and a ban on “sexual harassment” be signed into law. They do not have scruples about the impact on the rights of other people should those proposals become laws. As a result, such basic rights and freedoms as the right of vote, freedom of the speech, and property rights will have to be curtailed.

Fortunately, people are not equal. It means that they will have different opportunities while having equal rights. Likewise, equality is attainable only by means of inequality of rights. People are well aware of the results of numerous experiments that were conducted to enforce the universal equality.

http://english.pravda.ru/society/stories/85546-2/

I know this article follows a societal analysis based on an evolutionary model but maybe that makes it even more interesting as we all know what the Bible says about family norms and goals in life.

[Elphaba]

So a woman was called insufficient and abnormal. But who on earth called a beautiful, emotional, intuitive, sexy woman who is also a good housewife, a caring mother and faithful wife like that? Was the name given by the followers of patriarchy or feminism?

<snip>

http://english.pravda.ru/society/stories/85546-2/

I know this article follows a societal analysis based on an evolutionary model but maybe that makes it even more interesting as we all know what the Bible says about family norms and goals in life.

Finnian,

What do you do? Stay up all night Googling for "vile hateful Sado-Mas feministas."

You have such a warped, insipid view of feminists it stuns me. And you find those on the web who share your outrageous, angry yet absurd views that come nowhere close to what real feminism is.

All you ever do is find the most extreme examples of a movement that was a true revolution thirty-five years ago. Every revolution has its extremists. But eventually, when the movement succeeds, which the feminist movement did, it calms down and gels into its basic premise, which for feminism was choices. That's all feminism has ever really been about. Choices. I've explained this to you before, yet you keep looking at the extremes and insisting they are today's feminism. You're wrong!

This paragraph is a perfect example of what feminism is NOT:

"Feminists are full of spite and venom with regard to anything that is female and feminine. They say femininity is a humiliation. Likewise, they seem to believe that the cult of beauty is an abuse and the desire of a woman to be liked by a man is a shameful thing because it is based on the perception of a woman as a sexual object. Woman’s logic and intuition are nothing but myths meant to belittle the intellectual powers of a woman. Motherhood should not hamper a woman’s career while a maternity leave should be reduced since a woman will depreciate as a qualified professional after taking a long maternity leave. Incidentally, you may be probably unaware of the fact that PMS or premenstrual syndrome is just another sexist myth designed to convince employers that woman is a hysterical creature, and therefore cannot be promoted to a higher position etc. A wife treating her husband to homemade cookies constitutes a case of exploitation because she does not get paid for performing her household duties. The question is: Who do they think should pay for that kind of job?"

-------------------------------

Any rational person reading this, feminist or not, will recognize the hyperbole and overreaction that saturates this paragraph.

I'm a feminist. I'm not full of spite or venom with regard to anything that is female or feminine. Nor are any of my feminist friends. Nor are any of the feminist groups I used to belong to.

Are their feminists who are still extreme. Yes, there are. I admit it. But they are few in number and not representative of the whole. The vast majority of feminists reject them, and frankly, are embarassed by them. They are a caricature, a cartoon of real feminists, and you buy into them, and insist they're the norm, because it suits your bias.

We're not as bad as you think! All we want are choices, even to stay home and have babies if we want. That's all it's ever been about. Choices for both women AND men. Even you.

You're not a stupid man, Fiannan. Don't be so gullible as to believe this overreactionary tripe.

Elphaba

[pushka]

It sounds to me as if this is a stereotypical, generalised feminist, based on what 1st occurred in the 60's and 70's bra burning eras.

I don't think that all so called feminists have such extreme views on women looking attractive, my friend is a feminist but she does not refuse to wear dresses and make up occasionally...the only message that I've had from fellow women regarding looking, feeling attractive, is that you should do it for yourself rather than because somebody else tells you to.

Do you think that it is wrong for women to demand equal rights to men in their society? Equal pay and job opportunities and what not? How would this affect the voting rights or freedom of speech of people in that society, or property rights?

Yes, you will always get extremists in any society...some women who haven't suffered the symptoms of PMS will argue that it's just an excuse to keep women at a lower level than men in the workforce...more enlightened people, of both sexes, now recognise that those symptoms do occur in some women and that they need treatment to help them cope with them, it doesn't mean that a woman is weaker because of it, and when appropriate treatment is given that woman can work just as well as any other...

I think that feminism is just an enabler for women to get equal opportunities, pay etc. I don't think that women view stay at home mums the way that this article portrays them...real humans have a wide range of understanding and know that whatever a woman chooses to do its her right to do it...whether that is to go to work and have childminders look after her children, or to stay at home and give up work until the children are older. As long as it is the woman making the choices herself, then nobody should be complaining.

[Brother Dorsey]

That's all feminism has ever really been about. Choices.

All we want are choices, even to stay home and have babies if we want. That's all it's ever been about. Choices for both women AND men. Even you.

Elphaba

Choices? Sounds more like a power struggle thing to me. And feminists want to live in both worlds. I don't really see it myself. What "choices" are feminists fighting for? What is it they they truly want? The way I see it feminists not only want to reverse the gender roles, they want the "choice" to live them both if they want! I say....more power to you feminists! And good luck finding a real man to spend your life with....

My wife is a stay at home mom, she cooks, cleans, does the shopping, nurtures the kids, gardens, takes care of the food storage, pays the bills, is active in her church callings and still finds the time to to be a loving wife to me....and she would have it no other way. I am the provider for the family, I work 40-60 hours a week away from my family, I also am responsible for the protection of my family. I help around the house after work and on weekends.....and I would have it no other way.

My first wife was a feminist...and it was the major cause why our marriage ended....she wanted everything both ways, she demanded her choices. So, she and I would both work and we'd share the responsibility of raising the kids, housework and the like. She would then feel it was her choice to quit her job if she felt like it and cause me to take on another in addition to sharing household responsibilities....(this happened 3 times in our marriage).

Now, don't get me wrong, I think equal rights for women in the workplace, the same job same pay thing is a worthy cause. I think equal rights for women outside the home is admirable and I'm all for it. And even within a marriage equal rights for the wife is essential, husbands and wives should agree on all aspects of their marriage and share in responsibilities. But, when it comes to normal gender roles thats where it crosses the line. Poor oppressed feminists...they want to eat their cake and have it too.

If feminists feel they aren't getting a fair shake...let them replace our "boys" in uniform both in the armed forces and on the streets and see how long they last....let the feminists be construction workers, work in the mines, and do the dangerous jobs. Oh, but wait....it would be their "choice" to do those things...that's all they want...a choice. But then again...women do have the choice to do these dangerous jobs...and a few do....so I ask again...what "choices" are the feminists looking for? And please don't say "the choice to work outside the home or be a stay at home mom" because all feminists have that choice and that right. Wht is it about being a woman that you dislike so much that you want to change?

.................................

[Aphrodite]

My wife is a stay at home mom, she cooks, cleans, does the shopping, nurtures the kids, gardens, takes care of the food storage, pays the bills, is active in her church callings and still finds the time to to be a loving wife to me....and she would have it no other way. I am the provider for the family, I work 40-60 hours a week away from my family, I also am responsible for the protection of my family. I help around the house after work and on weekends.....and I would have it no other way.

So what would you do if your wife said to you one day, darling I want to get a job? Would you be happy about her working?

My first wife was a feminist...and it was the major cause why our marriage ended....she wanted everything both ways, she demanded her choices. So, she and I would both work and we'd share the responsibility of raising the kids, housework and the like. She would then feel it was her choice to quit her job if she felt like it and cause me to take on another in addition to sharing household responsibilities....(this happened 3 times in our marriage).

Thats not feminism thats selfishness and stupidity. The reality is, most couples now in the world have to work. I find it interesting you compare the 'ideal' of your wife as one who stays at home, and the 'not ideal' as your ex wife that did work and then didnt or whatever. Me personally, I love my job and would never give it up for two reasons. One, we could not afford to live unless I did work, and two it is deeply fulfilling and satisfying to me. When we have kids I'll probably take a years maternity leave-but I have to go back wheher I like it or not! Women working is not abnormal, its normal its life, not some radical choice.

When we first got married I didnt work for 6 months as I was trying to find a job. Rob was so supportive, he said its up to you what you want to do. Now I want to further my career and study again, he's more supportive still! Even tho its a drop in money, he's willing to support me as its only temporary.

Personally, I could never expect my husband to work extra hours than the usual 40 or so, or even take extra jobs just so I could be at home. I think thats quite selfish. As equal partners we both work, both look after the house etc. It works-when I wasnt working I felt so depressed and bored and isolated at home. I realy did feel like the little wifey while hubby was the man and brought home the bacon-it didnt feel equal, I felt somehow inferior. Working now, I feel happier, and a total equal to my husband.

[Elphaba]

Choices? Sounds more like a power struggle thing to me. And feminists want to live in both worlds. I don't really see it myself. What "choices" are feminists fighting for? What is it they they truly want? The way I see it feminists not only want to reverse the gender roles, they want the "choice" to live them both if they want! I say....more power to you feminists! And good luck finding a real man to spend your life with...

I have many feminist friends who are married to real men, and guess what? They consider themselves feminists as well. They're not threated by strong women who know what they want, confident, intelligent, willing to fight for their choices, and at the same time love their femininity, children and family. Feminism is not limited to females.

My wife is a stay at home mom, she cooks, cleans, does the shopping, nurtures the kids, gardens, takes care of the food storage, pays the bills, is active in her church callings and still finds the time to to be a loving wife to me....and she would have it no other way. I am the provider for the family, I work 40-60 hours a week away from my family, I also am responsible for the protection of my family. I help around the house after work and on weekends.....and I would have it no other way.

Interesting statement: "I" would have it no other way.

Actually, I'm sure your wife is very happy, and would "choose" this life as well. Again, the issue is choice. If she wouldn't "choose" this life, would you be cruel enough to force her into it?

My first wife was a feminist...and it was the major cause why our marriage ended....she wanted everything both ways, she demanded her choices. So, she and I would both work and we'd share the responsibility of raising the kids, housework and the like. She would then feel it was her choice to quit her job if she felt like it and cause me to take on another in addition to sharing household responsibilities....(this happened 3 times in our marriage).

Your first wife was an unhappy, severely dysfunctional woman who had no idea what she wanted.

She used "feminism" as her crutch when in fact she knew nothing about true feminism. I can see why you resent feminism because you equate it with what I'm sure was a horrific experience not only for you but, even worse, your children. She emotionally abused all of you and I can tell it still hurts you, and I'm so sorry for you.

But to blame feminism for what happened would be like me blaming my mother's Morminism for her neglect of me as a child. Because she did neglect me for the Church. Mormonism was every bit as much a drug for her as alcohol is to others. However, I understand it was her that was ill, and the Church bears no blame in this. It's the same with your ex-wife. Feminism did not cause her to act this way. She was sick to begin with and used feminism to justify her bad behavior. Even if she knew nothing about feminism, she would have treated you the same way.

Now, don't get me wrong, I think equal rights for women in the workplace, the same job same pay thing is a worthy cause. I think equal rights for women outside the home is admirable and I'm all for it. And even within a marriage equal rights for the wife is essential, husbands and wives should agree on all aspects of their marriage and share in responsibilities. But, when it comes to normal gender roles thats where it crosses the line. Poor oppressed feminists...they want to eat their cake and have it too.

Absolutely. You don't think there aren't oppressed women out there? If not, you're blind.

If feminists feel they aren't getting a fair shake...let them replace our "boys" in uniform both in the armed forces and on the streets and see how long they last....

Are not you aware of the women in the Army in this war?

Additionally, Israel requires all of its young men AND women to do a stint in its ARMY. The women handle it just fine. I would have no problem with that here in the U.S. In fact, I think it's unfair to the men for them to do this all by themselves.

let the feminists be construction workers, work in the mines, and do the dangerous jobs. Oh, but wait....it would be their "choice" to do those things...that's all they want...a choice. But then again...women do have the choice to do these dangerous jobs...and a few do....so I ask again...what "choices" are the feminists looking for?

To do these types of jobs if they're capable of it. Thirty years ago no woman was ever allowed to be a construction worker. Today they are. You see them doing all kinds of jobs that were denied them before. If it hadn't been for the women's movement, they would still be denied these jobs. So yes, it still is about choices! What's wrong with that?

And please don't say "the choice to work outside the home or be a stay at home mom" because all feminists have that choice and that right.

Of course I'm going to say "the choice to work outside the home or stay home." Thirty years ago, we didn't have that right. Why would you tell me not to say that? That was one of the major choice we earned. And despite your, admittedly, painful experience, many married couples do this very successfully. They work together, respecting each other's decisions, oftentimes agreeing that the women will be the primary breadwinner! These are the men that understand true equality in a marriage and aren't threatened by women.

And even when the children come, if the woman wants to continue to work the man will stay home and nurture and care for the child. I find this to be a wonderful thing. Vive la Choices!

Wht is it about being a woman that you dislike so much that you want to change?

I love being a woman. What I love about feminism is it has ended the days of women being forced into pigeonholes we don't fit in and being defined by people who know nothing about us.

Elphaba

[Fiannan]

Interesting. Nobody has addressed the article's real "thesis statement" at all, namely that gender roles are hardwired into us through evolution -- and what worked in the past is the trait that got passed on through the genetic imprints we all share. That's Darwinism in a nutshell and if you aren't into God then you have to accept that differences between the sexes cannot be changed by legislation any more than you can change the behavior of a group of chimps by telling them they should act differently.

Of course, I happen not to accept the Darwinian foundation but the Bible seems to also indicate that gender roles are part of our makeup.

[Elphaba]

Interesting. Nobody has addressed the article's real "thesis statement" at all, namely that gender roles are hardwired into us through evolution -- and what worked in the past is the trait that got passed on through the genetic imprints we all share. That's Darwinism in a nutshell and if you aren't into God then you have to accept that differences between the sexes cannot be changed by legislation any more than you can change the behavior of a group of chimps by telling them they should act differently.

Of course, I happen not to accept the Darwinian foundation but the Bible seems to also indicate that gender roles are part of our makeup.

Fiannin, this one’s really sort of mean. So, I’m trying to figure out, what is your point?

You seem to think that animals have no personality traits and are bound to behavior and gender roles with no exceptions. This is not true. There are animals that are homosexual. There are male animals that are nurturing and want to take care of the babies. The are aggressive and mean female animals who want to fight and protect other animals.

Additionally, behavior can change. Not instantly by "being told to." But evolution causes some fairly phenomenal changes.

Let me introduce you to the Bonobos, who are human beings’ closest living relative. Bonobos are female dominated, which makes for practically no stress and a very laid back existence. They have sex often and with anyone they want. For them the jungle is very peaceful and playful.

Bonobos mingle and the kids play with each other, groom each other, move from adult to adult for hugs, all the while looking toward the females for instructions. They travel together sometimes and once again, have sex, a lot!

This was absolutely shocking to scientists, who were so used to chimp behavior. Instead, the Bonobos were so much like humans it was astonishing.

From the website:

"They’re also have incredible empathy, another human trait. One time a starling fell into a Bonobo’s enclosure at a zoo and was stunned. The Bonobos picked her up gently and climbed the highest tree, wrapping her feet around the tree so she could keep her hands free. At the top she unfolded the bird like a little toy airplane, and she sent it out, which I think is amazing. It’s nothing something she would do to another Bonobos; that would be stupid to do that. But for a bird, that seemed to be the appropriate help. The bird didn't survive the treatment, I think, but the intentions were very good. The Bonobos put itself in the position of a totally different creature, an ability that we usually assume is uniquely human."

I know human beings who are so cruel they would never do that.

So, Fiannan, evolution does change behavior.

I really don’t know what you’re all bent out of shape about. I think we’re all wonderful creatures, and should be given the right to decide how best to shine--even you. You’re starting to grow on me, and I would neer take away your right to choose how you want to live your life. Why would you want to take away mine? Can you look at the women on this site and not want them to be happy, no matter what choices they make. I suspect the majority of them would agree with the lifestyle you demand is the proper one. But some won't. Shouldn't they get to fly too?

Elphaba

Bonobos

[sgallan]

Sneaking in for a moment....

Teaching grades (as a sub) K-12, I can tell you there is a whole generation of girls/women(some in college now) who were raised not even really knowing much about feminists or the feminists movement. Yet if you even suggested to them that they had proscribed roles, or couldn't chase their dreams, they would look at you like you were from mars or something.

They win the elections in school now. They go to college more than the boys. Some as kids play football, box, wrestle, and participate in any number of sports. They continue this into college. Give them a generation.... perhaps sooner, and that glass ceiling will be broken down. Because those with the antiquated views of an era long gone now are starting to die off.

FWIW, I am a single dad and have been for quite sometime.... I'll measure up my parenting skills with almost any mom.

[Fiannan]

Sneaking in for a moment....

Teaching grades (as a sub) K-12, I can tell you there is a whole generation of girls/women(some in college now) who were raised not even really knowing much about feminists or the feminists movement. Yet if you even suggested to them that they had proscribed roles, or couldn't chase their dreams, they would look at you like you were from mars or something.

They win the elections in school now. They go to college more than the boys. Some as kids play football, box, wrestle, and participate in any number of sports. They continue this into college. Give them a generation.... perhaps sooner, and that glass ceiling will be broken down. Because those with the antiquated views of an era long gone now are starting to die off.

FWIW, I am a single dad and have been for quite sometime.... I'll measure up my parenting skills with almost any mom.

Glass ceiling? Give me a break. The reason there are more men at top managerial positions is due to the fact that women have wombs. Yes, women are the ones who have babies. So unless a woman wants to give up the opportunity to have children (many do unfortunantely) they are at a disadvantage at getting into positions that often require a religious-style dedication in hours and effort to climb to those kinds of positions.

Also, don't be too sure about "antiquated views" dying out. Again, following a Darwinian principle it goes to reason that people with more traditional views on gender and ideal family goals will wind up reproducing at a far greater rate than those of the more "modern", "Sex in the City" way of thinking. I know you have one daughter -- I have four. And study after study indicates that the values you were raised with will determine (usually) how you will live. And and just a note, I expect my daughters to do all the fun stuff they want as well as excell in academics -- I would hope, however, they would have the values that are more akin to what the LDS Church teaches.

[Elphaba]

I would hope, however, they would have the values that are more akin to what the LDS Church teaches.

And what if they don't? What are you going to do then?

Elphaba

[sgallan]

Glass ceiling? Give me a break. The reason there are more men at top managerial positions is due to the fact that women have wombs. Yes, women are the ones who have babies. So unless a woman wants to give up the opportunity to have children (many do unfortunantely) they are at a disadvantage at getting into positions that often require a religious-style dedication in hours and effort to climb to those kinds of positions.

Which is exactly the type of view the kids I teach, and have taught, would lead them to look at you as someone from another planet. They wouldn't even conceptualize what you were talking about. I could bring it up to virtually ever kid I teach and the response would range from "deer in the headlights" to "indigination" from the smarter ones.

Also, don't be too sure about "antiquated views" dying out. Again, following a Darwinian principle it goes to reason that people with more traditional views on gender and ideal family goals will wind up reproducing at a far greater rate than those of the more "modern", "Sex in the City" way of thinking. I know you have one daughter -- I have four. And study after study indicates that the values you were raised with will determine (usually) how you will live. And and just a note, I expect my daughters to do all the fun stuff they want as well as excell in academics -- I would hope, however, they would have the values that are more akin to what the LDS Church teaches.

Indeed your cultural, and familial teachings will probably win out with your daughters (much as my child is best described an agnostic at age 11). And of course you can raise your kids as you choose. That is none of my business (outside of an obvious abuse situation). But the LDS culture is - statistically speaking - not all that significant. The number of women exceeding in the various levels of business and education suggest a change that apparently is beyond your cultural specific paradigm. Within that paradigm (a religious one that is in the single digits statistically) you are probably correct. Within society as a whole I suspect you are not in-tune with what is actually happening.

[Fiannan]

Sgallan, maybe you ought to expose your students to other points of view. Yeah, go ahead and make it sound as if the reason most CEOs, long-haul freight drivers and marines are men is because of institutionalized discrimination but that is actually not the case. Women, being the ones who can make babies and being the ones who get sick a lot during pregnancyh and afterwards have the breasts that produce milk, helps to make the saying "anatomy is destiny" the reality of the day. If you are a woman wanting kids your window of opportunity is your late teens to your mid to upper 30s. Sure, you can hope and pray that all your career planning and advancement will leave you an adequate income to have your kid or two when you are 35 - 38 (and you can afford to pay someone else to raise the kid for you) but biology may not be cooperative. Also, women with a more traditional way of thinking in regards to family will start families and forego the kinds of occupations (if they choose to work outside the home) that require 60 hour work weeks or lots of time away from home.

[Gabelma]

Sgallan, maybe you ought to expose your students to other points of view. Yeah, go ahead and make it sound as if the reason most CEOs, long-haul freight drivers and marines are men is because of institutionalized discrimination but that is actually not the case. Women, being the ones who can make babies and being the ones who get sick a lot during pregnancyh and afterwards have the breasts that produce milk, helps to make the saying "anatomy is destiny" the reality of the day. If you are a woman wanting kids your window of opportunity is your late teens to your mid to upper 30s. Sure, you can hope and pray that all your career planning and advancement will leave you an adequate income to have your kid or two when you are 35 - 38 (and you can afford to pay someone else to raise the kid for you) but biology may not be cooperative. Also, women with a more traditional way of thinking in regards to family will start families and forego the kinds of occupations (if they choose to work outside the home) that require 60 hour work weeks or lots of time away from home.

The ancient Hebrews also believed in a form of Paternity Leave - they gave the man and woman a year off after marriage to build their home, wouldn't it be great if we could do that? Your acting as though women working is new, most socities have had women working for centuries, without women in the factories, or slave women in the fields or peasent women all of whom had to work through their pregnancies, the difference between them and men was what? oh yes thats right half the wage, and maybe the few hours it took to push the baby out. My Gran was born in a time when women didn't even get to vote in my country. Her Mum had raised her to be self suffcient and she was able to cope when the men left for WW2 but most women had a much steeper learning curve, thanks to my Gran many women were saved from prison due to very innocent tax fraud (they were unaware when they took over their husbands businesses it had to be paid), shechanged plugs and even light bulbs. Also personally I think men should be looking at working as little as they can - Fathers are important too.

And for your information most women in the UK and the US have been well nourished for several generations as a result many women are fertile between the ages of 8 and 60 these days, which is scary but true. Afterall Sarah was able to have Abraham at nearly 100 so the capability must be in us. When my Mum had me at 30 she was considered an old first time Mum when I went in at 27 with Ellie I was normal. Heck my Gran was 40 when she had my Mum in 1946 having only ever had one other child in 1929, she worked througout her pregnancy (she had a baby linen shop and helped to manage a pub), when my Auntie was born in 1928 she was a housekeeper. She managed. Personally I think its very important that men and women can trade roles when necessary, when I was at church during my college years there was a family that had to role swap, her salary was worth almost triple that of her husband and with house prices the way they are here, they had to swap roles, however because they did that they both fulfilled the need to have children nurtured and provided for had they struggled the other way that wouldn't have happened.

I do believe staying at home is important to children but there is no need to be Victorian about it (Stone Aged people were a lot more enlightened when it comes to women). Feminism was needed and it needed to be hardcore to get people to listen now we can chill out more which is why current generations have never heard of Germaine Greer.

-Charley

[pushka]

Elphie, Aphrodite, Sgallan and Gabelma...thanks for putting my thoughts into words...you do a much better job than I can!!

[Fiannan]

And for your information most women in the UK and the US have been well nourished for several generations as a result many women are fertile between the ages of 8 and 60 these days, which is scary but true. Afterall Sarah was able to have Abraham at nearly 100 so the capability must be in us.

Absolutely, positively, incorrrect!!!!! Yes, women in the US and UK are getting more and more obese (if that is an indicator of being well nourished) but aside from this fact causing a great rise in infertility just being more nourished is not pushing the age limit for having children up!

About half of women are essentially infertile by age 40. If they do get pregnant in those years their risk of having children with chromosomal birth defects skyrockets -- a woman giving birth at age 45 has a 1 out of 25 chance of having a downs syndrome baby. And that's just one of the problems.

It has been reported by medical sources for the last decade that if a woman wants children then waiting until her 30s to have a child may put her at great risk of not being able to get pregnant. True many women have babies in their 30s with no problems but generally speaking these women had pregnancies in their 20s and their bodies are better primed to carry babies as well as conceive them. Women who wait until their 30s to start trying risk all kinds of problems not the least of which is endometriosis. I had a friend in college who developed this condition in her early 20s. Her doctor actually told her the best theing she could do to reverse it would be to get pregnant because without doing this she might become permanently infertile.

And as for Sarah the fact she got pregnant at an advanced age was considered a miracle. Medical science is not capable of such miracles on a general scale and these woen you hear about having babies in their 60s are not using their own egg cells -- they carry someone else's donated eggs. The case of the 59 year old British woman who recently became the oldest mother to conceive naturally got headlines due to it being so unusual.

Look, I am not debating women's abilities to do well in a number of things. But you can pass all the legislation in the world and not change biology or hard-wired behavioral patterns in our species. If you don't like that take it up with Darwin or God.

[Elphaba]

Absolutely, positively, incorrrect!!!!! Yes, women in the US and UK are getting more and more obese (if that is an indicator of being well nourished) but aside from this fact causing a great rise in infertility just being more nourished is not pushing the age limit for having children up!

This is true.

About half of women are essentially infertile by age 40.

Wrong. Twenty-nine percent of women who reach 40 are infertile.

If they do get pregnant in those years their risk of having children with chromosomal birth defects skyrockets -- a woman giving birth at age 45 has a 1 out of 25 chance of having a downs syndrome baby.

This is true.

However, you make it sound like this is the result of the horrible behavior of selfish women for the last decade or so. The truth is these have been women's fertility facts since women have existed. And with the exception of obesity, the are nothing new. They are not a Darwinian evolution caused by feminism (I know you didn't say that, but we both know you were thinking it.)

But the wonderful thing is today we have technologies that our foremothers didn't have. Forty-year-old infertile women can work with fertility doctors and have the baby that even twenty years ago she couldn't. Couples who have a Down's Child will know soon in the pregnancy and be prepared for it, rather than be shocked by it at the birth and suffer while trying to bond with the child. All of the "defects" you mentioned are made much easier to bear in this day and age. That's what we should focus on, not the negative heartaches of the past.

It has been reported by medical sources for the last decade that if a woman wants children then waiting until her 30s to have a child may put her at great risk of not being able to get pregnant.

Reported by what medical sources? Show me some references that have been peer reviewed, are clinical with statistical evidence. I Googled the claim, and came up with nothing.

Additionally, I know a few women who had their first child in the thirties and had no problem whatsoever going on to have more children. It's anecdotal, yes, but with the trend of women having their babies later I'm sure I would have heard of this by now. So, please, please provide a reference for this one. I'm open to the possibility you're right. Just show me the evidence.

Women who wait until their 30s to start trying risk all kinds of problems not the least of which is endometriosis. I had a friend in college who developed this condition in her early 20s. Her doctor actually told her the best theing she could do to reverse it would be to get pregnant because without doing this she might become permanently infertile.

Agains, your complete and utter lack of knowledge about women's health leaves me incredulous. It's absolute hogwash.

Endometriosis has nothing whatsoever to do with having babies. In fact, no one knows what causes it. They know high estrogen levels are part of the picture, but even then they don't know the physiology of it. There are many competing theories as to its cause, and it's a complicated and painful disease. Many women with it are infertile. Doctors treat it hormonally and sometimes that is effective. Others treatments are sometimes effective as well. Nevertheless, If you understand endometriosis, you would understand why having a child does not cure it. It's a ludicrous statement for you to make

Look, I am not debating women's abilities to do well in a number of things. But you can pass all the legislation in the world and not change biology or hard-wired behavioral patterns in our species. If you don't like that take it up with Darwin or God.

We're not trying to change biology or hard-wired behavioral patterns in our species. We're trying to expand, grow and evolve to be the best we can as a species, which includes men, women, children.

Part of this expansion is recognizing that hard-wiring isn't as static as some would think. For far too long those with non-conventional hard-wiring were forced to squeeze into molds designed by people who never knew them, and berated if they refused to do so. Today, our society has evolved, thanks in part to feminists, to understand that not everyone has the same hard-wiring, and that that is not a bad thing.

Unfortunately, there are still others who want to force us all to have the same hard-wiring, in lock step, whether it's what we want or not. All I can say is be true to hard-wiring. If that means you stay home and love taking care of your babies, then you should do that. If you don't love it, find an alternative. Whatever you choose, be true to your "hard-wiring," and don't let anyone else ever define it for you but you.

Elphaba

P.S. I'm still looking for the answer to the question I asked you earlier. I'm really interested in your answer.

Finnian: "I would hope, however, they would have the values that are more akin to what the LDS Church teaches."

Elphaba: "And what if they don't? What are you going to do then?"

[Gwen]

this just seemed appropriate to me. sorry if it's off subject. just thought the most recent teaching from the chruch felt right at the moment.

http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menu..._&hideNav=1

[pushka]

I can vouch for the statement that having babies cures endometriosis and other period problems being incorrect.

I have had problems of heavy and very painful periods since I was 11, I was given an endometrial resection..where some of my womb lining was lasered away, in an attempt to cure the problem...it worked for a short time before the problems returned with a vengeance. I now take progesterone to help the problem.

In my teens/early 20's I was advised that the problem would be solved once I had children...it did no such thing...

[Elphaba]

I have real problems with Elder Hafen's article. His portrayals of feminists and the women's liberation movement are distorted and insulting. He knows nothing about them, and uses them as a scapegoat to justify the wife's poor behavior in the article.

I wrote a post about it, but I admit it is contentious. So I decided to take it off the board.

If anyone is interested in reading it please PM me.

Elphaba

[sgallan]

Sgallan, maybe you ought to expose your students to other points of view. Yeah, go ahead and make it sound as if the reason most CEOs, long-haul freight drivers and marines are men is because of institutionalized discrimination but that is actually not the case.

You are missing the point..... I don't teach these kids that. They don't even know about it - it never comes up. To them that is the "olden" days. In their minds that world doesn't exist, it is just (to them) ancient history. By the time they get older that world probably wont exist.

Women, being the ones who can make babies and being the ones who get sick a lot during pregnancyh and afterwards have the breasts that produce milk, helps to make the saying "anatomy is destiny" the reality of the day. If you are a woman wanting kids your window of opportunity is your late teens to your mid to upper 30s. Sure, you can hope and pray that all your career planning and advancement will leave you an adequate income to have your kid or two when you are 35 - 38 (and you can afford to pay someone else to raise the kid for you) but biology may not be cooperative. Also, women with a more traditional way of thinking in regards to family will start families and forego the kinds of occupations (if they choose to work outside the home) that require 60 hour work weeks or lots of time away from home.

I am just suggesting to you what is out there right now, and what I see with kids everyday as well as young women getting into careers. Women are already in the workforce in a big way. With them getting a higher education than are the men, along with an upbringing which doesn't even conceptualize they are not capable of doing it all (perhaps with even a female President soon - no I am not voting for her), it is just a matter of time before true equality kicks in..... or even.... given the education and so forth.... they have more positions of power.

[Gabelma]

Sgallan, maybe you ought to expose your students to other points of view. Yeah, go ahead and make it sound as if the reason most CEOs, long-haul freight drivers and marines are men is because of institutionalized discrimination but that is actually not the case.

You are missing the point..... I don't teach these kids that. They don't even know about it - it never comes up. To them that is the "olden" days. In their minds that world doesn't exist, it is just (to them) ancient history. By the time they get older that world probably wont exist.

Women, being the ones who can make babies and being the ones who get sick a lot during pregnancyh and afterwards have the breasts that produce milk, helps to make the saying "anatomy is destiny" the reality of the day. If you are a woman wanting kids your window of opportunity is your late teens to your mid to upper 30s. Sure, you can hope and pray that all your career planning and advancement will leave you an adequate income to have your kid or two when you are 35 - 38 (and you can afford to pay someone else to raise the kid for you) but biology may not be cooperative. Also, women with a more traditional way of thinking in regards to family will start families and forego the kinds of occupations (if they choose to work outside the home) that require 60 hour work weeks or lots of time away from home.

I am just suggesting to you what is out there right now, and what I see with kids everyday as well as young women getting into careers. Women are already in the workforce in a big way. With them getting a higher education than are the men, along with an upbringing which doesn't even conceptualize they are not capable of doing it all (perhaps with even a female President soon - no I am not voting for her), it is just a matter of time before true equality kicks in..... or even.... given the education and so forth.... they have more positions of power.

we have had female head of states since Empress Maude in the 1100s and a female PM, there are a lot of female world leaders, even Pakistan and Israel have managed that. To me feminism is being proud of being female and doing what the Lord needs you to do on this Earth.

We have had a counsellor in the General Relief Society Presidency who was a working Mom.

-Charley

[Gabelma]

And for your information most women in the UK and the US have been well nourished for several generations as a result many women are fertile between the ages of 8 and 60 these days, which is scary but true. Afterall Sarah was able to have Abraham at nearly 100 so the capability must be in us.

Absolutely, positively, incorrrect!!!!! Yes, women in the US and UK are getting more and more obese (if that is an indicator of being well nourished) but aside from this fact causing a great rise in infertility just being more nourished is not pushing the age limit for having children up!

About half of women are essentially infertile by age 40. If they do get pregnant in those years their risk of having children with chromosomal birth defects skyrockets -- a woman giving birth at age 45 has a 1 out of 25 chance of having a downs syndrome baby. And that's just one of the problems.

It has been reported by medical sources for the last decade that if a woman wants children then waiting until her 30s to have a child may put her at great risk of not being able to get pregnant. True many women have babies in their 30s with no problems but generally speaking these women had pregnancies in their 20s and their bodies are better primed to carry babies as well as conceive them. Women who wait until their 30s to start trying risk all kinds of problems not the least of which is endometriosis. I had a friend in college who developed this condition in her early 20s. Her doctor actually told her the best theing she could do to reverse it would be to get pregnant because without doing this she might become permanently infertile.

And as for Sarah the fact she got pregnant at an advanced age was considered a miracle. Medical science is not capable of such miracles on a general scale and these woen you hear about having babies in their 60s are not using their own egg cells -- they carry someone else's donated eggs. The case of the 59 year old British woman who recently became the oldest mother to conceive naturally got headlines due to it being so unusual.

Look, I am not debating women's abilities to do well in a number of things. But you can pass all the legislation in the world and not change biology or hard-wired behavioral patterns in our species. If you don't like that take it up with Darwin or God.

The natural man is the enemy of God - I am not disagreeing that men and women are differnt or have prescribed roles however the hardcore feminism had to happen or women would still be maltreated and poorly educated in most societies. Or are you suggesting a woman that does the same job as yourself should be paid less? I do also feel that time has come for men to get some equality, for example if a husband abuses his wife she gets more sympathy and potential support than an abused husband. Boys are being seriously failed by the UK education system.

Conerning my fertility commentn I did say for several generations, and at least inthe UK widespread obesity is a disease of the 1980s onwards, and women can be fertile from 8 right through to 60+ there are many more girls today who have their first period at 8 than there were in my Mums generation when she was one of the few. Which is why when I was in primary school they changed and started giving the period talk to girls aged 7 so we would be ready. I did not at any point say that the fertile lady would produce ahealthy living child. However any women who continues to get her period can conceive a baby - My Mum has just gone through the menopause at 65,know of at least one woman with Fibromyalgia who I counselled at 67 needed help changing her sanitary towels, neither got pregnant but does not mean it could not have occurred. Just because 8 year olds don't get pregnant very often does not mean it cannot occur,. Actually your point about women being increasingly infertile rather beliesyour other points what is the infertile womansupposed to do twiddle her thumbs? or for that matter the single woman

You comment about your friend confirms my opinion about the poor state of Obstetric advice in the US - endometriosis can cause subfertility and infertility and can start at any time, I had friends at school with it from theage of 14. Most likely the diagnosis will between the ages of 25 and 40. Pregnancy can help because ithe hormones are not active during that time but the contaceptive pill can do the same thing. However given the weird and rather funky advice my Sister in Law got in her pregnancy advice pack from her hospital I can understand why you see things the way you do, crumbs she might as well have had a cancerous tumour in the end stages in there, she couldn't lift things, do this, do that, was given no control overthe process herself it was like reading something from the 1970s here,

Here we hardly ever see a Dr unless you have a problem, wehave a midwife based system, and homebirth is now a legal right. In someways its bad as we no longer have support and are expected to get up straight afterthe birth etc but at least we are not treated like idiots who don't know their butt from their elbow,

-Charley

[Fiannan]

By 37, fertility is dropping steeply, and even with the most advanced medical techniques, virtually no women over the age of 44 are able to have a baby using their own eggs.

Fertility doctors like Marcelle Cedars at the University of California San Francisco, say it's astounding how few women know this: “I have doctors, I have PhDs, I have lawyers, I have very intelligent, educated women in my office every day who tell me, 'But I eat right and I exercise, and I'm healthy. How could I not be able to have a child?'”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/14/...ain568259.shtml

Also, on endometriosis I have a friend who is considered one of the top fertility doctors in the USA and he also suggested that once a woman with the condition gives birth the problem often goes away. I have also read that in countries where marriage and pregnancy are normal in the teen years that this condition is very rare and only becomes relatively common when marriage patterns change.

And Sgallan, you actually prove my point that feminist ideals (those that are good and those that are destructive) have been institutionalized in the US and much of the western world. Yes, many girls in their formative years are getting their views of sex from internet porn and MTV and their view of relationships from soaps and "Sex in the City" reruns.

[Elphaba]

By 37, fertility is dropping steeply, and even with the most advanced medical techniques, virtually no women over the age of 44 are able to have a baby using their own eggs.

Fertility doctors like Marcelle Cedars at the University of California San Francisco, say it's astounding how few women know this: “I have doctors, I have PhDs, I have lawyers, I have very intelligent, educated women in my office every day who tell me, 'But I eat right and I exercise, and I'm healthy. How could I not be able to have a child?'”

Thank you for the source I asked for. However, this is what you actually said:

"It has been reported by medical sources for the last decade that if a woman wants children then waiting until her 30s to have a child may put her at great risk of not being able to get pregnant. True many women have babies in their 30s with no problems but generally speaking these women had pregnancies in their 20s and their bodies are better primed to carry babies as well as conceive them.

````````````````

So, 30 is not 37. Do you understand now why I am suspicious of you're "It has been reported by medical sources for the last decade. . . " comments?

Also, on endometriosis I have a friend who is considered one of the top fertility doctors in the USA and he also suggested . . . .

I don't trust the "I have a friend who is the top fertility doctor" source. That's all I'm going to say.

Regarding the article you attached, I want to thank you for providing it. I think it is full of excellent information that all women should have available, and posting it here will be very helpful for women on this site. I encourage everyone to read it.

I wanted to comment on one section that disturbed me. It was describing how a group of fertility doctors launched an ad campaign to educate young women about the risks of waiting to have children, and the reaction from the National Organization for Women:

“So a group of fertility doctors launched an ad campaign to educate young women about the risks of waiting. But what the doctors see as a public service comes in for harsh criticism from Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women.

“I've seen the ads. They show a baby bottle turned upside-down, looking like an hourglass and the milk is dripping out. And what it says visually is time is running out,” says Gandy, which she believes brings us back to the old message to women that you are your uterus.

“They're just saying that advancing age decreases your fertility, which I think gives the message to young women who may not have anyone they want to have a child with, who aren't in an economic position to have children, to hurry up and have kids that they're not ready to have, because they're afraid that they might turn out to be infertile,” says Gandy. “I think it's a scare tactic. And it's not good to scare young women.”

“I think it's very condescending, in a way, to say, 'Well, you know, let's not tell women the truth because they can't deal with it,'” says Hewlett. “

```````````````````````

I too thought it was condescending. In fact, I found it infuriating. Information is always a good thing, and should never be withheld. It is ridiculous for NOW to think that young women are too stupid to be given this information and still make good choices in their lives.

Fiannian, I’m surprised you didn’t pick up on this one. You would have gotten a chance to criticize NOW, and I would have agreed with you. And Palerider would have put his fist through the wall again! B)

Elphaba