"Not Bringing Home a Baby" - the Sadness of Stupidity - Part 1

Posted On: Friday - September 6th 2019 4:59PM MST
In Topics: 
  University  Feminism  Female Stupidity

(I can already see they'll be a lot to say about this.)

True happiness for a woman:

Peak Stupidity has been going on about our Libertarian opinions lately. Today we will switch that off and put on our Conservative hat (a bright red ball cap, I guess) and comment on one of the most egregious and foul-tasting flavors of stupidity, the Feminism.

Upon reading some comments under the Steve Sailer post on Donna Zuckerberg, discussed here in Protocols of the Sisters of Zuckerberg*, I came across a link to an article from Zuckerberg's Feminist rag (ooh, that could have some bad connotations) Eidolon (WTF?) that a commenter recommended. Believe me, the commenters on unz hold no torch for the scourge of feminism. However, this article, Not Bringing Home a Baby, subtitled "Academic Infertility and Miscarried Hope", by one Nandini Pandey**, was recommended. Other commenters noted it was a very sad article.

For Peak Stupidity's women readers, if there are any, I will suggest right now: BUY TISSUES! No, quit reading now, and go buy a box at Target, then at least wait until the check-out line to read this on your phone. [Full Disclosure req'd by PS-Legal - We have sold our stock in Proctor & Gamble for this post. We have no investments that would bias our tissue-buying recommendation ... uhhh, just some put options ... and we're shorting paper towels ...] It will not be a spoiler then, to tell the reader what the sadness is here very shortly ... go, get the tissues.

Just as to the writing firstly, though the author does a nice job of writing this prose, one exception is her use of the "you" pronoun instead of "I" for the whole story. It's not to disguise that the subject of the story is herself - I'm sure of that. I myself will often use the style, but for one paragraph, at most. Here - "They don’t tell you how in your late 20s, you’ll scoff when a friend suggests you freeze your eggs...." and "Your younger self never ranked kids high when there was so much world to see; your older one feared the tax that academic mothers pay." There's a taste of that, along with some of the subject matter. You can get over this style, and I would think that this style could be useful if Mrs. Pandley was writing this article as a warning, so the reader would indeed see herself as being admonished, but no ... more on this.

Right in that 2nd sample above we get to the first piece of feminist stupidity. The author complains that, well, by the time you get your PhD and find the right guy - who must be a nice, smart Professor type, you're (see, now I'm doing it!) 30-odd years old, and so on. Firstly, not every woman who wants babies, which is a big majority of them, can marry a professor. The problem nowadays is that Mrs. Pandley, probably correctly, figured that she needed to go through the whole academic gauntlet (or "free" ride depending on how much you borrowed) to have a chance to marry this man of her dreams. Now, unwittingly, I'm sure, as this is Eidolon (WTF??) magazine, but the author just pointed out one more unintended*** consequences of feminism. It's not the biggest by any means, as that would be the non-so-unintended*** purpose of breaking up the nuclear family.

Steve Sailer, on a number of occasions in his writing about "affordable family formation" along with a better term he uses that I can't recall for the life of me, says that a big problem with women in the workplace and academia in near-equal numbers as men is this: Women, who never want to marry a man of lower status, must get matched up differently now than in the past. When the workplace and this department of whatever (and it better not be feminist studies or I take back everything nice about the husband I've said so far) have large numbers of women, then the men there can meet their mates at work. Women in occupations without these high degrees don't have as much chance. In the past, unless it were two gay guys hooking up, men found other venues to meet women, and there was no reason these women particularly had to have any advanced degrees. That's not what men are looking for. It's just that, well, if they are right there in your office or department, then why not?

I'm guessing this aspect of the results of feminism when right past Mrs. Pandey as she regrets this time cutting into her time of fertility. Plus, she wouldn't want the article to get rejected.

I've already disparaged some of this writing, but when the author gets to all the trouble she and her husband went through to try to conceive a baby, well, I respect her for working hard to give her and her husband a chance. She goes through in pretty good detail what this entails, with all the worry that just increases yearly or even monthly, as no, she's not making any more eggs**** and the ones she has are only getting more stale.

Now I'm actually gonna disparage a bit more, come to think of it, as nowhere in this description of the complicated, tedious, and sometimes expensive, arrangement to try to conceive does she seem to care about her husband's trouble in this. It's especially with the planning out of ovulation periods and sex in which I could see, as a man, this become pretty depressing. What used to be spontaneous and fun is now "OK, we need to DO THIS between 2 this afternoon, and 6 tomorrow morning... now, I've got a seminar from 4 to 6, and then Sex and the City is on, so, we've got to fit this in ..." THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID! (I know, I know.) It'd really make him think about the whole deal, and look at those younger grad and undergrad students, thinking .... "man, I could just ...." I guess, being a feminist magazine, men's wants are completely immaterial, and yeah, she didn't want her article to be rejected.

Mrs. Pandey was able to conceive, with the help of the artificial insemination (at least still the husband's sperm and her eggs.) However, then things got really sad, as she had a miscarriage. I can't say anything much here besides, yes, I did feel for her. I never knew how sad a miscarriage can be for even a young woman, with plenty of more chances, until someone I know had one (years back). However, as this baby inside the author was her one big hope after so much work, worry, and yes, money, it is that much sadder. I would not wish this any anyone.

Still, again, I read nothing about how it felt for the husband. It's not the same, of course, but maybe he had dreams of having a boy to teach to throw the frisbee, and play bean-bag with outside at those new brew-pubs that you can take your kids to. Nothing was said about this man of her dreams.

As I said, there's more to write regarding this sad, sad, bit of stupidity, and it'll be the major point I want to make.

* Not one of my best post titles, but at least I'll say so!

** Yes, I had to cut and paste that name - diversity, what CAN'T it do piss one off about?

*** By the rank-and-file feminists, at least. On the latter, the break-up of the family, that was pretty much the point for the people behind all this.

**** This post contains Peak Stupidity's Theory on Periods (neither much physics nor heavy math involved).

No comments

WHAT SAY YOU? : (PLEASE NOTE: You must type capital PS as the 1st TWO characters in your comment body - for spam avoidance - or the comment will be lost!)