Here is an interesting post by a brilliant new blogger Sparx 401.
Excerpt:
Here’s an interesting article from Georgetown University’s News Magazine:
Essentially, the writer, Julie Patterson, exclaims that she finds children repulsing, even the thought of “family time” and child-rearing inculcates in her a sense of disgust and revolt. She writes, and a I quote:
I’ll come right out and say it: Children repulse me. They frighten me. They make me anxious. Babies all look the same, and they are all ugly. Toddlers are praised for doing ordinary things like speaking and waving. Children have a comment and a question about everything.
and,
…I could muse on how the source of my discomfort lies in how the promise of youth that shines in their carefree eyes makes me lament my own loss of innocence, but it’s probably more accurate to say that these kids just suck. They’re loud, they’re obnoxious, they have too much energy, and they’re still learning how to conjugate irregular verbs. I have no time for that in my life…I assume that they, like many predators, can sense fear, and will therefore leave me in peace. But there are no guarantees in life—not even the success of birth control. Here’s to hoping no little accident ever “blesses” my life.
Even for people who prefer not to have children, this seems to be going too far. This may be a shot in the dark, and correct me if I’m wrong (I have tried to look and see her personal beliefs on religious and spiritual matters, but to no avail), but I don’t think she’s a Christian…perhaps a nominal one in label only, but certainly not following any orthodox teaching from any mainline denominations.
I have found via Lex Communis, who provided this other related link that, “Incidentally, Julie’s Facebook page lists her only two Interests and Activities as “Being a Bitch” and “Being a Hypocrite.””
And then you get these complaints from some women that men are unreliable and immature for not marrying them. Well, d’uh! You don’t marry an insane man-hating, child-hating woman, any more than you marry a great white shark. You don’t hire a dentist to fix your car, you don’t hire a doctor to do your taxes. And you don’t marry a left-wing feminist, because left-wing politics and feminism (narcissism) are not compatible with the self-sacrificial behaviors required for marriage and parenting. Men may have sex with left-wingers and feminists, but they don’t marry them, and they don’t have children with them. We aren’t that stupid. We know that if you are willing to kill a baby you created while having recreational sex, just because babies cost money and you can’t be bothered , then you are not suitable for marriage. If you can’t be bothered to treat men like grown-ups and court them properly, and care about their needs and get to know them, then you are not qualified to be a wife and mother. Manipulating men through early sex is not the right way to make a man make a life-long, exclusive commitment to love you and provide for you. They are actual behaviors required to be qualified for marriage and parenting, and men need to be free from sex so they can assess a woman objectively. It’s the man’s job to choose a woman who can help the man in his roles as protector/provider and moral/spiritual leader, raise effective, influential Christian children, and have an influence for God herself in society (such as becoming President).
More about this in my afternoon post for tomorrow.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
The “women need to sacrifice” thing is a recurring theme. Do you think men sacrifice as equally in a marriage?
LikeLike
I am wondering why, when I call women to account for voting overwhelmingly for Obama, who supports aborting born-alive infants, that I get, in response, the question about what men are doing for women. First, I want to hear why 77% of young, unmarried women, (Pew Research exit poll from 2008), think that aborting viable children who are born alive during a botched abortion is a good idea. Why is leaving babies born alive in a utility closet to die a good idea? And why should Christian men marry women who think that this is a good idea? How is this belief adequate preparation for the kind of self-sacrifice required for marriage and parenting?
And I think men need to ask candidate wives what she has done, on the record, to oppose this barbarism. I don’t mean voting conservative. I mean conservative writing, conservative debating, conservative charitable giving, and conservative activism.
LikeLike
How exactly are you calling women to account for voting for Obama? And what makes you think you are entitled to an accounting, besides?
LikeLike
Well, I want them to think about what married life is really like, and what men want out of a marriage, and how men feel about the obligations they take on by getting married. Then I want them to think about what laws and policies encourage men to get married and stay married.
I am due an accounting because I speak for the children who are raised in fatherless homes, or homes in which they are neglected by being shoved into day care.
LikeLike
If you want to engage people in debate, surely there are less pompous ways of stating your position. Just because you are passionate about the topic doesn’t mean anyone owes you an answer.
And you’d do better to call men to account. You at least have a better chance of them not tuning you out.
LikeLike
Hello Sarah,
Yes, a man of integrity will provide, protect, and sacrifice himself for the needs of his wife and family. Woman take for granted a number of things that men do:
– work a average of 60 hours a week (if not more) to provide
– bring home the entire paycheck to provide for the needs of his wife and family
– dont spend the money earned on self pleasures ( drinking, women, gambling, hobbies)
– stay away from the the American way of death / self pleasure
– stay faithful, true, and hold his wife/partner in the highest regard
There is quite a bit more but I think you get the idea… Marriage and raising a family is deliberate team effort and requires self sacrifice and is NOT about “personal autonomy”.
LikeLike
Hi Mike
To be sure, there are women who don’t appreciate these things. Just like there are men who don’t appreciate the following things that stay-at-home moms do:
– work a average of 112 hours a week (if not more) to bring up the children (which is a lot harder than a corporate job)
– not get a paycheck
– not spend the money her husband gives her on self pleasures (drinking, men, gambling, hobbies)
– stay away from the the American way of death / self pleasure
– stay faithful, true, and hold her husband/partner in the highest regard
It goes both ways.
Women usually have to give up more. Mothers don’t get “time off”. They don’t get to go home from work. Work is ALL THE TIME for mothers.
Nobody said marriage was about personal autonomy.
LikeLike
Mary,
While women do give up a lot, men give up far more. Before I say what that is, I want to make it crystal clear that I don’t for a second think that child-rearing is a walk in the park. It isn’t. It’s relentless. I know this. WK knows this too and this is why he spends so much time writing about it – because choosing the right person for this job is of paramount importance. Having said that, what men give up is multiple female bodies. They deny their nature. This is not pleasant to hear and it certainly isn’t politically correct. But it is true. Men are polygamous by nature and women are not. We could roam the plains, fulfilling our sexual desires until the cows come home. But by and large women do not do this nor could they do this. They are not wired for it. Do some women do this? Yes of course, I have met A LOT of women like this in New York City. Any ways, both have jobs to do in marriage, but it’s female nature to build a home, not so much for the male. It’s up to the women to incentivize and tame man’s wild nature and help him adapt to the long-term, child-rearing patterns of the female.
LikeLike
This is an excellent point, and it reminds me of “Men and Marriage” by George Gilder, which basically says that women control the flow of civilization, upward or downward, by their ability to tame men’s sexual nature by domesticating them to the long-term sexual patterns of pregnancy and child-rearing. It’s the women who must reward the men (and choose the men) who are willing to be protectors and providers. Christian women have the additional duty of choosing moral and spiritual leaders. There can be no selecting of men on the basis of appearance, peer approval, and entertainment. And there can be no sex before marriage. The way that women get men to commit to a long-term marriage is being being willing to submit to his leadership and giving him authority and respect in the home, including the authority to lead the children, with shaming and discipline, after they reach a certain age.
LikeLike
Tom, thank you for recognizing that women who are mothers have to work very hard. I appreciate this.
However, I don’t agree with you on the issue of men “denying their nature” by marrying. I get that sex is very important to men. I also get that men are attracted to justabout every moderately attractive female they see. However, I don’t think that marriage involves great sexual sacrifice. After all, single people are not meant to be having sex anyway. So marriage is a move from no sex to having sex. Men GAIN sexually by marrying, provided that they marry a woman who cares about their needs. Men that would be having sex when single are unmarriageable anyway. The thing of having multiple sexual partners is NOT the male nature and I think it denigrates men to say it is. I think that it is a way in which men are often tempted, but that is the fallen nature, which we all have to deny anyway, married or not. God did not design men to be polygamous. If men “roam the plains, fulfilling [their] sexual desires until the cows come home” they corrupt their God-given natures, as we all do when we sin in any other way. God has not “wired” men for polygamy or promiscuity. He has wired them to be sexual yes, but He has wired them for marriage. When men seek cheap sex outside marriage, their wiring has been seriously messed up.
I don’t see resisting temptation as “denying my nature”. That is how atheists see it. They tell us we’re repressed and unhealthy and behaving unnaturally. Trust me, I’ve heard this from atheists – including men who try to convince me that I should be having sex. Well, they’re wrong. Resisting temptation is not denying our nature, but restoring our nature to its original design.
I agree with your assessment of the different responsibilities in marriage.
LikeLike
Wow, Tom. So much self denial! You are really a saint to forgo so many “female bodies.” But tell me, with your natural polygamous nature and obvious sex appeal, why would you even bother to get married? Or perhaps you’re a swinging bachelor still?
LikeLike
Quite right: liberal women are unsuited to marriage. But then, so are liberal men.
LikeLike
There are no liberal men!
LikeLike
Clearly, you are a hermit who never ventures outside or switches on the news. Guess what kind of man is running the US of A. Yep, one of those mythological liberal men. :-S
LikeLike
Thanks Mary.
I saw where Wintery said that yesterday. And I just walked away shaking my head.
LikeLike
You’re welcome. ;-)
LikeLike
You may both be surprised to know that the fastest rising divorce rates in the US are in red states. You guessed it: conservatives. So who’s unsuitable for marriage, huh??
LikeLike