During my college years in the Sixties, "empowerment" and "consciousness-raising" were the main focus of existence, even though these concepts were largely used to insist that you were a victim of something or someone just for being female.Well, fast forward to now, and one young, married woman in her twenties has decided that giving birth live on the Internet is empowering to women!' The use of that term in this circumstance cracks me up.' I remember, during my loooong labor, my husband saying that he was going to leave to get a cup of coffee.' I threatened him with "if you leave...never come back!!"' I guess that threat was "empowerment," but giving birth in public or private is one of our least powerful times.' We are completely at the mercy of a baby who is usually saying "Hell, no, I won't go."Nonetheless, this woman has decided that taking something personal and making it public is empowering and educational and spreading joy.' Oh, puleeze!' In our sadly growing exhibitionist, voyeuristic, reality show mentality of a society, this is how people become "important," known, and "famous."The point of "personal" is that something is perfected by its modesty, and sharing is not an issue of public promotion, but an opportunity for a few people to embrace a meaningful moment of experience.' Experiences and moments that are universal (like child-bearing) are not educational.' The childbirth is going to be posted on a mom website, which means that they've all been there and done that.Her husband is marginalized.' She admits that he was "hesitant" at first, but I'm sure he ultimately had no say.' There aren't too many decent men who want to share the birth of their first child with a camera crew and a blog audience - that makes Daddy less special and less involved.It's all just sad to me.' And what happens after the event, when the thrill, the attention and adrenaline of being in the spotlight goes away?' What is she going to do with this kid to keep the flow going?' Think Jon and Kate.' Think "sad" for the children who become the means of their parents' moment in the light, in ways other than simply enjoying their first smiles and first steps. More >>

It's bad enough when people drive and talk on the phone - they don't have the use of their phone hand for maneuvering the car (and in many states, talking without a hands-free headset is illegal), and they are totally absorbed in a conversation, meaning they're not looking alertly for pedestrians, bicyclists, a herd of buffalo or other cars.' What's even more egregious is the texting craze which has the driver looking down and reading or dialing or writing and not even looking ahead at the road for several seconds, which could mark the difference between life and death.For Victoria McBryde, 24, those few precious seconds meant her death.' 22 year old Phillipa Curtis has been convicted of the death of Ms McBryde - caused by texting while driving.' The victim's car had broken down and was by the side of the road with all its lights on and emergency lights blinking - a bit hard NOT to notice.' Nonetheless, she was killed instantly when her car was rear-ended by the texting Ms. Curtis, who will spend only two years in prison for this crime.This all took place in Britain, which has added jail time to a conviction for killing by texting and driving.' Ms. Curtis' phone records indicated that she had exchanged nearly two dozen messages with at least five friends, mostly concerning her encounter with a celebrity singer she had served at a restaurant where she worked. That's what was so important?' For that, someone had to die?? Death due to dangerous driving (e.g., texting) is on the level of drinking while driving, and can earn four to seven years in jail.' Apparently, the perp was a pretty, seemingly sweet young thing, and so her jail time was minimized by the judge - a sentence that was met with anger by the victim's family as well as the by the prosecutor...and by me.Ironically, it was also discovered that the victim herself had sent a text message and talked on her cell phone using the speaker function while driving before her car broke down.'Please don't think you are invincible, and the laws and recommendations about driving safely apply to everyone else, while you are "special."' The lives of these two young women are forever changed.' One life was forfeited; the other woman is jailed and living with the guilt of having killed another human being because she just had to gossip to five friends about seeing a rock star.' Sad. More >>

More >>

We're all outraged when we hear the stories of children being beaten, locked in cages, raped by adult "friends of the family" (if not family members themselves), abducted, and murdered.' These are clearly horrendous realities that offend all decent people.'Then there are the "normalized" child abuse activities that barely make people shrug a shoulder.' We were somewhat amused and annoyed by the recent story of the reality show family who pretended their son was in a balloon flying high in the sky while the balloon was empty and the boy was hiding.' Turns out that this was all about auditioning for their own reality show.'TLC has a show called "Toddlers and Tiaras."' According to one of my listeners who alerted me to this program, it should have been titled "Mothers Who Exploit Their Children." It's a show about young girls (as young as 4 years old!) who compete in beauty contests.' The worst part is not that the mothers over-dress and overly make up their children.' The worst part is not that these young girls put on immodest swimsuits and high heels and parade in front of an audience.' The weird part of the show occurs after the competition ends and you see how these young girls and their parents react to the final results.' One young girl, who couldn't have been older than six, took second runner-up, and her mother was furious.' When the mother went backstage, there was no "you did a great job," or "I love you."' She simply said to her sobbing child - angrily - "I don't know what happened.' Come on...let's go."' Another little girl responded to the results by saying "I'm first runner-up.' That means I'm a loser."These kids are learning that they are only worth something if they win.' They're only loved up by their parents if they win.' And they're learning that winning a beauty competition is the way to a meaningful existence.These kinds of competitions shouldn't even be allowed.' If I had the power - no one would be able to exploit their children for money, infamy, notoriety, selfishness or stupidity.' We all have heard the stories of the warped and sorry lives of most former child stars - the drugs, alcohol, suicides, and self-destructive behaviors throughout their lives - generally because their worth was hitched to the wagon of public adoration.These so-called "family" reality shows are a form of child abuse and exploitation.' Children lose their privacy and have to cater to the desire of networks and cable executives for ratings and sponsorship income, and producers need outlandish behavior in order to get and keep an audience.' Parents expect them to do whatever it takes to keep their star in the sky.' It's disgusting, and our society not only allows it, but elevates these shows to an incredible level of importance.' How about all those news stories of Jon & Kate and their eight kids?' They're getting a divorce, and their pathetic story got coverage from actual hard news sources for weeks at the same time they were appearing on the covers of so-called "news" magazines.We have become detestable in our acceptance and normalization of obvious emotional child abuse.' Shame on us. More >>

More >>

I have watched film adaptations of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice in all its incarnations many, many times, and I recently watched the 2005 film version again. I love the film...no matter what criticisms may be about a portrayal or a performance. I clearly have a profound attraction to this work.First and foremost, I love the utter regard the men had for women, which is evident from how they addressed them: "Miss..." (and their first names if they were single) or "Mrs...." (and their last names if they were married). Men bowed upon entering and leaving a woman's presence, and women curtsied, even under unpleasant conditions. Flirting was ever-so-subtle: a look, a light "accidental" touch of a hand. A man romantically yearned for and tried to earn the affections of a woman. The sweetness of the regard for women in this era (particularly in upper and middle classes) was something to be admired, and something we now miss. There was a clear distinction between a "good" woman and an easy, loose woman or whore.That distinction is gone today. Now, women put down good money for music that represents them as whores without pay. So many young men are casual about women and sex in general, and sex is a casual expectation almost always fulfilled.Young women scoff at dignity and modesty as just stupid, prudish, sexist notions. They "shack up" with some dude without a marital commitment, yet expect the love and respect, fidelity and loyalty to exist without the spoken vows, only to be disappointed, hurt, and generally confused.There was a recent film comedy, called "Ghosts of Girlfriends Past," in which Matthew McConaughey (in a twist on Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" ) got to go back into his life to see all his old girlfriends. There was one scene in the television ad for the movie which showed a seemingly endless dining table filled with hundreds of girls. Obviously, this was meant to show how shallow and manipulative he had been. To me, it just showed how many stupid girls there were (and are), "putting out" in a situation where there was clearly no respect, regard, or intent.Men used to have to ask a woman's dad for permission to "court" her, even when the woman was an adult! Now, all he has to do is show her a bedroom, back seat of a car, or a motel room, and the date is sealed. When men had to explain and express their intentions, they had to take the whole activity of dating much more seriously, as there were personal and social consequences to misleading a young lady. That reputation would annihilate any chances he might have had of marrying a good woman. He'd have to move states or provinces away. Now? That kind of rakish reputation makes girls/women want to line up to get some from an infamous entity.The women's revolution did not raise any consciousness worth elevating. It mostly diminished a woman's sense of herself as special, minimized her value in the minds of men, put sex on the level of animals, created a nanny/baby-sitter/institutionalized day care financial boom (as women gave up the blessing of nurturing their own children), increased the use of abortion as a birth-control technique when an accidental pregnancy occurred with a guy who did not want fatherhood, created perpetually unhappy, angry, nasty wives, and made it very difficult for "nice girls" to be respected and cherished.The last scene in Pride and Prejudice between the two now-married lovers has them discussing what she wants to be called by him when he is not using her given name. He suggests one name, and she rejects it sweetly, because it is what her father calls her. She then asks him what he will call her when he is angry. He, not being able to envision that situation, talks to her about always letting her know how lovingly important his happiness in wrapped up in her...forever...and he kisses her gently about her face as he says "Mrs. Darcy" over and over again. He gave her his heart, his life, his vows, and his name. And, in that era, giving a woman your name was the ultimate public and private statement of his total commitment to her, which makes that scene so moving to most of us, and infuriating to feminists who see that scene only as ripping away the woman's identity.I always cry at the end of the movie.I cry also for what women have given up in exchange for wanting to have it all and not be subordinate to a man. I don't know...I kinda think being on a pedestal is not subordinate. But what do I know? I'm only a recovered feminist. More >>

More >>

More >>

There's a new TV series that debuted two weeks ago called "Glee." The title refers to a high school glee club, and that's as child-friendly as this show gets.' It should be rated "A," for Adults Only.'That said, this show kept my jaw dropped for half an hour.' Every possible stereotype can be found in "Glee," and frankly, it's hilarious.' The show is an equal opportunity offender of delicate senses, and is basically politically incorrect.The Glee Club is run by a former student of the high school, Mr. Shuester, who is married to a blonde, self-centered woman who obviously never read "The Proper Care & Feeding of Husbands." The Glee Club consists of a nice Jewish girl, an Asian girl, a sassy, large black girl, a gay male, a boy in a wheelchair, and a brain-dimmed jock.'An uber-feminist cheerleading coach/teacher loathes any attempt of the Glee Club to gain prominence and take attention and financial support away from the cheerleaders, who are known as the "Cheer-i-os."' She is vulgar and mean to the nth degree, and very funny because she's so over the top.' In talking to Mr. Shuester, she says that (as she did with her elderly mother), he should "euthanize" the glee club program.' That's a terrible thing to say!' But delivered by this actress (Jane Lynch), it's hilarious.The cheerleaders (all gorgeous, of course) also run the Celibacy Club, where they practice humping their boyfriends with balloons in between them.' If a balloon pops, an angel cries.' They espouse "teasing, but not pleasing."' It's obviously religious-based, and so religion is a bit put down by this group.The nice Jewish girl from the Glee Club sounds like someone out of Planned Parenthood - i.e., "kids are gonna do it anyway, so we might as well give 'em condoms," and (with the Glee Club) performs a very gross performance of a rap song called "Push It," with lotsa bumping and grinding.' Of course, the student "body" now wishes to join the Glee Club in droves.'The guidance counselor is germ phobic and very hot for Mr. Shuester, whose wife is pretending to be pregnant.' It seems clear that Mr. Shuester is unhappy with his demanding, self-centered wife, and these two have an attraction.' However, the guidance counselor is a decent sort, and decides to date someone else, and not entertain her feelings for him.So, this program goes back and forth from anti-religion/liberal sexual values for teens to the moral considerations of not engaging in an affair with a married man.'Everyone will find something offensive, but, I've got to say, it is funny.' It's on Fox, Wednesdays at 9PM Eastern/Pacific. More >>

I have some comments to make about Ashley Dupre, the highly-paid prostitute who notoriously humped disgraced ex-New York State Governor Eliot Spitzer.Angry about the negative perception of her, Ms. Dupre wrote on a blog post: 'Let me say this:' most girls, to varying degrees, of course, want to be pampered and have nice shoes, designer handbags and gorgeous clothes.' I know many women who target guys with money and use them to get these things.' They toy with them, flirt, go on dates, have sex and then drop hints about that new dress...or being short on rent money ' and the guys deliver it.' Whoa, missy!' Trying to make yourself look better by making comparisons to other devious skanks just doesn't work that well.' Everyone in the universe would like 'nice things,' but some people are satisfied with richer things in life ' like love and family ' while others simply work hard at a legitimate job that doesn't exploit or damage other people's families to get those things.One comment listed on the New York Post website in response to this story was quite interesting: 'She's a cheap trick trying to cover the fact that she sold her body for a few thousand bucks.' There IS a BIG difference.' Implying that a relationship is like prostitution is like implying that hunting and killing game is no [different from] hunting and killing people.' She's trying to spin the simple fact that relationships are give-and-take to say that all that are give-and-take in any way are the same, but giving and taking in a long-term social and intimate relationship is NOT the same as a business transaction for sex. She would have done better to say that a piece of ham in a supermarket is 'no better' than she is being the more closer comparison to buying a piece of meat for consumption.' I have a simple question to ask women who are defensive about their behaviors:' would you teach your daughters to do this?' It is amazing how the answer to this will definitely be a quick and disgusted 'NO,' but then, these women are quick to rationalize.Ashley Dupre is a disgusting creature, not only for being a 'paid-for' sex machine, but mostly for being an unrepentant destroyer of some other woman's family.' It is the unrepentant part that really gets me, and should get you, too.' As a foolish young woman with warped values, we could all 'get' (i.e., understand) her behavior, but here she is, older and after the fact, and she still has no conscience about her actions.It is the lack of conscience in this woman that ultimately judges her. More >>