Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Another evil man, stupid woman, dead kid tale.

California Man Charged With Killing Girlfriend, Her Son

Prosecutors say a 38-year-old Oakland man killed his girlfriend's young son, dumped his body in the water, then killed her to stop her from telling anyone.


Police found the body of 17-month-old Jashon Williams floating near the Berkeley Marina on Sunday — two days after the body of his mother, Zoelina Williams, was found in nearby Aquatic Park.


Martin previously was convicted of killing a girlfriend's child. He pleaded guilty in 1994 to voluntary manslaughter in a plea deal that got him 11 years in prison. He was released in six years after getting credit for time served.

First of all, women need to grasp that the number one threat to the children of unmarried women is moms' boyfriends. They're the ones who by and large do the bulk of the molesting, abusing, and murdering. So don't do the Horizontal Bop with somebody you'd not want to stick around and raise the kids with. And if he seemed like Mr. Right at the time and then morphed into a sleezebag, try waiting until your kids are grown before you start bringing strange men into their lives.

Second of all, the guy who murdered this kid HAD ALREADY DONE TIME FOR KILLING ANOTHER GIRLFRIEND'S KID. "This guy's bad news" isn't something you need a PhD to grasp in a situation like that.

In this sad case, the guy also killed the mother so she'd not narc on him for offing the kid, so she's paying the same price her child did for her bad judgment. But it was her bad judgment.


WKen said...

No deaths were involved, but when I was a teller supervisor, one of my tellers was always complaining about her boyfriend and his cheating. She met him while he was dating someone else, they slept together, she got pregnant.

He stuck around as her steady boyfriend ... but he was always cheating.

I once pointed out to her that she knew what the guy was the night she met him and he cheated with her in the first place.

It's a shame that some women don't see themselves as deserving better ... guys who will treat them well, care for them, and WAIT UNTIL THEY'RE MARRIED TO HOP IN THE SACK!

Christina Dunigan said...

I'm a case manager with an agency that provides services to low income people. If you look at the women whose lives are the most screwed up, it all centers around choice of men. It's like they'd rather have Charles Manson than no man at all. And the ones who turn their lives around the fastest are the ones who decide they can live without a man until they've made life better for their kids first.

I think it's a combination of factors, one of which is just popular culture. How many women in movies and on TV are presented in a positive light when they don't either have a man already or get one during the course of events. With TV, they hop from one man to the other. And of course so many celebrities jump from one man to another. If you see a woman with no man, it's because she's a lesbian. So, No Man = Ugly, Unwanted, Pathetic in our culture. Just about the only exception is Natalie in "Monk", and she's paired off with a man all the time anyway even though they're not "in a relationship."

Kathy said...

Oh, no, Wickle -- *tsk* *tsk* -- you're just one of those stick-in-the-mud conservatives who don't understand real life, and that women just can't keep their pants zipped any more than men can, so all your talk about abstinence until marriage just doesn't take reality into consideration. Unlike the well-rounded, knowledgeable liberals, who *understand* how difficult it is to keep from sleeping with anything that moves, even if that sleaze-bag might actually kill you and your baby.

Ok, sarcastic rant over!

Why is that when we conservatives point to cases like this, and the giant and growing body of evidence that morality (even if not precisely taken from the Bible, but just in line with it) *works*, and immorality leads to all kinds of heartbreaks and other negative consequences (STDs, unwanted pregnancies, increased abortion, higher poverty, more child abuse, lower educational attainment in children, etc.) that we're dismissed as mere Bible-thumpers, rather than people taking a step back and looking at the evidence! Argh!

WKen said...

Ugggh ... pop culture! Is there anything more toxic? If you're going to let your kids be influenced by that sewage without countering it, you might as well serve 'em up a big bowl of Arsenic Flakes. It would be faster and more humane.

The thing is, the Hollywood types live their perverse lives, and then treat that like it's normal. So, young viewers think that that's what they're supposed to do.

Kathy, I always think it's absurd when I'm told that people can't abstain until marriage ... I did. My wife did!

margaret said...

Charles Manson rather than no man at all, that about sums it up. So much for a couple of generations of feminism.

OperationCounterstrike said...

Sure, pop culture is the reason women have sex outside marriage. Before pop culture became available, women NEVER had sex outside marriage!

Were you all aware that the word "gullible" is not in the dictionary? Look it up, you'll see.

Christina Dunigan said...

Pop culture doesn't CAUSE it, but it normalizes and promotes it. The more people perceive a behavior as normal, the more they will engage in it.

OperationCounterstrike said...

And how, pray, would things be better if she had followed Wickie's advice, and married the guy?

WKen said...

Oh, for Pete's sake ... my advice wasn't to marry the guy. It would be to dump the guy and avoid him because he doesn't live up to the standards I set out as a worthy guy.

I hope you're being deliberately obtuse.

Lilliput said...

Gals we are all women here and although there may be some downsides to the feminist movement - you can't be telling me you would be happy being barefoot pregnant and tied to the oven?

There are many educated single mums who bring up kids alone and do a good job. If all men were princes then yes drag us back to the 50's but since there are so very few - please rejoice in the struggle our sisters went through to liberate us!

Tonal Bliss said...

"...please rejoice in the struggle our sisters went through to liberate us!"

Liberate you to live through divorce after divorce, to be required to work full time to survive, to be required to use day care so that it is not the mom raising the child, to have out of wedlock children with no father to help in the process of parenting, and to kill your own children in your womb?

There were certainly great things that came through the former feminist movement of the 1950's. The right to vote, to get an education, and to be an equal part of the workforce if a woman chooses.

However, take something too far and it can lead to consequences very large. Men should have a spine, speak up, be strong, and support themselves and their family. Take these ideas to extremes and they can be damaging. If a man controls with an iron fist in a family then it certainly is damaging to everyone. If the man works 80 hours a week to support the family then the positive aspect of a present father is lost. There are many other examples.

This is also true regarding good aspects of feminism. Today, feminism has gone to far. Sexual liberation at all costs is not appropriate and it is damaging. It has lead to the death to so many unborn children, the dissolution of countless marriages, and harm to the lives of many women.

Amy said...

So much for a couple of generations of feminism.

No, this is EXACTLY what modern feminism wanted, and still wants. They demonize men (losers, unreliable, abusive) until those men actually become losers and unreliable and abusive, then tell women they have the right to sleep around just like a man (to be equal to men), thus setting the stage for women to cohabitate with losers who abuse them and their children.

please rejoice in the struggle our sisters went through to liberate us

I do not rejoice for that which tells me the way I claim my equality and womanhood is to deny all that makes me feminine, and to destroy the reputation of the good men I know for the sake of the sisterhood (which doesn't really like the fact I am a NFP practicing, conservative Catholic).

I learned all I need to know about feminism with last year's presidential election, thankyouverymuch.

Lilliput said...

Segamon, I can't believe I'm actually going to say this but - I agree with you:)

Its all about balance - too much of anything is a bad thing.

I don't believe however that the poor feckless mo self esteem women that you are talking about are like that becaus of any feminisim. They are like that because they lack education, self esteem and sometimes mental wellbeing - this comes from children having children they cannot parent, who then continue the cycle.

This happened in every era in every place on earth.

Amy - I don't get the feminism election thing?

Tonal Bliss said...

Lilli, it's okay to agree sometimes. :)

However, the not-so-perfect situations that women find themselves in are almost always due to their own mistakes whether they be intended or unintended. Most women are certainly well intentioned. However, the way that our society instructs women (and men for that matter) to act is simply dangerous. Extreme-left feminism is part of society and part of what instructs women to be so irresponsible.

Kathy said...

I agree, SegaMon & Amy. "Feminism" has codified making stupid choices as being a good thing. While some women have always done so, it does not make it wise; nor have societies always countenanced the decisions. Much of that has changed with feminism. Generations ago, a woman would be castigated by "good society" for not being a virgin when she got married, getting pregnant out of wedlock, living with a man unmarried, and/or sleeping around. Now, those are lauded as virtues by many feminists who are so pleased that they have "thrown off the shackles" of morality and religion, and embrace "masculine sexual freedom" -- i.e., promiscuity. But a "strong woman" who "does not need a man," all too often translates into "single mom with kid(s)." Single moms struggle in ways that married mothers do not. Having multiple sexual partners (especially true for girls and women) more frequently translates into lower self-esteem than higher, as they wonder why they are continued to be dumped after sex, or why their "Prince Charming" turned out to be a frog, or why the man they've given their heart and body to is not reciprocating in kind. And when women lose their self-esteem, they become more likely to allow their bodies to be used for sex, which sets them up to become more likely to get pregnant and have a baby.

This may not be true for you, but it is true for many women. And here is a perspective from a woman who has maintained her virginity into her twenties. Having societal expectations that girls should be chaste serves women well in numerous areas. It serves men well also, although they may not like being denied free and easy sex. Having societal expectations that boys and men should be chaste also serves society well. I agree that the double standard some had in days gone by is unfair; but it is far worse to have women become sexually promiscuous in the name of fairness and equality and feminism. It is much better for societal expectations of *both* men and women to be chaste until marriage. That is fair and equitable, and serves society well. If people stopped sleeping around before marriage, that would definitely reduce the number and rate of "children having children," and all the other segments of society you frequently rail against for having children when they ought not, and point to them as examples of why abortion is a good thing.

Kathy said...

Clarifying!! -- I was partially responding to Lilliput as well in my previous comment!!

army_wife said...

Amen, Kathy! I completely agree with what you said. The wisdom of the idea that both men and women need to be held to the same standards of personal purity and self-control and the ill effects on women from premarital sex are very much backed up by my own experiences before I became a Christian.

Lilliput said...

But ladies and Segamon, don't you think that there were many women and men having sex and getting pregnant during the period in society where premarital sex was frowned apon. What do u think happened to the pregnant teenage moms and children -

I'm sure you know of the Horrific abuse that took place there - and all in the name of Christianity.

Here's something very interesting -

It looks like there was a higher rate of teenage pregnancy in the 50's then there is now but at that time the majority were married - or more likely, were forced to marry the man that got them pregnant. To be honest if I slipped up and made a mistake with a guy one night - I would not like to be forced to make a further mistake by having to marry him - which is exactly what has happened because of feminism - the girls don't have to marry the guys. So to me not much has changed among teenage girls.

Lilliput said...

Watch this brilliant doc about the Magdalenes.

Kathy said...

...don't you think that there were many women and men having sex and getting pregnant...

Yes, "many," but not AS MANY. Societal expectations alone would have kept many girls "on the strait and narrow." We don't really have that now.

What happened to women who got pregnant out of wedlock? It depended on the society, and possibly, on her societal standing. In Jane Austen's book Mansfield Park, the heroine's cousin ends up leaving her husband and running off with a charming man, assuming he will marry her. He doesn't; and she eventually goes to live in a small house with her aunt (provided by her wealthy father, but she is otherwise essentially disowned by her father and all "good" society). In Emma, Harriet Smith was "somebody's natural daughter" [i.e., a bastard child], and was raised in a boarding school. In Sense and Sensibility, Col. Brandon's first love had a child out of wedlock, and was left to fend for herself, but he eventually found out and took care of the child (the mother died); and this child grew up and herself became pregnant out of wedlock, courtesy of Willoughby. Willoughby's wealthy aunt insisted he marry the girl; he refused, preferring to get his fortune by marrying a wealthy lady, rather than do the honorable thing. In The Scarlet Letter, Hester Prynne is made to wear an "A" marking her as an adulteress, so that others can know and shun her; yet she lived such a modest life filled with good works, that by the end of her life, her fellow citizens look at the "A" as standing for "Angel." So there was some form of redemption, even in that.

Not every case of out-of-wedlock birth ended with the baby snatched from the mother; or the mother (and/or child) being put in a work-house. That there were and are hypocrites among those who call themselves Christians, I will regretfully admit. That some women and children suffered unjustly for it, I will likewise admit. But many women and children are now in a self-imposed state of suffering, brought about by loose morals and unavoidable consequences. Your solution is to kill the children; my solution is to improve the morals. We both look at past abuses with regret and wonder, but your response is to throw off Christianity, while mine is to throw off the hypocrisy.

Kathy said...

As to your other link -- no, not "the majority... were forced to marry the man that got them pregnant" -- if you have evidence to back that up, go ahead and present it. In Pride and Prejudice Lydia was married at 16, and there was nothing shocking about that, as far as her age; in fact, Mrs. Bennet had been in eager expectation of her daughters' marriages from the time her eldest was 15 or 16. You want a real-life example? My former pastor's mother got married at either 13 or 14, and she was not pregnant at the time -- her first child was born much more than 9 months later; this was in the late 40s or early 50s. Early marriages were much more common then than they are now.

To be honest if I slipped up and made a mistake with a guy one night...
You make it sound like accidentally dropping and breaking a glass, rather than an intentional act.

...which is exactly what has happened because of feminism - the girls don't have to marry the guys.
Ah, but the guys don't have to marry the girls, either! And THAT is what has been the problem and cause of heartache for soooo many people. What of the girls who give in to their boyfriends to have sex, with their promise that they'll marry them (sometime in the future, not necessarily if they get pregnant), only to have them turn tail and run when she does get pregnant? At least in the past, the girls had a level of protection against this kind of chicken. Now, it's much more common for guys just to walk away -- *especially* with the advent of birth control and abortion, because then it's "all her fault" -- she should have been on the Pill and/or she should just get an abortion, if she doesn't want to have a baby or be a single mother. Oh, yeah, that's an improvement! Not!

So to me not much has changed among teenage girls.
But it has. It used to be that "nice girls" didn't have sex before marriage; and that "nice guys" didn't pressure girls to have sex. Girls had a greater power (in the days before feminism sold out their sexuality), of the moral high ground, in refusing and even scorning a man/boy who "got fresh" with them.

You do know "The Kinsey Report" was horribly and fatally flawed, don't you? Surely you don't believe Kinsey's lies about sexuality in the 40s and 50s!

Lilliput said...

I haven't read the Kinsey report so I don't know if its lies or not but I'd love to hear your take anyway.

Feminism wasn't only about sex, its about the right to education, work and voting - and also obviously tackling the double standards of men with lots of partners being great and their female counterparts being sluts. The problem with pushing the morality issue is that its so subjective that even in the old testament you have our forefathers, prophets and kings having multiple wives and concubines. In fact what we could be looking at is society going back to those times when one man had a tent for each of his woman and her children (It just came to me - I swear) also, what do u say to women who don't want to marry at 16 as they are builing careers or saving the world until they are in their 30's? Are they not supposed to have sex - its unhealthy and abnormal?

Just like you're telling me that not all unmarried mothers were seperated, is how I'm telling you that the behaviour of the few feckles uneducated girls shouldn't spoil years of gain for women.

For me the bottom line is that teenagers should be doing so much homework that they don't have time for sex or marriage. Women are more then sexual playthings or baby makers!

PS - By mistake I mean, condom breaking or split second loss of rational thought brought about by neurons submerged in alcohol - inexusable I know but it can happen.

Kathy said...

When I was in college back in the mid-90s, my history teacher (who was also a Sunday School teacher) mentioned the Kinsey Report as fact, saying that it showed that the apparent sexual restraint of the 40s and 50s was false, and that while "everybody" thought that "everybody else" was more or less sexually moral, that "the reality" was that everybody was screwing around... just nobody knew about it.

However, the KR has been discredited by numerous people (including this webpage); the specific article I remember reading may have been this one.

Among the problems in his "Report":

--he molested children in the name of research
--he listed as "married women" known prostitutes who were living with their pimps (don't you think that just might possibly skew research on marital fidelity??)
--he heavily sampled from prisons, including men in prison for sexual crimes, including crimes against children, but this was presented as being a normal cross-section of the United States.

Despite the common sense fact of low rates of illegitimacy and VD, despite personal knowledge of faithful and virtuous family and friends, mainstream America was dramatically shaken by Kinsey's data. The popular press hawked Kinsey as a diversion from Truman's ominous cold-war warnings, heralding the astonishing scientific findings-that 98% of men and roughly half of women had premarital sex, 95% of American men were legally sex offenders and 10% or more of men were largely homosexual. And, while no one noted that 317 infants and children were "tested" for Kinsey's child sex data, educators repeated his conclusions-that children were sexual from birth, hence school sex education, Kinsey style, should be mandated....

But 26% (1,400) of Kinsey's alleged 5,300 white male subjects were already "sex offenders."[34] As far as the data can be established, an additional 25% were incarcerated prisoners; some numbers were big city "pimps," "hold-up men," "thieves;" roughly 4% were male prostitutes as well as sundry other criminals; and some hundreds of homosexual activists at various "gay bars" and other haunts from coast to coast.[35] This group of social outcasts and deviants were then redefined by the Kinsey team as representing your average "Joe College."

Kathy said...

"Feminism" may not be only about sex; but that aspect of it cannot be minimized or ignored. The "tackling of double standards" has meant that women are being more or less encouraged to have lots of sexual partners, not that men should be encouraged to have few, or only one, namely, their wife. Had feminism done that, I daresay that I would have few problems with it as a philosophy.

Oddly, thanks to feminism, we do see a return to men widely spreading their seed, and having multiple partners each with their own children. [It's also fairly common among certain sects of Mormons.] But, "have you not read, that He that made them at the beginning made them male and female?" God's design is one man and one woman for life; although polygamy was permitted for a time, it was never "best" and probably only rarely good -- look at Leah and Rachel's poor sisterly relationship, both being married to the same man. And I kinda feel sorry for Jacob, as well. That's probably why the Muslims beat their women into submission -- so they don't have to hear two or more nagging wives.

I didn't get married until I was 26, and I was a virgin on my wedding day. So, yeah, I can say, "They're not supposed to have sex." Not because it's abnormal to want to have sex (although with the high rate of STDs nowadays, I *can* say it is "unhealthy" in one sense!), but because it is wrong in a moral sense, and not best for them. I can say, "I'm soooo glad I waited!"

I think you have the view of God as He is revealed in the Bible as some sort of mean and angry law-giver and task-master, who gives people stupid laws to follow because he doesn't want people to be happy. That couldn't be further from the truth. The truth is, that dying of an STD is not a healthy or happy outcome of sex. Having a child out of wedlock is not a healthy or happy event for mother and child [it can be made to work, but it is not optimum]. Just as you might tell a child not to play in the street or touch a stove because the child can get hurt from doing those things, so God tells us not to do certain things for our own good.

Women *are* more than sexual playthings and baby makers; unfortunately, the sexual revolution has made women more of sexual playthings (which inexorably leads to baby-making in many instances), by promoting "masculine style sexual freedom." Plays right into men's hands. Or pants as the case may be.

Lilliput said...


Polygamy has been the norm for far longer than the one man one women system we have now - and this is precisely because G-d in his infinite wisdom made men and women different. Men are able and pulled to spread their seed, while women are left holding the baby and pulling the father to help in feeding it. Men and women think and feel about sex differently - if g-d would have meant for one man and one women together forever - surely he would have made us think about it the same way?

I think half the problem with the lack of happy couples nowdays is the fact that we have been fed this hollywod version of a romantic love that leads to marriage but in the past people married for multiple reasons other then love - to merge family's, land, duty. pregnancy and the fact that women didn't have a means to support themselves.

I don't for one second believe in the kind of G-d you described that I believe in. I also don't for one second think you shouldn't tell a child (under 18) they can't have sex - but its completely different for women in their 20's, 30's etc

Who is forcing women to have many partners? None of my friends shag around but they aren't virgins either - there is a happy balance you know. Of course we all await for our prince to arrive and sweep us away to happily ever after - but that's s disney fantasy.

If women were so much happier in the 40s and 50s why do you think we had this revolution?

army_wife said...

God made men and women different, yes, but I believe that He did so in order that a man and a woman could unite in a marriage and contribute their own unique strengths to make a stronger whole. Where one is weak, the other can support them. There is also a learning process - to learn to love despite petty disagreements or differences. To work together as a team.

It would make things very boring if a husband and wife always felt the same way about everything, sex included. I have experienced sex both before and within marriage and I can say that sex becomes one of many things that bring a husband and wife ever closer. Sex between an unmarried couple does not hold any such benefit.

The decision to have sex without benefit of matrimony was one of the very worst decisions I have ever made. It was a very degrading lifestyle to live. The physical, emotional, and spiritual consequences were intolerable and I spend every day desparately wishing I had waited for marriage. I was unfortunately one of those that had to find out the hard way that when God says "no" to something, it's not "just because He says so", that there is a good reason for it. In this case there were SEVERAL good reasons for it. My parents told me as a teen "don't have sex until you're married" but never told me WHY. I found out the "why" the hard way.

There are many good resources that explain more about the dynamics between men and women in marriage and sexual relationships. Some of them are the Marriage Bed website, the book "Sheet Music" by Kevin Leman, and the "For Men Only" and "For Women Only" books by Shaunti Feldhahn.

I have heard a very wise concept regarding premarital sex - your virginity is something you can only give once; if you give it outside of marriage, you run a high risk of always regretting it, but if you wait you'll never regret it. I wish I had taken that more to heart earlier in life, before it was too late.

Tonal Bliss said...

Lilliput: "Men are able and pulled to spread their seed, while women are left holding the baby and pulling the father to help in feeding it."

The true nature of men is often ignored. This is quite the same of women's true nature.

In today's society men are told that it is okay to do whatever comes naturally to them without regard to consequence. Men are not held to much responsibility for their actions in today's society. Men can have sex with as many women who are willing. If pregnancy results, then there is always the choice to help the women get an abortion to ignore all responsibility. This does not help the relationship that men and women have. It cheapens life. It worsens life. It leads to consequences that are damaging to many a person's life.

In today's society, women are told to ignore what comes naturally to them. They are constantly told to not nurture and not love. Instead, they are encouraged to act just like men and their nature. This results in consequences far greater than the women could have imagined. The killing of their own unborn children is the ultimate opposite of the nature of a mother.

For both of these aspects of what men and women are told to be like, it is completely opposite of the TRUE nature of themselves.

Men should be strong, protective, committed, and loving! Rather than having sex with anything that moves, men should nurture their natural ability to be providers.

Men should be smart, kind, compassionate, nurturing, and loving! Rather than to accept that they should sexually act like men, women should nurture their natural ability to be nurturers.

You are spitting in my face when you say what you said about men. I am in no way like that nor would I ever be that way. Men AND women are capable of great things. We are created in the likeness of God! Human beings are not animals like you suggest, Lilliput.

WKen said...

People also feel strongly inclined to take what they want, eat too much ice cream, and refuse to go to work on Mondays and Fridays.

Natural inclinations, sometimes, should be controlled by what's better for us.

That's why I don't let my two-year-old daughter live on a diet of goldfish crackers.

Kathy said...

The others have responded more ably than I would have, so I'll just let their response be my response. I would add that those who agree with me would likely find What Women Never Hear to be a wonderful blog that you will enjoy. Lilliput, you may find it a bit of a challenge, but I think you would benefit even more from it.

Kathy said...

Actually, there are a few comments you made Lilliput, that the others did not respond directly to, so I will chime in.

I think half the problem with the lack of happy couples nowdays is the fact that we have been fed this hollywood version of a romantic love ...
Agreed. Then when real life intrudes, and the romantic attraction fades, the marriage withers and dies, because there isn't anything holding it. In the old days, people made vows, promises, and commitments in marriage, and kept them. Some people still do; but for many people, the marriage vows of "richer, poor, better, worse, till we are parted by death" are just nice-sounding words.

I also don't for one second think you shouldn't tell a child (under 18) they can't have sex - but its completely different for women in their 20's, 30's etc
Why? Do you think that only teenagers contract STDs including AIDS? Here's "The Sex Degrees of Separation Calculator" -- a calculator that shows how many indirect sexual contacts you've had, based on how many sexual partners they've had, and how many sexual partners (on average) your partners have likewise had previously.

Who is forcing women to have many partners?
I never said anyone was.

If women were so much happier in the 40s and 50s why do you think we had this revolution?
As Wickle said, his 2-y/o daughter would live on goldfish crackers if he let her. Sometimes what we want is not what is best for us. In fact, frequently what is more difficult for us to do, is actually the better path. Such as eating right and exercising -- it's easier and more immediately satisfying to eat bowls of ice cream and boxes of candy, and to sit around watching TV all day. But if you do that enough, you'll get fat; and if you're fat, you'll end up with more medical problems than those who are not fat, and you may even end up dying early, either directly or indirectly caused by the extra, unhealthy fat. But if you ask the morbidly obese person who can barely take care of himself if he's happy being that fat, or if he was happier when he was thinner, he'll say that he was happier being thinner. Yet you might ask him, if he was happier when he was thin, why did he gain weight? You know the answer, and it's the same answer as to why women were happier before they were "sexually liberated" than they are now. The instant gratification of sex was worth more at the moment than the long-term gratification of morality, just like the instant gratification of ice cream may be worth more in one sense than health and vitality that is gained by foregoing the short-term pleasure.

Also, the previously mentioned Kinsey Report helped to fuel the Sexual Revolution -- suddenly all these virgins thought that they were the only ones holding onto their virginity, and figured if everyone else was doing it but not telling, they might as well! Add to that birth control, the atom bomb and threat of world-destroying nuclear war, the counter-culture uprising that questioned authority, and you have a perfect storm.

I'm currently reading "The Pursuit of Happyness," the story of Chris Gardner, who went from being homeless to being a top stock-broker and worth millions of dollars; he was played by Will Smith in the movie by the same name. The part of the book that is pertinent to this discussion is when he talks about his sexploits of his late teens through his twenties, and how he "loved the sexually liberated females." They made it easy for him to get what he wanted (sex), without having to do too much beforehand to prove his worthiness. Like I said, it plays right into men's hands/pants.

Kathy said...

It was appropriate that I came across this article. Hey, it's not just oppressed/oppressive ;-) conservative types saying it!

Lilliput said...

Hi Kathy,

Thanks for teh Daily Mail link. I loved the article and this is my favourite comment:

"I was a teenager in the Sixties and I really take exception to this drivel that is regularly regurgitated by people such as Mooney, Amis and Boycott. Like all of my social circle I didn't take drugs, didn't sleep around and maintained the values that I was brought up with. Yet I would have been described by many as a "dolly bird" and assumptions would have been made about me because I was pretty and achingly trendy. We all know what "assume" does, don't we? The vast majority of those who grew up in the Sixties were exactly like me, so please don't continue to jump on the bandwagon and blame us for the ills of TODAY'S society.

- Vivienne, Newcastle UK, 2/12/2009 10:55

There's the old joke; if you remember the sixties you weren't really taking part in it. But I agree, not every young adult back then was a pot smoking hippie and not every young woman got pregnant outside marriage. However the ones who were claim everybody was doing it.
- Teresa, Cardiff, UK, 2/12/2009 18:41"

Onc again - not everyone is whoring around.

Segamon - please give me an example from times gone by when men have been more involved in their children's lives. I just did a "mother-baby observation" as part of my course and watched a Dad being the main carer. My own Dad who has two daughters, has never changed a diaper. I belive this change is also due to feminism which explained to men that its a team effort.

As for the fat example - Kathy, you couldn't have chosen a worse example. Eating is a very emotional issue and I would not believe a truely happy person would eat themselves to obesity. I believe an obese person would believe that they were happier when they were thinner as its much easier to move around but say that they could not have been that happy if they had to eat themselves into oblivion.

Isn't it ironic that Will smiths charachter is left holding the baby?

Wickle, who gets to decide what is better for us?

WKen said...

"Wickle, who gets to decide what is better for us?"

Oh, please ...

Abstinence has never caused a single STD, unwanted pregnancy, moment of trauma upon realizing that the guy lied just to get in a woman's pants, or week of wondering whether the guy you slept with is going to call.

"Free love" can't claim anything like the same record.

Kathy said...

Re: the comments in the article -- I'm sure that many people did not whore around in the 60s -- my parents were in their early-mid-20s when they got married in '68, and they were both virgins. So, no worries about STDs, unwed pregnancy, etc.

As for an example when "men have been more involved in their children's lives" -- there isn't one, and I'll give you some very good reasons why -- reasons you should know, if you just stopped and thought for a minute.

For most of human history, life has involved work and a lot of it. There was some TV show I saw previews for probably a decade ago, in which an "average family" went back to live as they would have on the American frontier in the mid-1800s -- which was probably (as far as the work goes) about the same as had been for all of recorded human history, more or less. The bit I remember, was the woman saying that she and her husband had planned on an "equitable distribution of labor," with her helping him outdoors, just like he was going to help her indoors -- she wasn't going to do all the baking, as if she were barefoot and pregnant and some dependent female. Well, reality struck, and she found out the hard way, that she simply could not keep up with "her half" of the outside work (splitting logs and building fences and such), because it was just SO manual, and HARD, and required bigger muscles than she had. She willingly but reluctantly ended up in the "traditional female role" she had previously sneered at, and decided that it was actually an "equitable distribution of work" after all -- unless perhaps it favored her, since her manual labor was less strenuous than his. She made the bread and all the meals, kept the house clean, and did all the "domestic" stuff, while her husband did all the "big, manly" stuff -- by necessity!

Only in the past century or so has science, technology and engineering improved to the point where men and women can more easily take on each other's roles. It would have been ludicrous for a woman to whine to her husband about him "never changing a diaper," when he worked from dawn to dusk outside on very hard and tiresome tasks -- plowing, weeding, sowing, reaping, making fences, chopping wood, tending cattle, and whatever else had to be done to survive. And this is another thing that the promise of feminism has short-changed women in, and sold them a bill of goods. 1) Women are now almost required to work outside the home, yet they are still expected by many men to be the primary "home-maker," and do all the tasks related to keeping a home running smoothly Somehow, doubling a woman's work doesn't sound very liberating. Yet for single mothers (who as previously shown, are much more common in the wake of feminism than before), this is their life -- they must both "bring home the bacon" and also "fry it up in the pan." 2) Many women who do stay at home, become dissatisfied with the "distribution of labor," believing the feminist lie that men should go 50/50 at home. Even I struggle with this at times, although when I have my head screwed on straight, I realize that my husband works 100% of the time he's out of the house, and makes 100% of the money; so if I do 100% of the work inside the home, and don't have to "work" 100% of the time he's gone (like right now, when I'm writing this), it actually *is* an "equitable distribution of labor" (or probably works out in my favor), even if it's not exactly a "team effort." My husband changed very few diapers; he's fixed very few meals; he's washed very few dishes; he's vacuumed (Hoovered) very few floors. But you know what? Since the middle of my first pregnancy, I've stayed home making very little money, and have been able to be with my children 100% of the time. And I think that's more than fair to me.

Kathy said...

Re: obesity -- perhaps it was a poor example. I'll pick another one -- anything will do. Often people choose a particular career or life-path, believing it will bring them happiness, or "success" however they define it. Often, they discover too late that they are not actually happy, and wish they could go back and make a different choice. A teenager may believe "if I can just get out on my own, away from my oppressive parents who never let me do anything, I'll be happy." Then they discover that the real world is a lot harder than they thought; that they still have to answer to authorities (such as bosses, landlords, or policemen, who often are not nearly as forgiving as their parents!), that it's not as much fun being on their own as they thought, and it costs a lot more money than they anticipated to eat and have a place to sleep.

Some people believe that "making a lot of money" will make them happy, so they choose a career (like a doctor or a lawyer) with a high income per year. Yet doctors have among the highest rates of suicide of any group. Certainly part of it is that they know so many ways to kill themselves, or have access to drugs or instruments, that the average person may not. But the point is, we often choose things that we THINK will bring us happiness, when we are completely wrong.

I've previously used the example of organic food -- back in the 1800s and before, all of our food was organically grown, with no genetic modification, or any of the current scientific advances we have seen in the past few generations, or perhaps 100 years at most. What was so "wrong" with the organic food? Nothing -- in fact, very many people are trying to go back to that. Just because something changes, does not mean that there was something "wrong" or "lacking" with the original. Often, people believe they can improve something, and end up making things worse -- like altering a recipe. Sometimes they're right, and the second version is an improvement over the original; many times, they're wrong, and the spice they chose, or the meat, or the cheese, or whatever else they added, left out, or otherwise altered, changes the meal for the worse.

Isn't it ironic that Will Smith's character is left holding the baby?
Not really. He ends up with the baby because he made a commitment when he was himself a fatherless child that his children would NOT be fatherless, would ALWAYS know who their father was, and that he WOULD be a part of their lives. Anything less than that, and he would have left his girlfriend and their baby when their relationship first got rocky.

Lilliput said...


I'm glad you are happy with your domestic situation, but surely you can undertsand that some women would not like to live their lives like that and prefer to work outside their home and share their domestic chores evenly between partners. I agree that there are men out there who still expect women to look after the house even though they work - but it wouldn't be any man I date and to be honest, I actually personally do not know a man like that. Its the choice that feminism gave women ie they can marry a man that is able and wants to support them or they can go out to work if they wish.

About Organic food - the reason more intensive farming and pesticides were introduced is because they needed to make sure there was enough to eat and a constant supply ie they were not happy with the status quo. Now organic food is for the rich and famous westerners who can afford to fly food from anywhere should the crop fail.People make a change when they are unhappy - not when they are happy. Whether the change is for the better or worse is besides the point - at the decision to change they are not happy with their present situation.

Will Smiths charachter shows us that men have evolved and lets hope all the fatherless children out there decide to do the same.

I also want to bring your attention to a bigger picture of how life used to be (other then America cause its a big planet we live on). Since stone age man and women have both worked to produce food. Men hunted and protechted while women gathered, tended fire, cooked and looked after the kids. In fact women always worked harder and longer then men as they had both the domestic and childcare chores. Only much much later in Europe probably did this notion of a man supporting a woman come into being.

I always used to wonder at the lionesses in a pride wondering why the hell they did all the work for the male when all he did was protect them from other male lions?

Do you know that the majority of Doctors being trained in Britain at the moment are asian women - because they are as clever if not more then their male counterparts and will be able to manage juggle being mothers and doctors and wives all at the same time. This is why I am happy to support feminism.

Wickle, some study was published here yesterday which state dthat vegetarians lived on average 3 years longer then meat eaters. I was listening to a talkshow about this study and no meat eater said they would stop eating meat because their lives just would be worth it - never mind the extra three they were going to gain. Eating meat gives you an extra chance of getting cancer - I'm not seeing you turn into a vegetarian are you? A life wiothout sex, is not a life. you've met your better half and enjoy a great sex life with them - but what about those who haven't - are they supposed to join the monestary or nunnery?

Tonal Bliss said...


Thanks for illustrating what Lilliput asked me to "provide a source" for. I agree with your analysis.


You make many assumptions about us who are conservative in our morals. You assume that we want women to ONLY be taking care of the home. You assume that we do NOT want women in the workplace. And you assume that we do NOT want women to have control over their own bodies.

You are so wrong on every single one of your assumptions. Men and women must work together as a team to accomplish the needs of their family. This means that someone has to work, and someone has to be with the kids.

In my own relationship with my own wife, we have agreed that we will never depend on child care. My wife will graduate with a Bachelors Degree so that she CAN be part of the workforce. I am graduating as a Registered Nurse this month. In my own career, it allows me to work nights and/or part-time. This combination allows great flexibility! It allows my wife to work if she chooses! Furthermore, I do not order her around and tell her what she can and cannot do with her body. However, I expect that she NOT murder my own children! Maybe you don't care about protecting your young? I'm a bit "old fashioned" and want people to not be killed... Wow... I'm such an archaic Neanderthal! lol

Tonal Bliss said...

BTW, Lilliput, I am a person who loves to vacuum the house, do dishes while listening to music, and cook delicious food (especially burritos). This means that my wife is not the only cook around here...

Christina Dunigan said...

I have to chime in on the "Conservatives just want to squash women" theme. How does one explain so many strong Conservative women? Look at Margaret Thatcher! She was hardly anybody's shrinking violet! But as soon as a Conservative woman shows any public signs of strength, of having a mind of her own, LIBERALS dismiss her as "not really a woman", and presto! That protects their image of Conservative women as mousy, put-upon women who have surrendered all self to the men.

I recommend Camus' "The Rebel". Look at how he describes the resentment that drives the revolutionary, versus the self-respect that drives the true rebel. Revolutionaries seek to become the oppressors themselves, to dethrone the dictator and assume his role. Rebels demand that they be recognized as, and treated as, equals.

Conservative women are rebels. And conservative men like that!

Kathy said...

Yes, some people change when they're unhappy (although many people just choose to remain unhappy). But frequently, people change when they are happy, but think they can be happier.

However, the sexual revolution was not brought about by married 30-50-y/o women throwing off their "shackles" and getting divorces en masse -- i.e., all these unhappily married women you think existed prior to feminism. It was young women who were not yet married who chose to follow a different path from their mothers -- to sleep around, rather than to remain virgins until they were married. Did they fully appreciate the choice they made at the time? Were they unhappy as virgins, or were they just swept along by the furor of the decade (with free love, drugs, anti-establishment hippie behavior)? Did they think they would be happier or unhappier in life, if they made the choice to put out? More likely, they thought it wouldn't make much if any difference at all. I think they were wrong -- perhaps not every woman and every relationship considered separately, but as a society, we are reaping the sad fruits of a generational problem.

One of my friends told me when I became engaged to be married that I had done the right thing by waiting -- until marriage to have sex, as well as waiting for the right man to get married; and she expressed deep regret that she did not. I don't think she fully appreciated her choice -- she just gave into her boyfriend's pressure for sex. "There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death," Prov. 16:25. People frequently make choices that in hindsight they regret. Just because they think that a certain path will bring happiness does not mean it actually will. Just because the girls in the past 50 years gave up their powerful weapon of virginity until marriage does not mean it was the right choice.

Again, feminism, as far as women working outside the home, is and can be separate from the "feminism" that encourages masculine-style sexuality (which only does a disservice to women).

Will Smiths character shows us that men have evolved and lets hope all the fatherless children out there decide to do the same.

Evolved? As in, men who take care of their children are more highly evolved (i.e., further away from animals), than men who do not? You must then think that the Apostle Paul is very highly evolved! [Of course, I disagree with your evolutionary bias. And I would probably also disagree with the stories concocted by anthropologists based on three grains of rice and a picture in a cave, or however they come to their conclusions on the divisions of labor.]

Now, if you're just using the term "evolved" to mean "change," then, yes, we can agree that Chris Gardner was different from his own father (whom he didn't meet until he was an adult). But of course, as you frequently point out, fatherless children are much more likely to repeat the cycle, rather than to break it.

Lilliput said...


I just had a bit of a google and found that both Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir ( Two most powerful women I know off hand) both voted for legalised abortion. This is the very interesting thing about tyhe abortion aspect of the liberal/conservative divide. Since infanticide has always been a part of human behaviour - it is conservative to want to make it legal. You are in fact taking a new and liberal view by wanting to stop it. The same goes with slavery.

Kathy, you don't need to take any anthropologists word for it. You can just take a trip to rural Africa (cradle of all mankind), middle east, asia and south amerioca where you can see groups of people living pre industrialised lives. I promise you, they do exist - no one is making up stories:)

As for the more evolved, I mean more sophisticated. I think men not bound by old fashioned sexual stereotypes are just that more sophisticated and this is what I see in my day to day life. Segamon - you're a real prince;)

Tonal Bliss said...

Label wanting to stop infanticide anything you want, Lilli. What label it takes does not really matter.

Before 1973, it certainly was more acceptable to keep abortion largely illegal throughout our country (or "conservative" in the way that you define things). Today, abortion is legal under almost any circumstance (including financial hardship) nationwide. To have "hope" and "change" would be to want to make this barbaric practice of murdering unborn children illegal. Rather than use the term "liberal," I would rather use the term "progressive" which usually is used to mean "change." I want to change the law as it is now so that more unborn children and mothers can be protected against the horrors of therapeutic abortion.

Thanks for calling me a prince. However, there is no need to flatter me. I am still a sinner even though I will always strive to become a better person.

Kathy said...

That different societies have different ways of handling gender/sexual differences and societal roles, I will wholeheartedly agree.

I also agree that in large part, up until the beginning of Christianity (and still is the case, where Christianity has not had influence), men have had a tendency to use their power and brute strength to force those weaker than them to bend to their will. Just like they do today, though perhaps not in the domestic circle, but in business and politics. More refined, but it's still the same old power play.

I would also disagree with the story that Africa is the cradle of civilization -- one of my friends is a geneticist, and is likewise friends with scientists and doctors of other disciplines, and there is no scientific proof that Africa is the cradle of civilization. The evidence could just as easily support the interpretation that civilization started in Babel in the Middle East, and spread out from there into Africa, Europe, Asia, Australia and the Americas. There's nothing in the actual *evidence* to refute it; it's just the interpretation of the evidence that people choose.

"Sophistication" = "not bound by old-fashioned sexual stereotypes." Uh-huh. I see a great deal more sophistication in the old movies of the 40s when men stood up when a lady entered the room, took their hat off as a sign of respect, held the door open for women, wouldn't swear around women, and opened the door to let them out of the car. Nowadays, we have men being crude and foul-mouthed without apology, taking premarital sex as their right (rape is on the increase -- oh, yeah, that's sophisticated!), and treating women as if they're just "one of the guys" (coarse behavior). No thanks. Give me the unsophisticated sexist behavior that treats me like a lady any day!

Lilliput said...


I think you're buying into the hollywood fantasy that all men in the 40's and 50's were like Humphrey Bogart or some other fictional character. I'm certain there were a few such men but there were probably also men that behave like the ones youare describing above. the only thing that's changed is women's rights so they don't have to take it.

Here is a very interseting study:

Also, about Africa being the cradle of mankind - it is the most accepted theory by scientists at the moment - however like all science - it is and you don't have to believe it.

As for Christianity enfluencing the power struggle between the sexes - I refer you to the Magdalenes and the fact that in Britain -
"Mr Brown is also keen to change the ancient rule of primogeniture, which stipulates that men must always take precedence over a woman in line to the throne"

All 3 biblical religions are very patriarchal - there is no hiding it.

Kathy said...

No, not all men; but the majority of them.

Africa is considered the "cradle of mankind" because evolutionists believe that men evolved from apes/monkeys, and there are the most monkeys in Africa.

*Three* Biblical religions??