"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion." John Adams

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

We Don't Need Men But It Takes a Village

I'm always amazed at the liberal mind's ability to hold mutually exclusive thoughts. I've long ago discovered that consistency isn't the hallmark of the liberal mind; it's emotion.

I was reminded of this yesterday when Jennifer Aniston was quoted as saying that women don't need men anymore.

“Women are realizing more and more that you don’t have to settle, they don’t have to fiddle with a man to have that child,” said Aniston. “They are realizing if it’s that time in their life and they want this part they can do it with or without that.”
I don't mean to pick on Aniston but use it only to highlight what's become gospel for liberals, who passionately say women don't need men anymore but in the same breath say "It takes a village" with the same amount of belief and passion in their voices.

Which is it?

Anytime a conservative politician points out that children of single parents statistically don't do as well as children of two parent families they're castigated for moralizing. But if a liberal says single mothers need more taxpayer money they're hailed as heroes. Aren't they really both saying the same thing, which is that it's very difficult to raise a child alone.

The conservative argues that perhaps society has a vested interested in promoting marriage because of the positive effect it has on children but liberals cry that unless the government plays the role of father for many, it essentially forces women to stay in abusive relationships. (This is the equivalent of the rape and incest argument to make all abortions legal.)

The effects of the liberal ideology are actually destroying the institution of marriage but the same liberals will also yell for more taxpayer money for all the victims of their own ideology and be called great moral leaders for their compassion. This, I fear, is all with the goal of saying women don't need anybody anymore, except liberal politicians.

Your Ad Here

14 comments:

scmom (Barbara) said...

What they are saying is, essentially, "I want what I want and I don't care what it takes to get it."

Anonymous said...

Yep: you've got it. Liberalism is social suicide.

bthomas said...

Why would anyone be surprised at such a statement from such a person. She speaks from experience. After all, when it comes to marriage, she is wildly successful at failure.

KM said...

bthomas~
Not sure that her husband having an affair, walking out on her and having a family with another woman constitutes as Ms. Aniston's "wild success at failure" when it comes to marriage. I think it has more to do with Hollywood living in pretend-land too much, and having more money than they know what to do with causing a completely skewed view of reality.

Subvet said...

Why give any credibility to someone whose biggest accomplishment is playing an adult version of "Let's Pretend"? The question not only applies to liberal actors & actresses but their conservative counterparts.

Early Riser said...

Whether or not you agree with the phenomenon, Aniston IS stating a fact; more and more women are chosing to have children on their own as a unilateral decision. There are several factors in this social/cultural shift;
1. women are no longer seen as dependents (or even property), as was the case in earlier eras (not exagerating)
2. women are chosing to put their career as a first priority for extended periods of time, meaning when they decide they "need" a child, they are financially self-sufficient
3. the nanny-state provides an incentive for women to have children and gain independence from their families

Once again, I am not saying this phenomenon is a good thing (which Aniston seems to be doing), but it certainly exists.

Anonymous said...

Anyone can say anything, but asexual and/or homosexual reproduction do not exist. A woman does need sperm to make a baby and some type of delivery mechanism of either the sperm or fertilized ovum (requires a team of people) into her uterus (or a surrogate's). Michael Jackson also purchased babies without diddling with anyone, but what we are talking about here is not parenthood but a new form of slavery/ property--children as a function of one's own ego (me and mini-me) or experience.

PattyinCT said...

The more I realize what a great man my husband is, the more I realize what a greater woman I can be.

It's not a battle for dominance, its a battle for dignity. And we as men and women need to work together to win that battle - for the worth of our souls as well as that of our children's.

It doesn't take a village. It takes a city of God.

David L Alexander said...

"It doesn't take a village. It takes a city of God."

Good one. So another Hollywood starlet says something really stupid, and everybody thinks it's news. If we just let them fall in a forest and no one listened, would they still make any noise? It's an experiment worth trying.

Amy Joy said...

Not only is Aniston's comment sexist, it is also classist. How wonderful to have such an abundance of cash that you can have buy sperm, ivf (time and time again until you conceive), babies from other countries, babies from poor unwed mothers, whatever way suits your figure, wallet or timeframe. Only to hire a nanny or two after the child arrives so as not to interrupt a career or relationship. But does she seriously believe that all women who desire motherhood are in the position to do so?

Apparently she, too, has found the "audacity" to speak! Who is responsible for putting the microphone in front of these mindless nitwits?

Jeezzzzz! There are just way too many things wrong with what she has said to keep it brief!

waaaaaaa, I want my daddy!

PattyinCT said...

Here's a look into why we need men:

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/08/video-montage-of-troops-returning-home/

Thank you Gateway Pundit for posting this!

Jason said...

Garden variety narcissism. Pray for her and the conversion of all souls.

As a man it seems to me bizarre that a creature who has been given the miraculous ability to conceive and birth new souls would see that as a liability, a curse, and would consequently seek all means chemical and otherwise to suppress that ability, even to the point of murdering a soul within her body.

Even the angels who are magnificent and reflect brightly the glory of God cannot cooperate with Him in the creation of new beings. Only we can do that and women are the tabernacle. Every women who embraces motherhood becomes an image of Mary. "Be it done to me according to Thy will." Because God Himself as well as your husband is involved in the miracle of new life.

Satan has attacked these special creatures with the feminist lie. There is only one institution that understands and values women as the special creatures that they are; the Catholic Church.

Dawn said...

Jason your comment was beautiful. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

The future holds the reality that children will be made synthetically through genetic manipulation and that it will be a decision of the state(government) who will be allowed to raise these children of the state.

This will come due to the selfishness of men AND women. We are bringing this upon ourselves, as laws come/evolve from the violations which become necessary to address, either through the reality that circumstances need to be addressed with laws, or that powers are able to create and manipulate "needs" into existence.

I am not at all optimistic that the intrusive nature of government can be controlled.

This time is not that far off, I fear. I hope I am not around to see such oppression but I believe my children will be and most certainly their children. It is that close, I believe.

Post a Comment