About those safe space circles.

I don’t bother my head much with what feminists think because their stupid, anti-biology anti-reality propaganda which never fails to make women’s lives worse will eventually eat itself alive.  Perhaps it will be the transgender issue that does feminism in or perhaps some other issue but either way, no ideology which is that at odds with reality and human nature can continue indefinitely.

Nevertheless, I am sometimes taken aback when I realize that there is still a fair bit of functional society left for feminists to consume and destroy.

Case in point – you really have to read it to believe the barf-in-your mouth levels of obnoxious feminist entitlement in this recent article written for CNN by anchor Carol Costello (highlighting mine):

[Last week] To its enormous credit, and because it values women, the Air Force organized the largest combined forum on gender issues in the academy’s history. Almost 3,000 cadets attended — mostly young men — to hear the featured speaker, Facebook COO and feminist author of “Lean In” Sheryl Sandberg.

As she took the stage, the nation’s finest young leaders seemed ready to “lean in.”

“I’m inspired by your courage, strength and dedication,” Sandberg told them. “(And I have) special admiration for the women in this audience, because you not only strengthen the Air Force by joining the Air Force, but you fight for equality with every single step you take.”

May I say that was a ballsy thing to say in a sea of mostly men. Don’t get me wrong, there were cheers of approval from the audience, but there was something else too — a negative energy. And it was palpable.

“Women and minorities face barriers that white men don’t face,” Sandberg went on. “And the veil of silence, pretending that this doesn’t exist, does not make the playing field even. For women in the military, there’s a special challenge because you have to be tough enough to fit in.”

Can someone PLEASE explain to me why the United States Air Force is taking direction from Sheryl Sandberg, COO of a gossipy social media site? The Air Force exists to protect the lives of our citizens in the event of a war. Facebook mostly just exists so people can waste time at work bragging about their supposedly fabulous lives.

By the time she got to “I have never met a man who was asked, ‘Should you be working?'” some in the crowd seemed downright hostile […]

The question is why did the crowd seem hostile to Mrs. Sandberg?  The assumption is that they were hostile because they were closed-minded sexists who believe women should not be in the armed services as warriors.  But isn’t it just as likely that the “hostile” attitude was because they don’t care if women work or if they are in the military or if they stay home…they just want them to perform their jobs competently and not demand non-stop special treatment?  Isn’t it possible the hostility was due to the fact that these young men felt blamed for something they didn’t cause, namely women’s angst about their failure to perform (on average) as well as men in the military?

That’s why Sandberg is not only delivering speeches, but has partnered with the armed services to create “lean-in circles,” or peer-to-peer groups, that meet regularly at places like the Air Force Academy.

Air Force Academy Cadet 1st Class Danielle Kaufman is all in. “It’s not just a military problem. A lot of it is societal. We’re put in these tough situations as females every day. (The circle is) a safe environment where people feel their voices are heard,” she said.

Did the Muslim invaders who attacked Parisian civilians on Friday provide safe space circles?  If not, how will these wilting-flower women Mrs. Sandberg is referring to be able to deal with that when the next Muslim attack occurs here in the United States?

If women are the natural equals of men in the military, why do they need “safe space circles”? This makes no sense. Women are equal to men but need to be protected from men so they can prove how equal they are…am I the only one who notices the LOGIC FAIL there? These are the women who are going to PROTECT us in the event of a war, these chicks blubbering to the news about the “negative energy” from men at a Sheryl Sandberg speech?

Yet at the conclusion of her article, Carol Costello asks…

Can you hear us roar, alpha males?

That’s right, alpha males! Rawr! Can’t you hear us ladies roaring over here from our safe space circles that you need to create more of so that we can feel safe while roaring at you?   Really, isn’t giving women a safe rawring space a much more important function for the Air Force to be concerned about than, like, preparing to defend the U.S.? Sheryl Sandberg says it is, and I am sure we can trust Ms. Sandberg to know what’s necessary for the U.S. to defend itself against an attack or invasion.

But will peer-to-peer circles convince an alpha male to lean in? As Sandberg wrapped up her speech, a young female cadet asked her: “How do you stand up and counteract that … unwillingness to open their minds?”

Sandberg didn’t blink. “There’s only two options: One is that men are far, far, far more talented than women and deserve 95% of the top jobs, or the second is that there’s systematic bias. Those are the options. Pick one. Because those are your only two choices.”

Sheryl Sandberg says there are only two choices, so…let’s choose. When in Rome, let us do as the Romans do and vote about it.

The Worst Mother-in-Law

I’ve just finished reading Mychael’s post Monster-in-law at Scott’s new blog, Morally Contextualized Romance, and skimming through the comments.  There are several good stories there about the positive role a mother-in-law can play in her daughter-in-law’s life, but the question asked was how to avoid becoming a MONSTER-in-law to your (potential) daughter-in-law.  I’ll never have a daughter-in-law since we have only daughters and no sons, and (despite some tensions early in our relationship) my own mother-in-law is not a monster, but I do have a thought on what would make a terrible mother-in-law.

I think a terrible mother-in-law is someone who seeks to influence important decisions in her son’s and daughter-in-law’s life according to her own agenda.  Equally important would be the problem of the son who seeks to involve his mama in marital decisions overly much.  Allow me to provide an example that I have mulled over for years.

Two years ago, the self-help author Susan Jeffers, a not-infrequent guest on the Oprah Winfrey Show, passed away.  She was born Susan Gildenberg, got married young, had two children, and decided that she was meant for “more” than “just” raising a family (her words).  So she went back to school, biding her time until her husband was making enough money to afford daycare, and then divorced him, giving him full custody of the children so she could pursue a full-time career as a psychologist and self-help author.

After getting divorced, she changed her name to “Jeffers” because she liked the way it sounded.  Among her many words of bad advice for women, one of them is that as soon as they are old enough, women should randomly pick a surname of someone they don’t know and change their name to that because to keep their fathers’ names or take their husbands’ names is sexist and implies that the woman is owned by the men in her life.  In her view it is better if the woman is just disconnected from everything and everyone, I guess.

“Jeffers” first popped on my radar one morning back in the early 2000s when I was watching the Today! show (back when we still had TV) while feeding one of our daughters.  There was some segment on the Mommy Wars with careerists squared off against the stay-home mom crowd.  I’ve always found that debate tiresome, but I watched it idly.  Jeffers asserted that women should NOT have children but if they are stupid enough to have them, they should never, ever have more than one, because it would limit their career success, and their careers should be the most important thing in the world to them. I thought, “What an awful woman.”

But a week or so later I was at the library when I saw a book she’d published in 2000 entitled, I’m Okay, You’re a Brat.  The book claimed that it would debunk harmful myths about raising children, so on a whim I grabbed it and read it.  It was an absolutely disgusting piece of trash, it turns out.  The book grumbles over all the challenges of raising children, but the real gist is that “Jeffers” did not like being a mother and therefore believed that most women probably dislike being mothers and instead should devote their entire lives to their “careers”.

But one anecdote she told in the book horrified and disgusted me at the time and has stuck with me these some ten years or so.  At one point, Jeffers’ son came to her and told her that he and his wife were thinking about having a child and asked her if they should do it.  I wish I could find the direct quote of what she said to him, but the gist of it was that she told him that he and his wife were fools to even consider having children, that they absolutely should not, that they would hate every minute of it, and if they had children, to understand that they should never imagine that she would want to take care of their child for them for even a moment.

Now, I don’t know why a man would go to his mama to ask her whether or not he ought to have kids; one would hope that by the time he is a husband, he is a big enough boy to make decisions like that for himself.  But for heaven’s sake, what kind of mother would give that kind of advice to her son?  It’s none of her business whether her son and his wife have children or not!  I felt sorry for Jeffers’ daughter-in-law, and I would say Jeffers epitomized the Monster-in-law in that example.

My advice to young single women would be Don’t marry a man who can’t seem to make decisions without asking his mommy first.  My advice to mothers would be Don’t raise your son to be the kind of man who runs to Mommy for advice before he makes decisions for his family.  And my advice to wives would be Don’t set yourself up as some kind of authority over your husband such that he feels like he needs to get female permission before he makes decisions for his family (go to Dalrock’s blog and search “mother-in-law” for a good post on that topic).

In terms of how to treat a potential daughter-in-law when first meeting her, though, I think Mychael pretty much has it right when she says:

I have told Scott that what I would like to do is really pour on the sweetness and submissive attitude toward him, in the girls presence so she can internalize “this is what my guys mom treats his dad like. Does he expect that of me?”

And then maybe give the girl a chance to ponder that.  It may be the first time she’s seen a woman who treats her husband with a sweet, respectful attitude and she may very well be intrigued but unsure.  Gently influencing her (potential) future daughter-in-law with her good example is likely to be the most helpful thing a mother-in-law can do.

Why Christians need to be able to spot manipulation in the opposite sex.

Women have one of the great acts of all time. The smart ones act very feminine and needy, but inside they are real killers. The person who came up with the expression ‘the weaker sex’ was either very naive or had to be kidding. I have seen women manipulate men with just a twitch of their eye — or perhaps another body part.

  • Donald Trump, in The Art of the Comeback

Ha!  I think we may have found our answer to my previously asked question: Why did the boys like dizzy girls and not smart girls?

Actually, I don’t agree that all smart women decide to act feminine and needy to get what they want from men, but he is correct that this behavior is part of the possible feminine repertoire, even if some women choose never to use it.

But why do some women choose to use it?  Is it because they are “killers”?  I don’t know, but I suspect they are probably using it because they have found that this behavior works.  It gets them what they want because some (many? most?) men like it and respond to it.

This is the same reason why I have very little sympathy for the feminists who are flipping out about the pick-up artist lecturer Roosh V coming to Canada; “game” is a male behavior some men use for getting what they want.  If feminists don’t want men to act like pick up artists, then instead of mouthing some “sex positive” bull pucky about how empowering casual hook-ups are, they ought to encourage women not to respond to this kind of behavior by giving men who use it what they want.  Similarly, if men don’t like women putting on a feminine and needy act to get what they want, they shouldn’t be so quick to respond to such women by giving them what they want.  If you don’t like some particular behavior, don’t respond to it and teach your children to spot and avoid it as well.

Why do Christians need to learn how to spot and avoid these behaviors?  Shouldn’t they just “know better”?  The reason I think we need to teach this is because men were designed to desire sweet, submissive women who will be good helpers (“I will make a helper suitable for him”); putting on a needy act simulates being a sweet, submissive helper.  Similarly, women were designed to desire a strong, dominant man who can take care of his family; using “game” simulates that.  If we don’t teach our young people to recognize when someone is really making a genuine effort to be a sweet, submissive woman who would make a good helper or a strong man who desires and is able to lead a family, they will be more likely to be tricked by women who are acting needy to acquire resources from a man or men who are using game to acquire casual sex from a woman.

The internet is full of ghost stories.

Our puppies had a vet appointment today; they are the picture of good health and growing like weeds.  I was particularly relieved when the vet said their poo samples were normal.  At our first vet appointment two months ago, she told us their fecal samples indicated they had coccidia infections.  “It’s a very common protozoan infection in puppies,” she said, giving us a prescription for medication to treat it.

I went home to see what the internet had to say about coccidia and by the time my husband arrived home, I’d spent several hours online working myself into a frothy near-anxiety attack.  I had read multiple horror stories of infections that lasted for a year with the dog eventually dying from chronic diarrhea.  And the cleaning suggestions were crazy:

All fecal material should be removed… Most disinfectants do not work well against coccidia; incineration of the feces, and steam cleaning, immersion in boiling water, or a 10% ammonia solution are the best methods to kill coccidia.

Uh, I have to burn their poop? Not to be graphic, but that doesn’t sound like it’s going to smell too pleasant.  How do you even burn poo, anyway?

Another site made the situation sound even more dire:

 

…keeping flies/insects and rodents away (they can also spread this disease on their feet/in their bodies) and cleaning all areas thoroughly are vital.

Oh no! I silently wailed.  We live out in the country!  How do I keep all the insects away?  They’re everywhere!  Should I call a pest control company?!

Coccidia organisms are very hardy, can survive for long periods in the soil, and are difficult to kill – most household cleaners aren’t going to be effective.

Cleaning at high temperatures (ie steam cleaning and sterilization with boiling water) is the best option for utensils and toys (ie bowls, chew toys etc.). Wash bedding on the ‘HOT’ cycle in your washing machine with bleach.

Whichever solution you choose, wash all areas thoroughly and leave to soak in for at least 20 mins before rinsing. Grassy areas or soil/dirt can be very difficult in terms of removing all traces of coccidia protozoa. The best thing to do is to soak the area with either of the above cleaning solutions. However, these surfaces can remain contaminated for up to 2 months or more, so bear that in mind.

When my husband caught me making plans to dump buckets of bleach water all over the yard in a panic, he intervened.  “Stop being insane,” he ordered. “No one did these crazy things when we were young and you don’t have to do it now.   And quit reading all this crap online.”

So I cleaned up their poop right away, but I did not incinerate it; I disposed of it in a plastic bag in the trash.   And I didn’t bleach the yard, though I did disinfect their food and water bowls, wash their bedding, and give them their medication.  And lo and behold, the next time they went to the vet, she said they were all better.  No yard-bleaching needed.

This isn’t the first time I’ve worked myself into a lather over some health thing on the internet; like most mothers, I’ve done this with my children’s illnesses, too.  And that’s the problem: going online can be a great way to get information but it can also make everything thing seem absolutely dire and dangerous and horrible and impossible to deal with and on the brink of disaster.  It can make you want to hide in your room and never leave the house for fear of what could possibly happen.  It can make you paranoid.

Like mothers with their children or puppy-owners, I see men in the manosphere do this pretty excessively, too.  They’ll catch wind of a hashtag like #GiveYourMoneyToWomen and flip out and make all kinds of crazy assumptions about women in general, completely missing the fact that 75%+ of the women tweeting that hashtag are prostitutes – as in, literal, actual, professional whores – with the other 25% being seriously hardcore feminist activists.  It’s not all that surprising that whores see a business opportunity in commodifying all aspects of male-female interactions, but most women are not prostitutes nor are they feminist activists who want to be paid for cooking dinner and making pleasant conversation.  However, if you spend a lot of time reading XOJane and looking around online for the most shocking thing you can find that a couple of whack-job feminist women have written, you’re going to get a really skewed view of what is out there, and end up getting carried away like I nearly did with the bleach (thankfully, my husband was the voice of sanity that kept me from killing all our grass in a panic).

People who are really into preparedness are another group that I sometimes see get really worked up over things that yes, are problems and indicate that our society is looking at a decline, but no, are probably not signs of an imminent catastrophic disintegration of society into a zombie apocalypse type state.

Coccidia is real.  You can’t just ignore it and hope it will go away; you have to know and look out for the warning signs and use the prescribed medication.   By the same token, there are some really awful women out there and being ignorant of some of the warning signs won’t make them go away.  And our country is definitely faring poorly under a liberal government and is in for some seriously tough financial and social times ahead, so prepare yourself.  It’s good to be informed about what to watch out for with coccidia, feminists, and our foolish liberal government.  But the world is not one giant coccidia heap, nor are all women feminists and whores, and we’re not likely to all be shooting one another over an egg anytime soon.  In fact, I suspect my zucchini vines could feed my entire town for a year if everyone would just take a few of them off my hands. 🙂

Use the internet as a source of information, but do try to keep things in perspective; it’s probably not quite as scary as the online ghost stories make it seem.

Dig, Roo, and Zuke

 

 

The antidote for craving sexual attention from random men on the street.

I rarely trouble myself with what feminists think or are saying anymore.  I am busy with my garden, managing the woods and pond, canning, and learning everything I can about permaculture, older methods of food preservation, and Christian agrarianism.  These tasks are satisfying and are like a soothing balm for a worried mind and troubled spirit.  Instead of going on the attack against the evils of feminism, these days I’d rather focus my energy on sharing the positive things I’ve learned about finding satisfaction and contentment as a woman through family relationships and laboring in the natural world.

However, I’ve decided to address, in as kind and gentle a way as I can, this article (found on AGP) by noted feminist author and speaker, Jessica Valenti.  Mrs. Valenti has written what I think is a very honest article about her ambivalence surrounding the lack of catcalls from men she receives now that she is 36.  I applaud her for acknowledging honestly that it bothers her that men on the street don’t pay sexual attention to older women the way they do with younger women.  She could have just said, “Good!  I’m glad they stopped now that I’m nearing middle age!” even though it wasn’t truly how she felt.  She writes:

…as much as I wish it didn’t, the thought of not being worth men’s notice bothers me. To my great shame, I assume I must look particularly good on the rarer days that I do get catcalled […]  do care in some way that sits uncomfortably with my politics – enough that it worries me to wonder how I’ll feel when I’m 45, or 65.

Although catcalling is a low-class behavior, women always crave male attention, and losing it never feels good, no matter what your politics are.  Women want to be desired by men, and this desire when properly constrained is good and serves a purpose when we are young in that it makes us receptive to the sometimes clumsy romantic advances of the young men who we may marry.  After that age, women don’t lose the desire to be praised by men but they must control that desire such that their husbands’ attentions are sufficient, lest they fall into temptation and sin.

The problem is that thanks to feminism, women are much more valued for their sexuality than anything else now.   This is ironic because I think the original goal was not to reduce women’s value in this way, but nevertheless that has sadly been the result.  This is one reason why pick up artistry can flourish when in the past it could not, especially among older women.

Previously, men praised older women for their contributions to their families and their homes.  Feminism made it passe and suspect for a woman to focus on her husband, children, and extended family and to find satisfaction and contentment in her service to them.  But men don’t care that much about women’s outside-the-home careers, even if they sometimes appreciate the money.

Mrs. Valenti has the unhappy habit of complaining bitterly about how much work women do.  She complains about how much work we do as mothers:

“Whether you call it Attachment Parenting, natural parenting, or simple maternal instincts, this false “return” to traditional parenting is just a more explicit and deliberate version of the often unnamed parenting gender divide. Whether you’re wearing you baby or not, whether you’re using cloth diapers or teaching your four-week-old to use the toilet; it’s still women who are doing the bulk of child care, no matter what the parenting philosophy. Putting a fancy name to the fact that we’re still doing all the goddamn work doesn’t make it any less sexist or unfair”

She complains about how much work we do at the holidays:

We all know that women do the majority of domestic work like child care, housework and cooking. But the holidays bring on a whole new set of gendered expectations that make the season less about simply enjoying fun and family and more about enduring consumerism, chores and resentment so that everyone else can enjoy rockin’ around the Christmas tree…Being the holiday point-person can be drudgery.

She complains non-stop about anything women do to serve their families.  This complaining about family service is the feminist way.  But what men value in women most, I believe, are these three things:

1. Our sexuality

2. Our ability to care for and nurture families

3. and our ability to be good companions.

So when second-wave feminists made it passe for women to find their primary satisfaction in caring for and nurturing families, that reduced women’s value to men to only two things: sexuality and companionship.  But now, with the non-stop complain-a-thon about how overworked they are in relation to their male partners, younger feminists (probably inadvertently) turn women into poor companions.  What man wants to seek companionship with someone who never stops complaining?  So that leaves women with one value to men: sexuality.

And what’s more, I think modern feminists sense this, which is why there has been such a push to frame it as powerful when modern young women allow themselves to be sexually used and discarded by multiple young men.  These young women are lost and confused (as are the young men, but that is another topic) and sense that their sexuality is now all they are really bringing to the table, so they heap it up, but it leaves them feeling broken and empty and even like they’ve been raped.

And then on top of all that, the attention starts to dry up around 35.  And then what?  When you know your sexuality – your biggest asset – is waning and you are a poor companion and you believe it is old-fashioned for a woman to find self-worth in her family, what are you left with?  You are left with nothing.  You are left like Mrs. Valenti, wishing that the guy on the street would look up and whistle at you, and you are rightly ashamed for wanting him to.

Mrs. Valenti knows something is wrong.  I wish she could drop the feminist narrative for a moment and really try to figure out exactly what is wrong, but she just never does.  I hope someday she will.  But for now, she writes:

But I do wish there was more nuance in conversations about aging, beauty standards and feminism

As if that would solve anything!  It wouldn’t.  Women will still want to be desired by men and men will still want women primarily for sex, families, and companionship, no matter how many nuanced conversations feminists have about the matter.  And so everyone is left much sadder and emptier than they would be if feminists would just admit that it is our (God-given) human nature.

The antidote for being an older woman craving sexual attention from random men on the street is to be an older woman who finds her satisfaction and contentment in being the cherished companion of the husband of her youth and in her unselfish care and service to her immediate and extended family.

 

The destructiveness of Beyoncé-n-Taylor feminism.

Feminism is not pro family-formation.

Yes, there are feminists who are married and have children, but the ideals feminists espouse (example: career-as-identity) discourage marriage and child-bearing. For a woman who doesn’t want marriage or children, it is no problem to end up unmarried and childless, but that isn’t how most women want to end up. The existence of many blogs and news stories about women in their forties who refused to settle down in their twenties because they were too busy with their careers and casual lovers but then couldn’t find anyone decent to marry in their thirties and are now bemoaning that fact while finding out belatedly that family really is what it’s all about shows us how detrimental feminism is to family-formation.

In 1976, when modern feminism was really getting into full swing, the childless rate for women ages 40-44 was about 10%; in 2006, after thirty years of feminism, the rate had exploded to 20% (it is important to note that this does not differentiate between voluntary and involuntary childlessness).  But interestingly, over the past several years (coincidentally the same time frame when there began to be a vocal push-back by women against feminism), the childless rate has begun to drop for women in the final years of their fertility and now is just over 16%. (source: http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/demo/p20-575.pdf)

I was speaking with a teenager recently and she took me to task, saying that the kinds of extreme feminism I’ve written about in the past isn’t how most feminists are nowadays. She assured me that feminism is only about believing that men and women are equal (she didn’t specify what “equal” means) and anyway didn’t I know that even Beyoncé and Taylor Swift are feminists?

I found this interesting; Lena Dunham is to my mind an excellent example of modern feminism and she is constantly embroiled in scandals such as making possibly false rape allegations (that were purposefully vague and led to a man who had nothing to do with it being attacked) and writing an anecdote that made it seem like she had molested her baby sister. Science Fiction author Vox Day refers to her as the Dunham Horror.  On top of that, she is the sort of modern-looking feminist – green-haired, crass, and tattooed – that is so unappealing to the sort of single man who might be interested in marriage and children:

She doesn’t exactly send out an “I’d make a great future mother of your children” vibe, does she?

 

And yet Lena Dunham is who Taylor Swift credits with turning her into a feminist:

“As a teenager, I didn’t understand that saying you’re a feminist is just saying that you hope women and men will have equal rights and equal opportunities. What it seemed to me, the way it was phrased in culture, society, was that you hate men. And now, I think a lot of girls have had a feminist awakening because they understand what the word means. For so long it’s been made to seem like something where you’d picket against the opposite sex, whereas it’s not about that at all. Becoming friends with Lena – without her preaching to me, but just seeing why she believes what she believes, why she says what she says, why she stands for what she stands for – has made me realize that I’ve been taking a feminist stance without actually saying so.”

Feminism does not actually just mean “you believe women and men should have equal opportunities,” as anyone who has read Feministing knows (Feministing is considered the go-to source for modern young feminists). Taylor may not know much about what feminism is, but one thing she does seem to know is that she is not planning on sacrificing any of her independence by getting married:

“I’ve learnt that just because someone is cute and wants to date you, that’s not a reason to sacrifice your independence and allow everyone to say what they want about you. I’m not doing that any more […]

It’d take someone really special for me to undergo the circumstances I have to go through to experience a date. I don’t know how I would ever have another person in my world trying to have a relationship with me, or a family. The best answer I can come up with now is, ‘go at it alone.’

It’s one thing for Taylor Swift to embrace feminism; in addition to being rich, beautiful, and talented, she has said she plans to “go at it alone” and she’s obviously happy with that (or says she is, anyway). But Young Woman, do you want to “go at it alone”? Do you like the idea of being unmarried and childless for life only without the, you know, incredibly glamorous lifestyle of a pop star?  Because embracing feminism will have real life consequences for you that Taylor Swift will never have to experience.

And it’s easy for someone like Beyoncé  – who uses her sexuality to sell her records, married fairly young and has a child – to parrot feminist talking points:

“I guess I am a modern-day feminist.  I do believe in equality. Why do you have to choose what type of woman you are? Why do you have to label yourself anything? I’m just a woman, and I love being a woman.  I do believe in equality and that we have a way to go, and it’s something that’s pushed aside and something that we have been conditioned to accept.”

Beyoncé, who’s married to rapper Jay-Z, 43, has been criticized for naming her upcoming world tour “The Mrs. Carter Show.” Her husband’s real name is Shawn Carter. “I feel like Mrs. Carter is who I am, but more bold and more fearless than I’ve ever been,” she said.

The “Single Ladies” and “Independent Women” singer says becoming a wife and mother to daughter Blue Ivy has contributed to the type of woman she is, despite those song titles.

“It comes from knowing my purpose and really meeting myself once I saw my child,” she said. “I was like ‘OK, this is what you were born to do.’ The purpose of my body became completely different.”

But for both Beyoncé and Taylor, feminism looks more like a public relations strategy than any sort of true political or philosophical conviction, and their public embracing of the feminist label is incredibly destructive because they influence a lot of young women who don’t have their options in life and who are at risk of missing out on having a family if they adopt a feminist outlook.

Young women: you are not Beyoncé, you are not Taylor Swift, and you don’t need feminism in order to accomplish any of your goals.  You are most likely average-pretty and, not to rain on your parade, while you very well may be smart, talented, and kind, you probably aren’t going to end up a superstar.  It’s okay to dream, but it’s important to also have a realistic life plan in mind. By the time you are in high school, you should be starting to consider seriously what your most important goals in life are. Here are some sample goals:

  1. Love and serve God in whatever way He calls me to do while always living in obedience to the Bible.
  2. Marry
  3. Have children.
  4. Work in ____________ job field.
  5. Get post-secondary education or training.
  6. Other goal(s):________________

You should be considering what your top 5-10 goals in life are, seeking wisdom from both God and the adults in your life, and ranking them from most to least important. You may want to get a degree from Harvard and also have three children, but if you could only pick one of those two goals, which one would you pick? Which one will give you the most happiness over the span of your life? I can’t answer that question for you, but you do need to think about what you want in this one brief lifetime before you enter God’s eternity and focus on achieving the goals that are most important to you. That doesn’t mean that goals further down the list can’t also be worked toward, but it does mean you need to focus the bulk of your time and attention on preparing yourself for your most important goals, especially if family-formation is one of them.