I date and I don’t like to move fast on dates (Ladies Again readers know about my victories and struggles in dating). Sometimes I get pressured to move fast and have sex, and this makes me uncomfortable and I’m not always sure of the most tactful way to respond. But every now and then, something reminds me to remember why I wait to have sex with someone or invite them to my home: They could give you a disease. They could leave you pregnant and alone. Or they could slice your head off and leave it in a recycling bin in Seattle.
I want to share news about what happened to Ingrid Lyne, a mother of three who was recently murdered after meeting a man for a date. She invited the man over to her house the last day that seen alive. It turns out that the man she was dating for one month had a long criminal rap sheet, which is something that a person might not reveal after just one month of dating. It is great that she waited to bring him over to her house, but you just never know if the person you’re dating is crazy.
Police and court records in Utah show Charlton was charged with first-degree felony aggravated robbery for a June 24, 2006, carjacking in Layton, a small city 15 miles south of Ogden. Layton police Lt. Travis Lyman told The Salt Lake Tribune on Tuesday that, according to a police report, a woman and her baby were in the back seat of a van while her husband was in a bookstore when Charlton ordered them out and stole the vehicle.
Police were alerted and the van was spotted on Interstate 15. An officer followed it to the parking lot of a Target store in Riverdale, Utah, where Charlton was arrested. Charlton agreed to plead guilty to a lesser count of attempted aggravated robbery and was sentenced to one to 15 years. Records show he served about 21 months before he was released on June 24, 2008.
My heart goes out to her children, who have lost their mother. My heart goes out to her family who have to pick up the pieces after her death.
Are you a young power woman who is working your way up the corporate ladder? Odds are you hate your job. As much as you talk about how fulfilling your job is, you hate the never-ending rat-race, the monotony of office life and the endless stream of upcoming meetings and projects. The truth is that you would probably be happier if you left the office and decided to have children and become a stay-at-home mother. Here’s why:
Your Uterus is Decaying
If you are a young woman and your goal is to have a family and children, you have to accept the reality that you cannot have it all at work and at home. If you are a young woman, you must choose between having a career and having a family because young women must consider the dating and fertility issues they will face if they put off family planning for too long. For each day that you go into the office to work full-time, that is one less day that you could be creating a family. The chance of a 30-year-old getting pregnant in one try is less than 30 percent, and is less than 10 percent for a 40-year-old woman. Additionally, women also have to accept that most young mothers would prefer to work part-time, so it makes sense to plan for a family that includes another spouse who works full-time.
Long Work Hours
It’s hard being an American worker, whether you’re male or female. We work some of the longest hours in the developed world. Our vacation allotments are short and our access to sick time is even shorter. If you are a woman who would like to work fewer hours, you can rest easy knowing that are not alone. One Pew study found that 53 percent of women say they do not have any interest in being the boss. According to another Pew study, 47 percent of mothers said that their ideal situation would be to work part-time. A ForbesWoman study found that out of all working women surveyed, 84 percent of working women say that they aspire to have the financial luxury to stay home to raise children. One in three women resent their partners for not earning enough to make that dream a reality. Forget about Sheryl Sandberg’s advice about “leaning in,” most working women actually want to opt out.
What is the worse office politics battle that you’ve waged? Take a second to think about it. Did an argument about a stapler or the coffee machine end with someone going to human resources? You have never seen pettiness or immaturity like you have seen in an office battle. And unfortunately, it is usually the case that the pettiest, most passive-aggressive workers are the first ones to get ahead in the workplace.
Meetings and More Meetings
You want to publish a story on a new report, so you have a meeting to discuss the marketing process for the publication. But since the release won’t happen for a few months, you schedule a brainstorming meeting to get staff members ready for the official launch meeting. Everyone can’t make the brainstorming meeting because of scheduling conflicts, so you plan a pre-brainstorming meeting. You have the pre-brainstorming meeting, but some of your talkative coworkers dominate the conversation, so you schedule a secretive brainstorming meeting that only has the colleagues who are known for getting things done. In this secretive meeting, you and your private confidants decide it may be best to hire a meeting consultant to help your firm make sure the official brainstorming meeting goes smoothly. What’s not to love about all of these meetings?
Day-to-day is Boring
Honestly, how much work do you actually do everyday? Is it possible for you to complete the majority of your daily tasks in 2-3 hours? Can you do the bulk of your work from home? Admit it, you don’t need to go through the headache of waking up early, showering and commuting to and from work just to do 2-3 hours of actual work every day.
Dealing with Bullshitters
The office is full of professionals who double-talk in magic speak. They use lofty language about “capacity building,” “sustained actions” and “dynamic public interest.” An actual sentence said at a recent meeting: “We want to find the essence of our communications foundation and broader-based interest discussions with our brand.” Enough with all of the engagement!
So what is a young woman to do? Focus more on building a stable family with a decent, loving man. It will bring you more happiness that dedicating your best years to office politics and wage enslavement.
I’m quite positive that if you interviewed most people on the street in a developed country, they would say they believe that women should have the full spectrum of civil and social equalities that are afforded to men. And yet, studies show that the majority of people are turned off by feminists. In CBS’ study of 1,150 U.S. adults, 65 percent of women and 58 percent of men identified as feminist when an equal-rights definition was provided, but only 24 percent of women and 14 percent of men considered themselves “feminist” in the absence of a definition.
I’m in the latter group―I would rather call myself an “antifeminist” or an “equality feminist” before I would ever identify as a “feminist.” Why? Because the latest generation of feminists has proven themselves to be nonsensical and hysterical in every way imaginable. They are fueling the public relations problem that is plaguing their cause. Here’s what’s wrong with our generation of feminists:
They Are Biodenialists
For years, some of the most vocal third-wave feminists have flat-out denied the existence of basic biological differences between men and men. They believe that, despite all scientific evidence to the contrary, gender is a concept created and enforced by society. Thus, they believe that infants are born with a psychological blank slate, and that gender roles are forced upon them. Their dismissal of evolutionary psychology flies in the face of physiology and evolutionary scientists (mind you, many of the world’s outspoken feminist leaders are neither scientists nor psychologists). For a list of evolutionary studies on sex differences, see “Giving Feminism a Bad Name” by Barry X. Kuhle.
Feminists are Misandrists
Feminists are obsessed with proving that men are rapists, sexual harassers and controlling oppressors. I’m not sure why they hate men so much. To prove that men are awful, they use inaccurate statistics about rape, workplace discrimination and sexual exploitation. They say: “Men are raping because of the rape culture!” Actually the number of rapes in the U.S. is falling every year. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), between 1997 and 2013, the rate of rape or sexual assault against women dropped by 50 percent. They say: “Women make 70 cents for every dollar that men make.” The 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time, and it does not account for DIFFERENCES in occupations, positions, education, job tenure or hours worked per week. Women tend to work in low-paying jobs and in part-time positions; men tend to work in high-risk jobs, which offer higher pay.
Writer and scholar Christina Hoff Sommers summarized the misandry touted by feminists best when she said: “The idea that American men are annually enslaving more than 100,000 girls, sending millions of women to emergency rooms, sustaining a rape culture and cheating women out of their rightful salary creates rancor in true believers and disdain in those who would otherwise be sympathetic allies.”
Who would want to be associated with a group of loud, angry and masculine women who pout and whine about the smallest transgressions? Feminists are perpetually offended. I have personally never met an emotionally stable woman who identified as a feminist. They mobilize over petty issues because they have nothing better to do. They have done everything from shut down small-town coffeeshops, to chastised rocket scientists about their shirts, to picked on talented musical artists. One feminists remarked that she feels angry all the time. It would be great if feminists just moved to an island by themselves…and stayed there.
Contradictory and Hypocritical
Feminist ideals can be contradictory and confusing. Take for example their views on domestic violence. Feminists believe that gender is a social construct, yet a man is a horrible monster if he hits a woman because she is a a defenseless creature (even in instances when the woman provokes the man). What happened to the idea that a woman can do anything a man can do, even physically? One of the most obvious examples of the hypocrisy of feminists can be seen in the SlutWalks that they host in cities worldwide. First they demand that women are not objectified for their bodies in the media. Then they walk naked in SlutWalks, where they proclaim that they can be promiscuous and walk around naked if they chose to. They are contradictory even amongst themselves at these SlutWalks―some women say that it is disrespectful to call whorish women sluts, while others where their “slut” titles like badges of honor. Huh? I’m not the only one who is confused.
They Have Shallow Visions of Equality
According to feminists, equality has not been reached until there are equal numbers of men and women in important key positions. They want to see that half of Congress is female, half male; half of the Fortune 500 should be female, according to them. But what if women have no interest in taking those important positions, such as political or business leaders? After all, most women would not want to take on stressful jobs in finance, business, medicine or law that include long working hours that pull her away from her family. Also, has it ever occurred to them that men might naturally excel in some jobs in ways that women do not? Worse, why aren’t feminists upset that ALL industries are not more diverse, such as those that are dangerous and difficult, such as waste management, forestry, construction and law enforcement? Feminists only care about making sure that women are well-represented in cushy, high income jobs.
They Believe They Speak for ALL Women
Feminists believe that they speak for all women, as if we all support free birth control, abortion rights and special workplace privileges for women. We don’t. They typically lean left, and not all women share their liberal views about how the world should work.
I hate going to the doctor’s, but I dragged myself to see a doctor last week to check out a rash (it was harmless) and get an annual physical exam. As usual, the doctor spent a few minutes trying to convince me to go on birth control. I refused for a litany of reasons, the first being that I do not see the benefits of permanently altering my hormones when I’m not in a relationship or sexually active. I explained to the doctor that I tried birth control in the past, and I ended up with persistent acne as a result. She shrugged slightly (who cares about having severe acne right?) and said that I didn’t need to take hormonal birth control because there are other options. She then, trying to further convince me to go on the Pill, asked me what I would do if I found out I was pregnant in the next year. I said that it would be great, seeing as though I’m already 27 years old and my eggs are going to go bad in a few years. Then she stopped pestering me about the Pill.
I always thought it was strange that doctors have tried to convince me to get on birth control, but I didn’t understand how bizarre it was until I reviewed my medical bill and saw that the doctor listed our birth control conversation as a medical service!
The bill said:
You Were Diagnosed with: Encounter for contraceptive surveillance
At no point did I ask to have a birth control conversation with my doctor. Why did the office bill my insurance company for that conversation? What in the world is going on? How does a doctor benefit from convincing a woman to go on birth control? Blood clots have been linked to hormonal birth control pills, not to mention strokes, heart attacks and high blood pressure as potential side effects. I remember having mood swings when I took birth control. It turns out that I wasn’t imagining things. Birth control has been shown to cause depression in those who are prone to it.
What’s worse is that hormonal birth control can impact your ability to attract and connect with the right partner. A study from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science followed 118 couples who met while the woman was on hormonal birth control and found that going off the pill impacted how attracted she was to her partner. Why would a doctor want to push a drug that causes all of these side effects on a young woman? And why wouldn’t the doctor at least mention the very serious risks of taking birth control?
Family practice medical practitioners tend to have liberal ideologies (see the graphic), and nonprofit doctors are more likely to support Democrats. After all, the birth control Nazi doctor is located at a non-profit women’s clinic in a low-income neighborhood. In San Francisco, Calif. Yeah, I shouldn’t really be shocked by her behavior…
I’ve also noticed that it is only the female doctor’s that push birth control on me, never any male doctors. It could be that the female doctors are hard-line career-driven pants-pushers and they are not able to fathom having children willy nilly. So, they are then trying to push their same “work first, love second” ideology on me.
Their behavior is offensive on several levels:
First, they are assuming that I am having reckless or premarital sex. Contraception makes it easier to have sex outside marriage. By pushing birth control, the doctor is trying her best to support what is essentially immoral behavior.
Second, doctors are also assuming that I am interested in putting a harmful substance into my body without taking a second thought.
Finally, birth control prevents potential human beings from being conceived, which I may think is morally wrong.
Next time I go to in for a doctor’s visit, I’m going to watch my back.
The level of “false outrage” and political correctness on college campuses has surpassed all levels of idiocy. If social justice warriors and logical people are in a war for the minds of young and impressionable people, the crazy social justice warriors are winning. Want examples? California recently passed a bill to stop campus rape culture by telling grown adults to affirm whether they want to have consensual sex by saying “Yes” like a robot before each sexual activity.
An angry mob of protestors officially ended racism last month when they forced a University of Missouri chancellor to quit because someone driving past the school shouted the N-word. Yale students wanted to fire a professor for arguing that students are old enough to wear whatever Halloween costume they want to wear. The idiots are winning, and they think that they are actually believe that they are making meaningful changes.
The crazy people are winning and they are taking over our colleges, news outlets and entertainment centers. This is why we all need to do a better job to support blogs, magazines and authors who argue for traditional, commonsense ideals about family structures and gender relationships. Blogs like Reason Magazine, JudgyBitch and Return of Kings. And especially Ladies Again. Please join me in donating and subscribing to those outlets. You can also start to dismantle the liberal power structure by boycotting their businesses. Turn off the news. I have already unsubscribed from mainstream news outlets like The Washington Post, NPR and The New York Times. I can’t even read Psychology Today any longer, which was one of my favorite outlets, without seeing in-depth news articles about heroic “transgender activists.” Now, I get my political news from niche outlets, like Roll Call (and I have no interest in voting Democratic any time soon).
You can also vote and share videos and news stories that bring light to all of the madness from the social justice warriors. Here are a few of my favorites–share them at will:
I love men for their strength and courage, and I think it’s unfortunate that so many of today’s mainstream bloggers and columnists seem obsessed with pointing out all of the things that men are doing wrong, such as promoting “rape culture,” objectifying women or refusing to “man up.” I am sick of seeing feminists depict men as simple-minded creatures who are only capable of raping and dominating poor and defenseless women.
If you listen to all of the anti-male rhetoric spewing out of Hillary Clinton or her online cult followers, it is easy to believe that the world would be better off if men were eliminated. The truth is that men contribute to society in profound ways. They build our roads, they build our homes, they fight to protect us in wars, they keep us safe. For instance, none of the 9/11 rescue workers were women.
I did not fully appreciate the contributions that men make to society until I took a walk on the Brooklyn Bridge in New York City. Putting my hand on the bridge, I could feel the power of the structure, and I wondered how many men risked their lives to build the bridge years ago. It turns out that between 20 to 50 men were estimated to have died from various causes while building the bridge―not a single women died, or even got injured, making the bridge. It’s easy to say that women did not make any any contributions to the development of the bridge because of historical workplace discrimination. That assumption is wrong―it has been more than 130 years since the Brooklyn Bridge first opened, and men are still taking on the riskiest jobs in the world. In the United States, more than 4,300 men died in 2014(pdf) at work, while only 359 women lost their lives at work that year. Men continue to take on the jobs women will not even consider, such as plumbing, carpentry, forestry, waste management and roofing.
Here are just a few of the ways that men contribute today to society:
In a recent interview, Meryl Streep was asked if she was a feminist and was quoted as saying, “I am a humanist. I am for nice, easy balance.” She is not the only high-profile female celebrity distancing herself from the controversial ideology of feminism. Susan Sarandon told The Guardian when asked about her affiliation with feminism, “I think of myself as a humanist, because I think it’s less alienating.” Other celebrities have made similar statements in recent times, and feminist extremists, in true form, have aggressively attacked these women for selling out an ideology that supposedly encourages woman’s right to choose. Apparently that right to choose does not include a right to choose your own opinions.
Although, I do not agree with a lot of what the online news source The Frisky says, I do agree with writer Rebecca Brink’s , statements on feminism:
“The feminist internet tends to imply that feminism is just a set of beliefs, not a way of behaving or a set of tactics…But no: Feminism is also a way of behaving, a way of living, and a set of tactics…This is true for any ideology or religion – if you want change, you can’t just have beliefs; the point is that you also act on them. This is why Gandhi fasted and Martin Luther King Jr. engaged in non-violence.”
Feminism is an aggressive, unilateral movement, no matter how their supporters try to spin it. A movement towards what, though? Brink, Streep, Sarandon have all distanced themselves from this movement, because (as Brink points out in her article) modern feminism is full of bullying and power grabbing and most of the time does little if anything to support women who are most in need, such as impoverished or abused women. This includes women in third world countries, as well as homeless women and women in poverty here in America, military widows and orphans. Modern feminism lacks the compassion and substance of great successful movements of the past. Instead, it focuses on increasing unhealthy permissiveness for those who don’t need it, such as middle and upper class white women.
Do not get me wrong, I am not saying that middle- and upper-class white women have absolutely no problems deserving of sympathy. However, feminists are forgetting the ultimate impact that their policies have on society’s most vulnerable women. How do low-income women benefit from sexual promiscuity, abortions and male-hating rhetoric? If anything, those women are most in need of male support for their security and legacy in the world. There is no benefit to encouraging underprivileged women to reject the men in their lives when they need that dual income to raise children and support themselves and their families. There is not benefit in the sexual liberation of third world women who primarily need to be concerned with the personal health and welfare of themselves and their families. These are the issues of the feminist elite who are controlling the voice of the feminist movement right now. Fortunately, as Sarandon and Streep are displaying, many of these women are beginning to wise up to the consequences of this divisive and hazardous ideology. Do you identify as a feminist? Why or why not?
Do we still need marriage? If you asked my younger self (say, five years ago), she would say “no, marriage is a completely rigid and confining institution that has outlived its usefulness.” My thought process was this: Why get married to one person when you may fall in love with five or six people in your lifetime? Why commit so much of your life to one person? What makes them that special? Now that I’m older (in my mid-twenties), I disagree strongly with those sentiments about marriage and commitment.
As I’ve aged a bit, I’ve learned that marriage supports financial stability, provides a strong foundation for child-rearing and encourages individuals to think about the needs and wants of other people besides themselves. I came to understand the value of marriage by observing the relationship successes and mistakes of some of my friends and relatives. Though I’ve had the pleasure of seeing a few happily married relatives grow blissfully gray with their spouses, I’ve also seen a few friends struggle to accept the reality that they will raise their children as single mothers.
While I’m glad to have realized the value of marriage while I am still in my twenties, I also have to acknowledge that it’s a bit sad that it took me so long to come around. After all, young people of previous generations understood the benefits of marriage long before they hit their mid-twenties. Could it be that our society is not doing enough to educate young people on the benefits of marriage? Or am I just late to the “marriage is great” party?
These were the questions I carried with me when I went to “I Do…I Don’t: The Future of Marriage,” a panel discussion hosted not long ago by the conservative-leaning Independent Women’s Forum (IWF) in Washington, D.C. During the event, panelists discussed the validity of the nation’s declining “marriage crisis” and explored the value of marriage to children and the general well-being of society. Speakers included Isabel V. Sawhill, co-director of the Center on Children and Families at the Brookings Institution, Kay S. Hymowitz, William E. Simon Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and W. Bradford Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia and coauthor of Gender and Parenthood: Biological and Social Science Perspectives.
I Do…I Don’t Event
According to the experts, marriage is not in the decline it once was in, though today’s marital rates can be improved greatly. Divorce rates have dropped in the last 20 years―roughly 33 percent of U.S. marriages end in divorce, which is much lower than the widely-shared statistic that 50 percent of marriages end in divorce. The divorce rate may continue to fall. According to data compiled from the U.S. Census, 65 percent of marriages started in the 1970s and 1980s reached their 15th anniversary, while 70 percent of couples married in the 1990s celebrated their 15th-year anniversaries.
So, divorce rates are not as bad as we thought. But for poor women or young and vulnerable children, the U.S. marriage rates are disturbing. Marriage rates in the U.S. are also falling: In 1970 about 74 marriages happened annually for every 1,000 unmarried women; by 2012, the marriage rate declined by nearly 60 percent, dropping to 31 marriages per 1,000 unmarried women by 2012, according to the National Center for Family and Marriage Research (pdf) at Bowling Green State University. Four out of every ten children are born to unmarried women. Here’s a few fast facts about single motherhood:
Unmarried mothers generally have lower incomes, lower education levels, and are more likely to be dependent on welfare assistance compared with married mothers. Children born to unmarried mothers are more likely to grow up in a single-parent household, experience unstable living arrangements, live in poverty, and have socio-emotional problems.
As these children reach adolescence, they are more likely to have low educational attainment, engage in sex at a younger age, and have a birth outside of marriage. As young adults, children born outside of marriage are more likely to be idle (neither in school nor employed), have lower occupational status and income, and have more troubled marriages and more divorces than those born to married parents. Children born to cohabiting parents experience higher levels of socioeconomic disadvantage, and fare worse across a range of behavioral and emotional outcomes than those born to married parents.
During the discussion, Sawhill expressed her concerns about the ways that children are impacted by the decline in marriage: “If we care about kids, we need to go upstream―meaning we need to think about what happens before a child is born, not after a child is born.” Throughout her talk, Sawhill advocated for more accessible forms of birth control.
“The nation’s retreat from marriage may be declining,” said Wilcox. “The data suggests that marriage’s death may have been exaggerated.”
Stating that cohabitation is not stable, Wilcox provided insight to the impact of marriage on adult men, as well as young boys.
“Studies show that boys benefit from being in a two-person married home,” he said, citing studies on the subject. “Boys respond negatively to father exits from the home…Marriage makes men work harder and more successfully.”
Hymowitz took the conversation in another direction by pontificating on the evolutionary history of marriage.
“Every person has a societal interest in attaching men to the children they sired,” she said. “If men weren’t attached to their children, then they wouldn’t be breadwinners. We have to account for body differences: some high-testosterone men have sex with many women and some tend to be violent―society has an interest in channeling that energy…To solve these social problems, society came up with the institution of marriage. It allows men and women to have sex without creating abandoned babies. It also gives us a sense of meaning.”
“The breakdown of the marriage script has caused a raft of problems,” she added. “The breakdown of marriage has destroyed communities and turned men from providers to visitors at best…There is still mobility in this country, but it is much more common in married households.”
“The real problem at this point is that [marriage] is alive but only among college educated couples, and it’s created a big divide. We’re at a crossroad of marriage and child-rearing that is a threat to our sense of equality.”
Set A High Bar
Good advice all around, but now what? How can society better incentivize marriage for young people? What are young single men and women supposed to do once they decide they want to get married? I spoke to Wilcox, the marriage research expert, after the panel discussion ended, and asked him how young women should search for husbands in today’s current hookup culture.
His advice? Set a high bar.
“Set a high bar for yourself and you will meet others who have a high bar as well. Get involved in churches, synagogues and volunteer opportunities to meet great men with high bars.”
The best way to eliminate the gender pay gap? Ban salary negotiations.
Caitlyn Jenner: I was ‘mistreated’ by Kris Jenner
Women’s Soccer Is a Feminist Issue
The Price of Caitlyn Jenner’s Heroism
This may come as a shock, but each of the article references above came from reputable news outlets (the first two articles were taken from the pages of The Washington Post, the third from The Atlantic and the final article from The New York Times). These news outlets used to be world-renown for their investigative coverage of the country’s most pressing issues, such as government corruption, war crimes, white-collar criminals, gentrification or political astroturfing.
I implore all Ladies Again readers to document bias in the media by using the hashtag #tagthebias.
Instead, today’s journalists at high-profile news agencies are choosing to forgo coverage of hard-hitting news subjects to cover made-up gender issues, such as the “rape culture,” the “sexual harassment in the workplace,” or “pay discrimination” against women―all “issues” that have been debunked by research). Reporters at traditional news outlets are unabashedly using their publications as mouthpieces to push their own ultra-liberal, feminist and pro-gay political agendas. In the mainstream media, opposing views to the liberal agenda are either ignored or categorized as sexist, racist, insensitive or homophobic. Ethical journalism is at an all-time low.
If you are a regularly reader of a mainstream news publication, it’s rare that you read a news issue that does not include at least one article that promotes the value of gay marriage, transsexual rights or chastises a political leader or celebrity for making comments about women or dating. And news agencies are pushing their agenda without any shame―in March 2014, Time magazine put a transsexual on the cover of their magazine.
Earlier this year, The Washington Post put Hillary Clinton on the cover with a halo behind her―of course, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Ben Carson did not receive the same “halo” treatment when they announced their bids for presidency. Conservative opinions are rarely included by the country’s largest news agencies. The bias in the media extends beyond political leaders—workaholics (and liberals) Sheryl Sandberg and Sonya Sotomayor are praised as “strong” heroines by the press, yet conservative business and political leaders like Penelope Trunk and Condoleezza Rice are not praised for their work ethics.
As a journalist, my question is this: Why are news outlets investing so much energy in promoting fringe feminist ideals or gay rights when the media industry is falling apart? Shouldn’t they worry about covering actual news? The general public does not even agree with their feminist sentiments: In a study, only 24 percent of women and 14 percent of men considered themselves to be a “feminist” in the absence of a definition of the word. Nearly forty percent of all Americans say that they do not support gay marriage.
The media industry cannot afford to continue this nonsense. According to the American Society of News Editors, full-time newspaper newsroom staffing shrunk 30 percent from 2003 through 2012. Local corruption stories are likely not getting covered: A Pew report finds that the number of full-time statehouse reporters dropped by 35 percent between 2003 and 2014—a loss of 164 jobs. News agencies are losing money each day. The New York Times reported in 2014 that their total revenue decreased 0.6 percent, to $388.7 million, from $391 million in the period a year earlier, largely because of a 4.1 percent decline in advertising revenue. Net income decreased from more than $20 million to $9 million in the second quarter of 2013.
I am not sure what news agencies are doing, but it is time that the public call out media agencies for wasting valuable print space on liberal fringe ideas. Why? The media has tremendous power in setting cultural guidelines and in shaping political discourse. According to the national media watch group FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting), it is essential that news media are challenged to be fair and accurate. According to FAIR, the first step in challenging biased news coverage is documenting bias. FAIR provides a blueprint of questions that the public should ask themselves when they come across newspaper, magazine, television and radio news:
Who are the sources?
From whose point of view is the news reported?
Are there double standards?
Do stereotypes skew coverage?
What are the unchallenged assumptions?
Is the language loaded?
Is there a lack of context?
Do the headlines and stories match?
Are stories on important issues featured prominently?
I implore all Ladies Again readers to document bias in the media by sharing a photo of the news article on Tumblr and Twitter using the hashtag #tagthebias. We’re sharing a few examples below:
I have struggled with weight for most of my life. In fact, that is the topic of a series of articles that I have been writing about here on Ladies Again. In light of this process, I research weight loss topics online a lot. Recently I found that in 2005 researchers in the United Kingdom published a study that the Body Mass Index (BMI) men find most attractive in women is 20.85. They concluded that at a BMI of 20.85 women were more likely to “find a perfect match”. I found this very significant, because 3 years ago I lost 70 pounds. In researching for the transformation, I did a photo blog about celebrities who are my height and how much they weigh. The purpose of doing so was to get an idea of what I would look like at different weights.
Now with this new revelation, I feel it is important for me to reconsider my criteria for my ideal weight. Back then, I analyzed celebrities that were extreme in their weights as well as celebrities I found beautiful or who were A-list celebrities to develop my sense of what weight looks like. Some of the women I considered were: Jennifer Aniston, Kate Hudson, Meghan Fox, Jennifer Lopez and Beyonce. The study identified an example of the perfect body at the time of the study belonged to Venus Williams!
This is significant, because the tennis star and her sister have often gotten a lot of flack from people (especially fellow tennis player Maria Sharapova) who say their bodies are too muscular and not feminine. In fact, BMI is calculated using your weight and height alone, and does not take into account your body fat percentage, which could dramatically change your appearance since muscle weighs more than fat! (So, a person could be heavier, but look leaner if they were more muscular than a person at the same weight whose body had more fat) This is viewed as a major flaw in this method of health measurement and has even been the basis of racial bias claims in health measures.
Using a BMI calculator I determined that at 5’6″ my ideal weight to get married would be 129.2 lbs. With this is mind, I have concluded that the women I analyzed earlier did not have ideal bodies. Surprisingly, even well-sought-after women who grace the covers of men’s magazines, such as Jessica Alba (19.4) and Scarlet Johansson (22.3), do not have ideal bodies according to this study.
As I said before, in 2010, I was going through a process of trying to change the way I thought about my body and food. For this, I started doing research into what celebrities weigh. I did this, because I (and many other young women) had ambitions to look like any of our favorite celebrities. So, I did a google search and came up with this website that revealed the heights and weights of different celebrities. I then, compiled a list of all those who were 5’6″ (like me). The following is the list that resulted in 2010 (figures are subject to change by now, I’m sure!).
Looking back, I now see that many of these women (who later became my role models) had body types that were not very consistent with what the average person even finds attractive. I suppose there are questions we should ask ourselves. Not so much about unrealistic expectations for women, but maybe those of us who are looking to the celebrities for our body inspiration, should consider what our long term goals are, because if it is attracting the perfect mate, science says that these women’s bodies are not ideal for achieving that.
The following list are among the women I once looked up to for weight inspiration. All celebrities are 5’6″ unless otherwise indicated:
And just for the hell of it…
What do you think? Do you feel that celebrities are realistic role models for women trying to lose weight?