It is a reasonable inference that she and whatshisname are making a hash of rearing their children. Pity for the kids (and anyone who has to deal with their daughter later in life). It is certainly worth someone’s cares.

Hum…”I’ll give her “fool” and not “frightening” but the numbers of intellectual fools these days is frightening.” What, “intellectual fools”? is that code for aggregate demand in the copyright feminism “industrial” complex?

If you are obnoxious enough, and can persuade some belly editor to put it between hard covers, you touch a chord. The woman is a lapsed english teacher whose social research in its first instance was based on reading laddie magazines. What she was doing was a completely unserious enterprise.

Maybe the problem with Rosin’s analysis is that there aren’t any men to sample.

Of course, tens of millions of males in this country hold down regular jobs at every level of the economy and hold the vast majority of jobs which have vigorous operational measures of competence. Millions marry and have children each year. You talk like that and you forfeit the privilege of anything you say being taken seriously.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/hanna-rosin-abusing-her-children-on-video/

Because our society is configured around a Heideggerian celebration of self realization that echews instutions of masculine formation, that robust culture, as embodied by the Boy Scouts, a strong Catachetical Church Culture, masculine role models, is at best frayed, and probably better described as non-existent. Hence the apparent disparity between men and women in a knowledge economy.

We don’t have the institutions that once created good men, and so are lacking in good men. Welcome to the Seth Rogan generation.

What struck me about the review was that the reviewer, Homans, did not embrace the triumphalism of Rosin, while maintaining a somewhat ambiguous stance on the apparent liberation of women. Here the consequences are a disaster, there, women’s gains, while good, are not likely to last.That could be bad editing for it could mean that feminists are not altogether happy about the world they have they have been trying to produce. Back to Charles Murray who said that education women of the “success class” (my term) go to work, but otherwise live according to more traditional family values, figuring out what works and what doesn’t. Free love did not work out so well, for example, though certainly not all feminists were looking for that. In my day — long back, I admit it — it was a big question for women, should we ever marry and if we did should we insist on open marriage. What a mess. There was a lot of talk and those who followed through often found a lot of unhappiness. Call it the Germaine Greer/Erica Jong side of the movement, maybe. Don’t they mostly get over it?

The “who needs you” attitude of some feminists toward men does produce a lot of unhappiness. I don’t think anyone here disagrees with that. How much it has actually harmed society in a statistical way (a’ la Hymnowitz) is a good question, I think. It harms us. If people, women, too, on the Left are taking notice, then that’s good news, as it means improvement or progress against Progress and its unfortunate ends.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/manningup/