Is this Guy Serious? Steve Waldman Debates What Bristol Should Have Been Forced to Do

Can all the male pontificators on women’s reproductive choices just stand back a bit, please?

The latest example of male pontificators sitting in judgment on women’s choices in regard to
marriage and childbearing is Steve Waldman on BeliefNet.  Waldman makes
a rash of judgments about Bristol Palin’s decisions to keep rather than give her baby up for adoption, and her decision to break off her engagement.  While I realize men are part of the equation here at the "social conversation level," it feels more than a little frustrating and also very patronizing to have a constant stream of upper-class (mostly-but-not-all white) guys pontificating–and tripping over themselves with contradictions in the process–on what women should do about a pregnancy.

First, he asks if Sarah Palin and her husband should have "required" Bristol and former fiance Levi Johnston to seek marriage counseling before breaking up.

1) What is the obligation of a couple to try to make a marriage or a
relationship work? I’m dying to know: did Sarah Palin require that they
get marriage counseling before breaking up?

2) If a mother chooses to carry a baby to term, under what circumstances should she consider putting him up for adoption?

On the first point: If they realized jointly or she or he realized separately that they did not want to be married, why would they go to marriage counseling?  Marriage counseling is for people who want to be married to each other, or are married to each other and want to work out problems.   Not for people who have decided, "hey, I don’t want to be with you," or "I don’t love you," or "this is not right for me" or whatever the reason.  Is Waldman suggesting–inherently–that shotgun marriages are the way to
go?  It was clear from the beginning that this was not necessarily a
"match made in heaven."  So it is no shocker to the rest of us that this did not last.  In any case, it’s Bristol’s choice.

But Steve Waldman is "dying to know."  Why is this his business?  Could this be any more intrusive?  I may not like Sarah Palin’s politics (I don’t) but I respect, honor and defend her–and Bristol’s–rights to privacy.   Why do we need the neighborhood busybody involved?

And what is with all the assumptions about what did or did not happen?  What does Waldman know about what has transpired in the interim?  What does he know about Bristol and Levi’s relationship?  He assumes, presumably without evidence given his own question, that Bristol does not know what is good for her in breaking off the engagement (she obviously does not want to marry this guy), and also assumes that no discussion on this issue has taken place within the Palin family.  Where does he get that from?  He further assumes that any marriage is better than no marriage for "the child."  This is not for him to decide and is not borne out by evidence.  Children that grow up in homes with conflict and unhappiness are no better off and can be much worse off than children who grow up in single parent households, especially those run by functional mothers with extended family support. 

And part of being a functional adult means taking care of yourself and your emotional health first and foremost and having the maturity and personal strength needed to care for a child.  Bristol appears to have her head on straight.  From what little I have seen of her, she seems to be saying "I am in charge of my life, these are my decisions, I know what I am doing, and let’s move on." Why this constant vigilance about her decisions?  Is it so hard to treat her as the functional young woman she appears to be?

Waldman then goes on to make the same mistake most male pontificators do when they talk about women, pregnancy, abortion, or adoption.  He "assumes" the woman or her family just have not considered all the options, and very helpfully suggests what Bristol should be thinking.

He states:

"Seriously, I don’t know when adoption is the right approach and I’m not
trying to cast aspersions at Bristol’s suitability. But it seems that a
decent argument can be made that when you have someone who is a)
unmarried and b) a teenager, that those would be the circumstances in
which putting a child up for adoption ought to be considered. So yes, I
would ask the same question about African American unwed teen mothers,

Does he know, perhaps through a special Google Earth listening device aimed at the Palin home, that adoption was not "considered?"  Even if it was, does he then have the right to question Bristol’s own right not to give her child up for adoption?  Why is it that people feel so free to "assume" women just haven’t really thought through all their options, the ethics, their own moral position, the consequences, what is good for them and their own families?  If someone chooses abortion, the "judgmentalists" assume they simply did not consider all their choices (you could bring the baby to term and keep it!  you could give it up for adoption!……gee, really?).  Now, if someone does bring a pregnancy to term and decides to keep their own baby, the judgmentalists are going to question that decision?

If Bristol had gotten pregnant and had an abortion, and had that leaked to the press during the campaign, the election would have been over long before the Katie Couric interview hit YouTube.   Bristol made the choice–her choice I presume from what she says–to continue the pregnancy and have a baby.  Why does Waldman think he has a right to publicly to sit in judgment on whether, when, and whom she marries?

Can the men not involved in Bristol’s life step back and let her make her own way?  Respect and recognize her moral agency as a woman and a mother? Letting Bristol exercise her own judgment about her life and her baby would be a whole heckuva lot better for Bristol and her child than having play-by-play judgement calls and analysis on BeliefNet from a referee not anywhere near the field of play.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

For more information or to schedule an interview with contact

Follow Jodi Jacobson on twitter: @jljacobson

  • invalid-0

    out of the room screaming now
    I can no longer take this paternalistic BS

  • invalid-0

    out of the room screaming now
    I can no longer take this idocy

  • invalid-0

    I’ll quit now-promise

  • invalid-0

    Not to worry, A. You’ve expressed what we all are thinking.

    I dunno where the Bible Thumpers think their authority to butt into the personal relationships of private American citizens comes from…but these folks also ought to remember their rabid support for the 2A…as Sarah may go all Alaskan Grizzley Grandma on their sorry asses. I would, and these days, I’m a flaming commie.

  • invalid-0

    I really feel for Bristol, even though I do not like her mom’s politics. It takes an extroidnary amount of courage to be a single mother, even with all of the best support from your family, which I will give her parents some credit for. Bristol has become the unofficial and undesiring poster girl for abstinence only education’s failures. Yet she is someone who should be seen by other young girls so that they understand the full consequences of not using birth control when they choose to have sex, but have fantasies that if they get pregnant, they will have someone to love them, or that then he will marry me. Babies are needy. Relationships that last the rest of your lives (marriage) is a needy institution. The reality is that you have to give, give, give, at a time when you should be focusing on yourself- your education, your social experiences,and business opportunities. Bristol can help squelch some of those fantasies. I wish Bristol all of the best. Yet those who advocate that she should have put the baby up for adoption instead of raising it herself, so that some infertile male/female couple could raise it, infuriates me. We women are NOT wombs for infertile couples desires for children! If a woman decides to go through the pregnancy just to give it away, that is HER choice, a valid one, but HER choice alone.

  • invalid-0

    I hold the somewhat unpopular belief that marriage and childrearing in a patriarchy is and always will be inherently unequal, no matter how enlightened or feminist the couple think they are. Marriage and the famblee are the vehicles through which the patriarchy propagates itself. Also, the planet does not need any more children. No, I don’t care how much you want them. I was taught to value my identity and independence, and I couldn’t see it being swallowed whole by mothering and wifing, or whatever its called in our lovely post-feminist society (snort). My apathy has grown so strong that a few people have stopped talking to me since I couldn’t raise more than a weak smile when they tell me of their upcoming nuptials or their pregnancy, or because I clearly disliked being around children. I’ve ended relationships over it. I cannot think of anything more miserable than marriage and breeding. Bristol Palin cannot win, no matter what she does. She’s already in the trap of a baby, the P just wants to garnish the shit cake with an unhappy marriage.

  • invalid-0

    …is that this is the second piece of good sense I’ve heard out of Bristol Palin in the past 30 days. They should have put her on the ballot* instead of her mother.

    *I know, I know, age requirements.

  • invalid-0

    I’m sure there are lots of people who really do want to “reduce the number of abortions,” but in our work on crisis pregnancy centers (funded by those at BeliefNet and LifeSite and all that jazz), we’ve found that to be false. If a woman enters a CPC and says she’s carrying to term, they’re happy. But once she mentions she’s not married and wants to parent, they call her “selfish”.
    It’s not enough that Bristol chose to carry to term, oh no. And when she was “planning on marrying” that racist scumbag it was okay. But oh my god she broke of the engagement and wants to be a single mother! (Hey, I don’t blame her… single motherhood will be A LOT easier for the daughter of the gov!) No marriage? No adoption? UNACCEPTABLE, they cry! Proves “abortion reduction” is a BS front for “live your life the way we want.”

  • invalid-0

    This is a good article except that I don’t think Steve Waldman is really “a man in Bristol’s life”. I think he’s just a commentator. My parents had a nasty divorce when I was seven. This baby is better off never having to deal with that. Not getting married doesn’t necessarily mean that the child will never have visitation with his Dad but even if he doesn’t it sounds like he has a good Mom who is being a responsible parent and at least two grandparents who want to help them both. I think this is one thing we can all agree on. This child will be just fine and I resent the push for adoption when its clear the child has a Mom and grandparents who are willing to provide for him and give him a good home. He may have lost his Dad, (which is sad) but seperating him from his Mom as well would be about the worst thing anyone could do at this point. My comments are usually not popular on rhrealitycheck ,but my hat’s off to you because you have never prevented me from posting.

  • jodi-jacobson

    Thanks for your post, and of course we never would discourage you from posting. While we may disagree on some or many things, and agree on many others, the purpose of the site is discussion.


    I believe all people should have access to the education, information, services and methods they need to engage in healthy sexual lives, which means choosing pregnancy and childbirth, avoiding infection, choosing to be pregnant when they so desire, and avoiding pregnancy when they so desire.


    I believe also that if a woman becomes pregnant, she has a right to choose to carry her pregnancy to term and keep her child, carry her pregnancy to term and give the child to another family for adoption, or terminate the pregnancy if that is her choice.


    You and I agree here that Bristol has made a choice–to keep her baby, and we both agree that she is as likely as anyone to be a suitable parent. While in the abstract I think no one wishes this kind of situation on an 18-year-old, in reality it is what it is and it is her choice. Again, I think we are in agreement here and I appreciate your relating your own experience as I had a similar experience as a child with a different outcome but likely as troublesome effects on the kids in our family in the long run.


    As I understand it, we disagree on the right to choose an abortion. That being the case, I think nonetheless we likely agree on the general point I was making. It seems that no matter what choices women are making, someone, and most often a male commentator from the right but sometimes also from the left, comes into the discussion to comment on the situation with a more than patronizing tone and a way of second-guessing women based on the barest of facts.  I found that to be the case with Waldman and his questions about what the Palin family considered, whether Bristol should have instead given her son up for adoption, and whether she and Levi should have been required to go to counseling, etc.
    I find this kind of thing very intrusive.


    So while you are right that Waldman is obviously not "in" Bristol’s life in the literal sense, for me that was part of the main point….why all of the particulars of his life was his business in any case.
    Thanks for writing. In case you think otherwise, I appreciate your posts, read them carefully, and don’t think disagreements should keep us from discussions.


    Thanks much, Jodi

  • invalid-0

    the part of “I’m dying to know: did Sarah Palin require that they get marriage counseling before breaking up?” that bothered you was marriage counseling? Huh? The word require was a lot more disturbing. The incredible paternalism of thinking that Bristol’s parents should have required her to do anything as a prerequisite to breaking up is appalling. The apparent belief that they could impose any such requirement is so incredible that I can’t find the words to express how disturbing it is.

    Oh, and Waldman doesn’t even seem to consider the possibility that pre-marital counseling could have been what convinced them not to get married. Wouldn’t surprise me a bit….

  • invalid-0

    I agree with CMarie’s point about keeping the baby (though I don’t know about her thoughts on abortion.) A new baby is part of a family. Mothers shouldn’t feel pressured to give up their children because of finances or the need to keep a job. I’m no Sarah Palin fan, but from what I’ve seen I expect that she and her husband will be there for their daughter and grandchild. As a parent I cannot imagine giving away one of my kids. I’m a man btw. The young man in the picture needs to “nut up” as Tina Fey would say. It’s man time and he should love his new child and take responsibility for his new family. Have you noticed how the man/boy in these situations tend to be so easily let off the hook? That’s bullshit.

  • invalid-0

    Shorter Steve Waldman:

    I believe marriage is meant to be a sacred contract between two unwilling teenagers.

  • invalid-0

    Required = forced.

    Illegal in the US of A and, besides, Bristol and Levi were over 18.

    And what are the chances that a guy like Levi, forced into marriage, wouldn’t become a wife beater and/or child abuser?

  • invalid-0

    What Princess Rot sed…

  • invalid-0

    Why is it Waldman’s business? (Or yours, for that matter?)
    Because Bristol (following her mommy’s advice and needs) MADE this circus our business. We’ll never know, of course, (thank God) but Bristol was never going to marry him unless mommy won the election. Most normal couples who professed love for each other and the intent to marry would have done so BEFORE the birth. or at least immediately after the election. When they didn’t, there was no way.

    “Marital counseling” could be a shorthand way of nothing “there is a child, and mommy and daddy have to sit down with some sort of neutral to discuss how to raise him.” This is NOT Bristol’s unilateral choice. Levi has just as much right in this. And although not married under current law, in a very real way the existence of the child builds relationships between Bristol and Levi which are their, whether Levi, Bristol or you wish to acknowledge them. Criticize Waldman (who does have a lot of legitimate criticism due for a lot of reasons) for suggesting counseling to recognize that fact, is sheer idiocy.

    Do I (or you or Waldman) have any reason to be interesed in this circus? ONly because mommy and daddy invited us in…and perhaps should have the child taken away from both of them for that.

  • invalid-0

    Another matter to take note of is how Steve and his fellow mouth-breathers are focusing solely on Bristol. There is not one word from these asses about Levi. It’s the same old story; men are allowed to make babies all they want, while women are the ones who are forced to take responsibility for it.

    And what would have happened to the two of them if McCain had won the election? Would they have been somehow forced into the marriage anyway? It was obvious from the start that the two of them were nothing but campaign props, used to show Palin’s conservative street cred to the GOP base. I’ve felt sorry for them from the moment they were dragged into the spotlight.

  • invalid-0

    Excellent post, every single word. Brav!

  • invalid-0

    When 65% of all marriages end in divorce, why bother?

    The odds are against you.

  • invalid-0

    Funny how these people are all concerned for the fetuses and want women to bring pregnancies to terms, but where are they after those kids are born?

    Oops – I forgot. The POST-born are on their own.

  • invalid-0

    “Criticize Waldman (who does have a lot of legitimate criticism due for a lot of reasons) for suggesting counseling to recognize that fact, is sheer idiocy.”

    Waldman is a paternalistic moron. To agree with anything he has to say on the subject is sheer idiocy.

  • invalid-0

    Talk about judgmental. Can’t stand to be around children? Clearly she has never met my 9-year-old daughter. Anyone who could not stand to be around my daughter is missing some essential element of humanity.

    You say, Princess, that you were “taught to value my identity and independence.” Did it ever occur to you that some of us are teaching our princesses the same thing?

    • invalid-0

      OMG, these are the parents who are the biggest idiots of all. I don’t know how many times I’ve met parents who tell me how wonderful their little precious princess/prince is while turning a blind eye when their kid thinks it’s funny to bully other kids or tries to poke the eyes out of the family dog (and of course, Fido is immediately put to sleep if he bites precious little prince/princess in self-defense-the only one who bothers to discipline the kid). I don’t have a problem with people who have/do not have kids, but I DO HAVE a problem with a parent who thinks I should be forced to spend time with HIS KID in order to have some essential element of humanity. The same goes with the parents who whip out some photo of a kid who looks like a monkey butt and expects me to ooh and aah over how gorgeous their offspring is. I don’t have children, but I could just as easily tell you how wonderful my nieces/nephews are, and how YOU SHOULD SPEND TIME WITH THEM BECAUSE YOU’LL NEVER BE A WHOLE PERSON OTHERWISE. Would you like that? I don’t think so.

  • invalid-0

    “It’s the same old story; men are allowed to make babies all they want, while women are the ones who are forced to take responsibility for it.”

    That’s why the Vatican and the fundies condemn birth control and say nothing about Viagra.

    Patriarchy…’re soaking in it.

  • invalid-0

    Please, stop with such nonsense. You can value your identity and independence without trying to make those of us who like babies feel as though we’re oppressing poor widdle you. You don’t want to have a baby, fine. Let’s hope your view remains in the minority because otherwise you won’t have anyone to think up such pseudo-intellectual post-feminist snark after a few years.

  • invalid-0

    While I agree with you on the male pontificating on Bristol Palin, I disagree on the right to privacy. I not only dislike Sarah Palin’s politics; I think they are hypocritical as are the politics of many on the far right concerning marriage and family. I don’t think it is an innocent coincidence that the boyfriend went to the convention and a marriage was announced, but now that the election is over, the marriage is off.

    I don’t think there can be any doubt that if Sarah Palin were a democrat, her family situation would not have been praised by all the people who rose to defend her on the right while she was running on the republican ticket.

  • invalid-0

    Why is that considered so horrible?

    I have two of my own, but I give props to anyone who recognizes that they are not parent material and refuse to allow society, their parents, etc. to force them into having children.

  • invalid-0

    I’ve had a kid, raised one, taught for over half my life: I’m done with them. I avoid places they’re likely to be, and I leave when I’m wrong. Even one child dragged to a get together means that we’re all going to coo over him instead of talking to each other.

    You’ve been taking some flak, Princess. You’re not alone.

  • invalid-0

    Let’s review what the parent commented: “Let’s hope your view remains in the minority because otherwise you won’t have anyone to think up such pseudo-intellectual post-feminist snark after a few years.”

    That’s exactly the self-righteous, patronizing attitude and scorn that drives people who choose not to have children into the defensive posture that the commenter is criticizing in the first place.

    Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways.

    You can’t love children and hate people who don’t want them. That just makes you a chauvinistic idiot and hypocrite. I pity the children you’d bring up into the world. Children need to learn and feel compassion for people with different preferences, and this commenter’s children are starting out with a very real and nasty bias in the home. To what other legitimate personal differences and preferences are the children being desensitized?

    So get over yourselves, parents and would-be parents. Let other people have their freedom to not have children. And let them have feelings about their decision not to have children without having to suffer your slings and arrows (spoken and unspoken). Let them be free from having to deal with your unwarranted feelings of superiority because you do want children. It does NOT make you superior in any way.

    Racists are blind to the destructiveness of their evil. Is the commenter I’m replying to guilty of the same unconscious prejudice? I’d say in this case, yes!

  • invalid-0

    These folks run around screaming murder and talking about a Holocaust of the Unborn–making the control over women’s bodies and the elimination of reproductive choice into something that, well,they just are forced to do.
    So Bristol is taking her baby to term. Hooray! A life is saved! A murder is prevented!
    And she decides not to marry this adolescent paragon.
    Why is that, under the pro-life banner, anybody’s business?
    But these people can’t abandon it. It’s not just abortion, it’s the sanctity of marriage, and then it’s the proper submissive state of the woman in marriage, and then it’s modest dress.
    And in the other direction, it’s opposition to contraceptives, and then promise rings and daughter-Daddy proms.
    opposition to abortion for these people is not a crime: it’s the tip of the wedge.

  • invalid-0

    You get to decide what a NORMAL couple would do?! Geez, you can’t even make your condescension and holier-than-thou attitude in the least opaque.

    And you say the Palins MADE their business our business? Sorry to have to say, but it’s still not your or my business.

    Your attitude is such typical buttinski moralizing about a situation you know absolutely nothing about. You assume facts not in evidence, such as whether Levi had any say in this.

    Your opinions are so tainted and dripping with over and ugly patronizing patriarchy that they are self-parodying.

    Try having some REAL respect for people, their decisions, and their privacy, and resist the urge to project your narrow-minded assumptions onto others.

  • invalid-0

    Waldman’s cozying up to anti-abortioners pays rightwing dividends. Big surprise.

    It’s really a chicken or egg situation.

    Waldman’s been “reaching out” to the anti-choicers for so long now, I have to wonder which came first: His own inner patriarchalism or infection by the anti-choicers?

    Either way, Waldman is now fully exposed as a judgmental hypocrite who has never been of real value to the pro-choice, pro-women conversation, and he should be shunned from the dialogue unless he has a genuine conversion to the individual civil rights of women and girls.

    Let time tell. Until then, Waldman’s shunned!

  • invalid-0

    You’ve wrongly made two assumptions about me – I’m not a parent, and I’ve got no problems with the original poster’s lack of desire to procreate

    I do have a problem with the nonsense that children are a way of maintaining patriarchal authority over women and society in general. As for marriage, yes, it can be construed as problematic but also construed to possess many liberating and affirming qualities – I’m willing to leave that topic open to debate. The fact of nature that only females have babies and men don’t doesn’t mean that some theoretical feminist construct of male dominance can be built around it. It’s a (beautiful) quirk of nature and, might I add, vital to the continuation of our species. Such pseudo-intellectual pap as was peddled by the original post is far more destructive to society than my and my wife’s desire to have children.

    Again, I’ll reiterate – someone doesn’t want to have children, fine. Someone tells me they don’t want to have children, fine. But someone tells me that children are a way to maintain a patriarchal world order – self-important faux-feminist half-brained pap.

  • invalid-0

    The Palin’s gave Bristol nothing to prepare her for nothin’ Talking about Bristol being an “adult” now and making decisions is ridiculous. Oh, she will have to make those decisions, but being pregnant does not automatically give her the information and judgement to make them. Just as gaining sexual maturity didn’t give the wherewithall to make good decisions about sex. But that kayak has left the iceberg by now, and Bristol is stuck. She seems to be aware of the quality of decisions her parents make for her, but she has little adult help making better decisions for herself. That’s what family is all about.
    From what I’ve seen, the best birth control for young women is a bright future, and a Mom with a reputation for ass-kicking too-ardent suitors. Not that I’ve seen that much.
    If only Bristol Palin had been required to read and discuss the works of Henry James (Jr.) in school, this imbroglio could have been avoided. Some mutual or solitary masturbation might have gone a long way towards making the long Alaskan winter nights pass more quickly.

  • invalid-0

    So, according to you, the ultimate authority in all things humane, someone not wanting to be around your daughter is “missing some essential element of humanity”.

    Do you realize that you just totally exposed your own blind prejudice, in this instance against people not wanting children? And do you realize how harmful your bias is for your own daughter’s mental health?

    It’s small-minded thoughts and beliefs such as yours that keep evil and hate grounded in this world. I hope your daughter grows up to reject your bigotry.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if she grows up to not want children herself. How would you feel then about her “missing some essential element of humanity”?


    By the way, I have a wonderful 30-year-old son, who learned to see the “essential element of humanity” in everyone, even in people like yourself, who cannot see the forest for the trees.

  • invalid-0

    Which is not to say (and I never, ever would) that Bristol should masturbate to Henry James’ novels. I once had a girlfriend who got totally turned on by certain passages in The Golden Bowl, but she was rather an unusual aesthetic orientation. What can you do?

  • invalid-0

    April 2008, Sarah had a baby, born with “problems”, some two months early.

    1. Several months earlier, her husband told the press that they knew their unborn child had “problems”.

    2. Pregnant Sarah, at a conference in Dallas and two months early, had her water “break”. (Most competent medical personnel that I know, consider that an emergency condition requiring immediate hospitalization, if the mother wants to save the baby.)

    3. Sarah, then, took over ten hours to see “her” doctor, taking two Alaska flights to reach Anchorage, then at least two hours to drive to her “private” doctor.

    4. I see an “either/or” situation here. Either she is incompetent to govern in any way, shape or form, her decision-making abilities being somewhat flawed, at best, or, she deliberately placed her unborn child in severely dire circumstances, basically attempting an abortion, by “natural means”. I guess a quick kick to the stomach of a pregnant women would be considered an abortion by “natural means”, also.

  • invalid-0

    And this is A-OK!

  • invalid-0

    on one point having children is not a way to control a woman if she wants a child. In fact many men are scared off by the notion of even having kids or being fathers. I am a pro-choice women ,very independent never depended on any man, except my dad when I was a child. I wanted 13 kids! I loved taking care of and nurturing children, but my husband was abusive to me, and so I only had, had one child and that was it. I could not see having anymore in a relationship that would not work or last. He never paid any attention to her. It has hurt her for life I am sure. I would have loved to have had a decent loving husband who loved kids also. I think this notion works for both sides. But noone should condemn anyone because of their personal views.

  • invalid-0

    on what women should do about a pregnancy.

    Hey, you write as though men have absolutely no role to play and no legitimate reason to have any say or discussion in the matter.

    I suspect that when a man writes in agreement with your views, you do not play the same, “OMG, MENZ!” card.

    It’s a bogus card to play.

    Disagree with Waldman, but saying that a man should not be in the discussion is like saying,

    a) whites should not have been there during the civil rights movement
    b) whites should not have founded the NAACP
    c) the able bodied should not have been there during the fight for the ADA

    And yes, even if men disagree with your view, they have not just every right, but every obligation in society to speak their mind about it.

    Let’s turn it around a bit.

    Labor Department Statistics in the US and in Canada are showing that the vast numbers of job losses due to the economic downturn are being lost to men. In fact, last year over 1,000,000 men lost their jobs while at the same time there was an increase in women’s employment of 12,000 jobs. (Google it in the Boston Globe.)

    By your way of reasoning. Your way of reasoning, not mine, women should just STFU about how the stimulus package is allocated. That’s idiocy, but that’s the card you want to play.


  • invalid-0

    Anon – sorry to hear about the damage done to you and your daughter by an abusive husband.

    Your later decision to not have childen is also perfectly ok – it’s not for me nor anyone else to judge such a step.

    The condemnation in my posts is directed at the ridiculous ‘intellectual’ edifice built by the original post around marriage and families of a patriarchal, suppressive force.

    Can children be used against women by unscrupulous males to ‘keep them in their place’? Absolutely. Can a marriage by a male-dominated union? Of course. But the fact that these two phenomena exist is no reason to make blanket statements about the patriarchy being built on the foundation of ‘breeding’. This term, used so contemptuously in the original post, is simply designed to be an affront to those of us who wish to be parents.

    If someone doesn’t want to have kids that’s no big deal. It doesn’t mean the rest of us who do are out to keep women under men’s thumbs. That’s just nonsense.

  • invalid-0

    a man who is angry because he may not have any parental rights here? I must say as a woman I agree many men are discriminated by the courts over parental rights. I am not sure why but I think it is unfair, especially if the man is truly a good parent and not a wife beater or threatening to the mother in any way. It should be fair. You know why I can say this? Because I kow how bad it feels to be discriminated against by men. Maybe you can start to understand what fairness and unfairness feels like. Or is that asking to much?

  • invalid-0

    All the high paying grunt jobs of course( male dominated) as compared to all the college level jobs( women) and paid less. Makes a lot of sense oh yea.

  • invalid-0

    But that’s not the point is it? The logic is the same. The job losses are a male phenomena, therefore only males should be discussing it.

    Similar logic:

    Only women should be gynecologists. Only women doctors should teach gynecology.

    Since the troops are overwhelmingly men, only men should discuss war. OMG WOMENZ!

    For a group that tries to get us away from gender roles, and gender preferences, and gender discrimination, it is illogical and destructive to play the gender card. ZOMG WALDMANZ HAS A PENIS! STFU GUY!

  • invalid-0

    I didn’t say there was anything wrong with people not wanting to have children. In fact, we didn’t have a child until we were 40. I have plenty of childless friends and I honor their decision.

    But what Princess Rot said was that she dislikes being around children. She’s not judging them as individuals — she’s lumping children into a group and denying the value of all of them. It’s the same as someone who hates people of color as a group. Princess Rot is the one with a bias.

    And Princess Rot didn’t just make the point that she chooses not to have children — she went beyond that. Read her post. What she said was, “Also, the planet does not need any more children. No, I don’t care how much you want them.”

    What she’s saying there is that people should not be allowed to have children because Princess Rot believes there are too many already.

    I don’t see how you can ascribe any other meaning to her comment.

    So, who has the bias here?

  • invalid-0

    I don’t see what Waldman’s gender has to do with any of this. Stupidity reaches across all races, creeds, and genders. This was stupid no matter what his gender was and I can easily imagine a female columnist like Maggie Gallagher writing the same garbage.

    And I find it a bit odd that you chastise Waldman for making assumptions of what did or didn’t happen, and then in the next paragraph, tell us how Bristol “appears to have her head on straight.” Perhaps you have inside knowledge I don’t, but I haven’t seen anything that can tell us this. While I think that anyone old enough to have kids is clearly old enough to make these decisions, that’s not really saying much. I’ve known people far older than Bristol who STILL don’t seem to have their heads on straight, and that would include Bristol’s parents.

    And I’m not sure at all why we should assume that she even choose not to have an abortion. As you say, had she had an abortion and it got leaked, she would have ruined the election for her mother. Is it not possible that this decision, as well as the decision that they get married was at least strongly influenced by the needs of her mother? I’m not saying it is or isn’t, but I don’t understand why it should be assumed that these were her choices, or if they were, if she was really only thinking of her own best interests.

    The fact of the matter is that Waldman doesn’t know what’s going on in Bristol’s life any more than we do, and we have just as much business discussing it as he does: zip. So if you want to get on Waldman’s case for butting his nose into the Palin’s life, that’s fine. But we need to make sure we’re not making assumptions about it either. We don’t know what’s going on and frankly, I prefer it that way. Maybe Bristol made these decisions or maybe they were forced upon her by her parents, but either way, I don’t see why we should care.

  • invalid-0

    I agree! Who cares! Leave them in Alaska forever please!

  • invalid-0

    Agree. I see what your saying. There is a lot of angry women here and I am one of them. But I do believe in fairness. I just wish more men did. If we could get along as men and women at least 80% of the time and see eye to eye as equals, the anger would slowly dissipate and life would be so much more fruitful for all. It is the Bibles fault or maybe the testosterone hormone who knows. I just want peace and fairness for all!

  • invalid-0

    Obviously you have never met MY mother. The idea that she was second to my father is ludicrous. She was a strong, independent working woman who stood up for her rights. The idea that she was oppressed by my father is ridiculous. My father passed away recently, and the one thing I remember from the last time I saw him alive was how he held her hand for hours, and kept saying ‘I love you’ over and over to her.

    I also remember how she stood up to my grandfather on my father’s side, and threatened to kill him if he ever hit my grandmother again. Does that sound oppressed to you? BTW, my grandfather was a Southern prison guard, and he was afraid of my mother.

    If you had said that many marriages are oppressive, or that many men treat their wives as chattel, I might have agreed. But you state that all marriages are inherently unequal and patriarchal. My mother didn’t buy into that crap. She was a good mother and a strong woman at the same time. She had identity and independence in spades.

  • invalid-0

    The “parent” was not replying to the poster’s choice not to have children, it was the poster’s criticism of marriages as inherently unequal and the choice to have children as inherently wrong. One can choose to be childless (I did) without criticizing those who choose to have children. If you decide to make critical statements about others, expect others to make critical statements about you.

    Comparing the parent to a racist is just demonizing without responding to the criticism.

  • invalid-0

    Bristol Palin’s choice to keep her baby and not marry the father is HER choice and hers alone.

    No one is suggesting that Levi Johnston doesn’t have rights and responsibilities when it comes to the child he fathered. Those rights don’t extend to the right to force her to marr. Of course, this is none of our business, or any of Waldman’s either, but we, at least, are not suggesting she be forced to marry. So you are suggesting the child be taken away because Bristol’s MOTHER, not Bristol, chose to run for national office? You, sir, are a boor.

  • jodi-jacobson

    Good points. I meant to focus as well on “require,” in the sense he suggested they should be required to do marriage counseling, but you are correct….it did not come out clearly and you are correct, that he suggests they require her to do anything is indeed paternalistic.

    Finally, you are also correct that it could have been premarital counseling that led to convincing them not to get married.

    thanks for the input.


  • jodi-jacobson

    social discourse on important issues, notwithstanding disagreements in the public space. however, when it is essentially hypocritical on its face and also challenges the personal parenting decisions of a functional young woman from a highly paternalistic vantage point–it is a problem.

    thanks, jodi

  • jodi-jacobson

    on camera and in print, that it was her choice to bring her baby to term.

    as I said, from “what little I know” it appears she has her head on straight.

    yes i know and am quite sure politics played into all of this, not least of which was the faux-engagement or marriage. all i have to say is apparently no one in the end forced her into it, which is a good thing.

    the point being there is no obvious reason either to question her decision to keep her baby, nor to suggest she should instead have married a man she does not love nor have given it up for adoption. people are always second-guessing women’s choices; most of them at the level of the media (look around) are men (most, not all).

    best, Jodi

  • invalid-0

    don’t you also agree that media and journalists are bias in their reports depending on how they are feeling?
    Any person in the media spotlight becomes fair game. I thought that they were taught not to be bias? If so the teachers are not doing their jobs. If bias were not a problem we could get the truth at middle ground. Then there would be less discrimination?

  • invalid-0

    Undermines the entire ‘sanctity of marriage’ crap the fundie asshats are trying to ram down our throats all the time.

    You only get a choice to marry, not a choice to divorce, or at least they’d like to make that divorce ‘choice’ as difficult as possible. The people who stand firm on this account due to biblical reasons are on SOLID FOOTING. Problem is, we don’t go by the bible. It’s lost so much of it’s moral gravitas since slavery was outlawed.



  • invalid-0

    John R, You did not just say this and mean it did you?

    Anyone who could not stand to be around my daughter is missing some essential element of humanity.

    get over yourself already…and maybe your daughter will someday grow up to be a woman, not a pampered daddies girl..YIKES!

    Just because some people don’t like or relate to youngsters doesn’t mean they lack humanity. It means they are self aware enough to admit they don’t relate, which is way better then the folks who have babies because “everyone else is doing it”!

  • invalid-0

    No matter who made the decision, she’d say it was her choice. What else would she say? Do you really think that if her parents forced her to keep the baby that she’d admit it on television? Of course not. I’m not saying that happened. I’m saying we don’t know what happened and it doesn’t matter in any case.

    And I’m sorry, but we DON’T know enough to say she’s got her head on straight. She’s a teenager, for christ’s sake. And while I’ve known teens that had their act together, I personally can say as one who became a parent when I was twenty-three, I wasn’t ready. That was too early for me. I don’t think I did a lousy job, but I really could have had my act more together. And I was a straight-laced Dean’s List college student who seemed to have his act together a lot more than Bristol does. I mean, maybe it was the YouTube video of her posing with all the booze, but she seems like the typical teen to me and one thoughtless enough to be a politician’s daughter who posted pictures of herself posing with booze. But again, the point should be that none of us know what’s going on in her life and have no ability to make judgments on any of it.

    Maybe Bristol is an intelligent person who is making the right decisions or maybe she’s a flake being bullied by her parents. I don’t see how it’s our business in either case.

  • invalid-0

    “…the functional young woman she appears to be.”

    Well, she is certainly biologically functional, but she is legally a minor and probably should not be in the position of having to make decisions by herself about whether to get pregnant, have an abortion, get married, etc.

    Of course the critical advice would have been how not to get pregnant, and this may have been denied to her on principal by her parents and other councilors.

    Those giving “advice” are not necessarily addressing Bristol Palin personally – she can be considered an example in the discussion about how young people should be educated and advised, what freedoms they should have, etc.

  • invalid-0

    These are the same people [the ones who think they have the right to “butt into the personal relationships of private American citizens”] who will, with their next breath, go on a rant about “big government,” “too many government regulations,” etc.

    Are they just too stupid to see how inconsistent they are?

  • invalid-0

    I realized when I was a teenager that I didn’t want to have kids of my own, and I never changedd my mind. Babysitting a lot at the time, and having helped take care of my much younger brother, I loved the kids in my life but didn’t feel that I ever wanted the responsibility full time. I am the best aunt, best friend to my friends with kids, but am greatful to be able to leave them and go back to my solitude as well. People can be important in the lives of children and love them without wanting to bring more of them into the world. It is a valid choice that many women are making today in an overpopulated, harried world.

  • jodi-jacobson

    But I think the difference here is between commentary (in which i have engaged in my post on Waldman) and reporting a story.

    First, yes reporters are suppoed to be unbiased, but in the real world some are not.  Commentary is by its nature "opinion" (hopefully based on fact).  Waldman has a bias, so do I (toward not judging women who choose to terminate or carry a pregnancy, keep or give a baby up for adoption).


    hope that make sense.


    Yes, governor Palin put her 







  • invalid-0

    Boy oh boy do I agree

    I have been waging a correspondence campaign with my two state reps.Who, of course, haven’t bothered to respond to me. The campaign prmises of my reps was actually admirable (in my opinion – libertarian leaning that I am):

    Less government
    Get government out of health care
    Don’t infringe civil liberties
    Don’t invade privacy
    Protect rights
    Individual responsibility

    But of course reality is different than rhetoric- so see what you think.

    This was their first legistive action- despite record budget deficits and cutbacks all over the state- their first priority was:

    You are right-here’s what they decided was important:

    24 hour waiting period for abortions (I live in Arizona and distances can be very great- so this is a major and often costly restriction)
    Legislative mandates for discolsure before abortions (very misleading and just down right false disclosures)
    Allowing lawsuits if these “diclosures” weren’t provided “properly” (any one listening in the plaintiff’s trial bar association???? Of course they’re listening- this is a gold mine!!!)
    Definiton of birth control and emergency contraception as abortion
    Defining an egg as an “unborn child”
    Granted any health care worker ( including janitors) the right to refuse to provide any reproductive item that they morally object to (note they extended the right of conscience ONLY to birth control and abortion- those health care workers/employees that have a moral objections to any other medication- well- that’s just too bad).

    Ah, but they are paying attention to big government and lower taxes- they are cutting child care facilities, child protection, legal resources for child support from errant fathers, education- need I go on?

  • invalid-0

    What nobody’s brought up here is that Levi’s family (by which I mean his Mom) is mixed up, in some way which hasn’t been fully brought to light, with the sale of crystal meth.

    It makes a lot of sense to me that she might not want her son exposed to that lifestyle. And if I were her Dad (or, heck, some random dude writing on BeliefNet), I would certainly give her all the support in the world for doing what she can to disentangle her & her baby’s lives from those of dope dealers, even if it is the baby’s father. Heck, especially if it’s the baby’s father.

    I’ll go even further. If I were her Dad, while I wouldn’t downright forbid her to marry the speedfreak’s kid (because a. it wouldn’t work, and b. she’s an adult now), I probably would stoop to some pretty low tactics to achieve that outcome (including manipulating, paying Levi off to stay away, encouraging the police to play a more active role in the Levi family’s drama, etc.). Yeah, that makes me a total jerk, but it’d be totally worth it, to my own peace of mind.

  • invalid-0

    Wow…you people can’t imagine the number of children that I have slaughtered over the years that I have just thoughtlessly disposed of when I threw away my feminine hygiene products.

    Yeah, I know, that’s kind of gross, but I had to be gross to illustrate my point. Does that mean that every time a guy, um, has some “alone time,” he’s killing babies, too? NO…just another example of the rampant sexism in our society. Women are the only part of the equation who are guilty in “killing babies” when they simply don’t get pregnant, or take active steps to avoid getting pregnant.

  • invalid-0

    Princess is clearly insecure in her choices/opinions about not having children and not being married, possibly because our society has made her feel that she is “abnormal” or “defective” because she doesn’t want to be married or have kids. Unfortunately, that insecurity has translated into adopting a holier-than-thou attitude about those choices as being above others who choose differently so that their criticism seemingly can’t touch her. But putting down other people’s choices is an immature and unintellectual way to be comfortable with and defend your own.

    • sayna

      I think Princess Rot has expressed frustrations that a lot of people agree with, though not as politely as most would prefer.

      I can’t speak for everyone, but I think that a lot of childfree people are frustrated by people who do want kids. When you think about it, there is not a single reason to have a child that is not selfish. Many people I love and respect have become parents and I think they’ll be great at it, but I’m still baffled as to why they did it. I don’t see a single reason that is rational and, again, not based on selfishness. If their motive was just because they wanted to care for a child, why not adopt and care for one that’s already here? We don’t need more people and I think it would be better if we started having less children. Of course it’s a human rights violation to take away people’s rights to chose to have children or not and I would never advocate any sort of quota or limit people’s right to have children, but I’m still frustrated and confused by how many people want to bring more children into the world.

      And now for some nitpicking on the quotes:

      If a mother chooses to carry a baby to term, under what circumstances should she consider putting [i]him[/i] up for adoption?

      See the word I bolded? Yeah, maybe just a slip of the tongue but… why not use a gender neutral term?
      And why the heck did he specifically point out African-American unwed mothers?! The “I’m not a racist, I swear!” card?

  • jodi-jacobson

    men or women not in the Palin family or intimately involved should be second-guessing what Bristol Palin decides to do with her baby. period. this is public intrustion into and second-guessing a highly personal decision.

    i focus on men here because the dominant voices in the debate in the public sphere on women’s rights to choose abortion, to have access to contraception, to keep a baby, to give a child for adoption are men, who use their constant rejiggering of moral positions to drive a debate that constantly minimalizes or dismisses women’s agency in these matters.

    It is profoundly different than the stimulus debate.


  • invalid-0

    Bristol appears to have her head on straight.
    That’s why her friends report that she won’t let the father spend time with his child? She sounds like a bitch to me. But what the hell, it really isn’t any of my business. That’s his problem.

  • invalid-0

    It makes a lot of sense to me that she might not want her son exposed to that lifestyle.

    So you’re saying she was screwing a dope dealer from a family of dope dealers? But I thought she had her head on straight?

  • invalid-0

    But more than half of all married people never get a divorce. The divorce rate is so high because of serial divorcers.

  • invalid-0

    My lone opinion is not “destructive to society”, what ridiculous hyperbole. If we were in danger of extinction, and all fertile persons felt like me, then yeah, you could probably call it a danger. However, it’s not, and it’s unlikely to happen.

    Where did I say children are the problem? I said het marriage and childrearing in the nuclear family set up are the problem, not the children themselves, unless they go on to copy it, by which point they wouldn’t be children anyway. You are reacting in that defensive way that my ex-friends did. Despite knowing my views, and having discussed them in depth, they still expected asspats. I only smiled, I was not impolite, I did not tell them to go and fuck themselves, nor did I call them names. They cut off contact with me for not patting them on the ass enough, I didn’t stop speaking to them even though I privately disagreed with their choices. Such is life. I expected it, to some degree.

    Also, where did I say all men are out to use marriage to oppress? I believe what I said was that in society where men by nature of their birth, hold more power than any woman that the issue of marriage and the burdens of childrearing will always fall most heavily onto the woman. Sure, people can make it work for them, but they are still upholding the status quo, and the status quo does not hold valid any other family than man+woman+child(ren), regardless of how independent or feminist the couple are.
    It saddens me that so many will freely choose marriage, without examining WHY they want to keep something so steeped in poisonous gender roles, sexism, patriarchy, and ownership without rejecting it outright. What it boils down to is exchanging of property, whether or not this includes the female party along with the dowry, as it still does in so many places. Is it impossible to love someone for life without needing a ceremony of ownership (symbolic or literal) to cement it?

    It is a social hierarchy that is to blame, not the individual. The only way for marriage to not be oppressive is for it to be open to all, not just heteros, and for the status quo, the patriarchy and the man/woman roles to disappear. Sadly, I have no solution to the problem other than radical social change. If there were no status quo, there would be no problem with LGBTQ adoption or marriages, there would not be such social pressure on women to reproduce, no stigma against abortion or birth control, no such bias against women and men who dislike children, and likewise there would not be pressure on those who have reproduced to be superheroes at it.Only recently has opinion given way slightly to allow a man and woman, living together unmarried to have children without shame. There still exists a stigma against single parents, though it is slowly lessening.

    BTW, thank you, News Nag and Anon, your insights are far more well-written than mine. Huh, steph? I said my views were unpopular, as this thread proves they are. How is holding the unpopular opinion being holier-than-thou? It is true that people do get defensive when they are confronted with the fact that having children is not an unselfish decision, just as not having children isn’t.

  • invalid-0

    Thanks. I did not realize that there were more men in journalism than women still. You see so many on TV news I thought things had changed. I guess not. The women on TV act like they are reading scripts they never defend women. Except maybe a few. Patience is a virtue.

  • invalid-0

    Ok You must be a mother$^#@$%. She is a bitch which by the way is a female dog. You got the animal wrong. I would not let my child near druggies either and I don’t think a court would like it either. If she is a bitch then the father is a real DOG end.

  • invalid-0

    Anyone who could not stand to be around my daughter is missing some essential element of humanity.

    I can’t quite tell whether you’re just being sarcastic, but in this wide world, there are plenty of people who have not met your daughter. Therefore, there are a lot of inhuman monsters gadding about out there. Quick, you must unleash your child upon them so that can move into the light and learn to be fully human. /eyeroll

  • invalid-0

    Biology isn’t fair. The law tries to take that into account. Got a problem with that? Address nature.

    When men start getting pregnant, carrying the fetus for nine months, and giving birth, then they can have as many “parental rights” as women do.

  • invalid-0

    “My child is different! You’d love him or her!!” is almost always a square on the bingo card.

    “Anyone who could not stand to be around my daughter is missing some essential element of humanity.” GMAFB. *You* may think your little darling is special. All parents seem to think that. As has already been said to you, some people just do not like to interact with kids. I really doubt Princess Rot would find your “special snowflake” any different from the thousands of other kids out there.

  • invalid-0

    Holy shit, you were serious, weren’t you? I thought you were trolling. Huh, my bad optimism. In your last post, you straight-up called me a monster for daring to exist not knowing your child, and you just compared me to a racist, so what little credibility you did have just went out of the window. You’re right, I do have a problem, but it’s with people like you who think that anything less than fawning adoration towards children (and THEIR children in particular) is an insult to every parent, child, society and country. You might be fine with your childless friend’s decisions, but your biases are showing toward anyone outside your personal circle, and you are adding your own crap to the dungheap by upholding the meme that anyone who doesn’t wish to be surrounded by kids is abnormal.

  • invalid-0

    She made a big mistake screwing a dope dealer. She’s dodging an even bigger one by not marrying into the family. I don’t know if that means she’s got her head on straight, or just lucked into a good behavior. But I like to think we can learn from our mistakes, so my view is that she’s grown up some since she first screwed Levi.

  • invalid-0

    Tuba-hole, your privilege is showing. You may want to check that at the door next time …

  • invalid-0

    Thank you Jodi. Real quick, I would just like to add that when my parents divorced my Mom got custody and my Dad got visitation. But, my Dad never missed a visit or a phone call or was even late for either. And even though I probably didn’t appreciate that at the time, I do now. So, I would encourage any parent who doesn’t win primary custody not to become discouraged. Kids appreciate that you value your visitation time with them.

  • invalid-0

    aarggghh I meant to say “he was never late, never missed a call” (and I remember and appreciate that now) thanks

  • jodi-jacobson

    i am not judging Levi and have no reason to believe that he won’t have rights to see his child; he does have legal standing after all, unless there is something that compels a judge to restrict that.

    but this is all speculation, and i don’t want to engage in that here.

    the bottom line is I totally agree with you on that.

    best, jodi

  • invalid-0

    Bristol Palin’s life wound up in the public spotlight because her mom was running for Vice-President, and for some reason family problems are widely considered relevant to judging candidates for high public office.

    But the election has been over for three months, and here Bristol’s life choices continue to be debated as though there is still something to be voted about.

    Well, her life choices aren’t subject to public ballot. There’s no point to such a debate.

    Could we turn the spotlight off now, please, and let her regain some shreds of privacy to live her life in?

  • invalid-0

    Your mother sounds like someone I would have wanted to meet. We need more women like that.

  • invalid-0

    Har har, Tuba “hole”, nice one.

    As for my privilege… The ‘pol’ comes from the fact I live in Poland. As you may well be aware, it’s a country awash in a rather conservative variety of Roman Catholicism.

    Being an athiest of rather progressive leanings, I am quite often disgusted with the breathtaking backwardness and ignorance of many of the views expressed by a large portion of the country’s population regarding feminism, women’s rights, and the like.

    That said, I have learned one very, very important lesson from Polish culture – family and child-rearing can be wonderful, life-affirming experiences. When people decide (or have to) to take responsibility for a young life, it often brings immesurable joy to the life of the parent(s). If someone doesn’t feel this is the right path for them, fine by me – as I sad earlier, such a decision is A-OK! But don’t tell me that my union is oppressive and backwards because my choices are different from yours.

    The blather about marriage and gender roles represents ossified pseudo-academic ‘thought’ about marriage and partnership that just isn’t relevant. Yes, there are segments of society which have a patriarchal conception of union, but for those with just a modicum of spine and sense it’s not an issue to fashion a union based on other values than “poisonous gender roles, sexism, patriarchy and ownership”. In spite of pressures from certain fragments of society the male in a traditional nuclear family does not have to be by design sui iuris – partnerships of all sorts are open to negotiation and discussion depending simply on the goodwill of the parties involved, and heterosexual marriage does not differ in any way in that regard. When my wife and I took our wedding vows, we committed to a mutually-supportive relationship in which we would do everything within our power to help the other realize his/herself to the fullest extent possible. The words we used to express that were the same for me and for her – a model of equality. Part of that includes our mutual desire to have children and raise them – which happens to be a biological imperative for large numbers of people. No ceremony of ownership there.

    And the fact that I decided to enter into a traditional heterosexual marriage also does not preclude me from being a supporter and advocate of same-sex unions, same-sex adoption, single mothers and fathers, abortion rights, and the like. In spite of the unpopularity of such views in my country of residence I voice them any chance I get. So you might say I’m willing to abolish my ‘privilege’ for the sake of change, but the fact that this change hasn’t happened yet cannot be equated with saying that my marriage is inherently oppressive and I am my wife’s patriarchal lord and master just because you read something like that in a hackneyed pseudo-femenist screed.

    As for the reactions of Princess Rot’s friends, well, you can disagree with someone’s choices and yet be enough of a friend to genuinely be happy for them and their happiness. Next time try to understand someone’s choices and why they might be different from yours instead of just “disagreeing” with them – it’t not your place to disagree with someone choosing to have babies, just as it’s not my place to disagree with your decision not to have them.

  • invalid-0

    I do have a problem, but it’s with people like you who think that anything less than fawning adoration towards children (and THEIR children in particular) is an insult to every parent, child, society and country. You might be fine with your childless friend’s decisions, but your biases are showing toward anyone outside your personal circle, and you are adding your own crap to the dungheap by upholding the meme that anyone who doesn’t wish to be surrounded by kids is abnormal.

    Whoo hoo! YES!
    Thanks Princess Rot!

  • jodi-jacobson

    But we did not and have not ever begun or continued this thread, but have been responding to the “categorization” of Bristol’s situation by others in the media.

    Moreover, Bristol did an interview on Fox News broadcast nationally. She did this for a reason: To speak in her own voice and to break with her mother on policy, as well as to tell her story in her own words.

    I hold a pretty high standard on these things and would not have commented on her choice of keeping her baby one way or the other had there not first been a press release about that specifically, and had others such as Waldman started to questions her choices. This makes commenting on the situation fair game.

    Likewise in this political climate, when Bristol gets on Fox to talk about abstinence-only-until-marriage policies being “unrealistic,” that too makes reporting and commenting legitimate.

    I agree it is a fine line, but one we are trying to walk.


  • invalid-0



    This message is intended to provide a female, information by which she can terminate her own pregnancy, if she so wishes. This information can also be used to avoid an unwanted miscarriage.

    Scientifically speaking; life DOES NOT BEGIN at conception; as some claim. The Bible states when life begins.
    READ IT. Use your right to control your own body. Gen:2:7, 1 Kings 17:21-22, Ezekiel 37:9-10 + 4 more

    The enclosed information was taken from my booklet titled “Making Sex Most Enjoyable” ISBN 978-1-60585-452-6
    Bernie Schatz This pamphlet may be reproduced without changes to its wording, including translations in the USA.
    Miscarriage mystery
    Miscarriages appear to be of three types, those that occur naturally or biologically for one reason or another and those that are induced either accidentally (she does not realize it) or intentional.

    Learning more about miscarriages could be very useful. It appears that most miscarriages occur during a day or so after the short time when she would normally have her period. The author is not advising anyone to try for an induced miscarriage, all risks involved in such is the responsibly of the individual. What I am doing is simply relaying information that I have gathered as observations.

    Let’s say we learn that when a woman is pregnant and she jumps up and down hard she sometimes miscarriages. We also learn that the only time jumping up and down hard causes a miscarriage is during the very short time when she would normally have her period.

    We also learn that the actual miscarriage occurs about 48 hours after she jumps up and down hard.

    If the above is correct, then this becomes very useful information. She can use this information, hopefully, to either prevent an unwanted miscarriage or to discontinue an unwanted pregnancy at her own risk.

    Following are a number of observations that I have made during my short life span concerning miscarriages. Each observation involved an actual person who had experienced a miscarriage. It was done with no intent on the part of that person to cause a miscarriage, but was, in many cases, a blessing, because she did not really wish to be pregnant.

    In the first case a gal learned that her period was not about to come and that her nipples were feeling funny. In no way was she ready mentally or emotionally to bear another child. Being very depressed with herself, she threw herself in a somewhat twisted fashion upon the bed next to her mate. In so doing, she felt a sharp pain in the lower abdomen. Two days later her period came, a bit harder than usual.
    – Oh happy day!

    The next time she missed her period and felt pregnant, maybe, they though, if a slight pain was induced in the lower abdomen, with her agreement, they could cause a miscarriage.

    So with her laying on her back and partner at her side, the partner placed a fist just above the pelvic bone and pressed slowly and somewhat firm. Then used snaps or jolts or close double punches, just enough to send a mild shock wave to the uterus but at the same time do not hurt her. The last part does not hurt her, is very important. In no way should someone cause real hurt to another person. This was done three or four times with very short rests between each pressure/punch. The time and how she felt the following day was noted. She felt like cleaning the whole house, just like the day before her other children were born. About 48 hours later. – Oh Happy Day, her period arrived.

    In the second case the gal knew that her period was due, but nothing was happening. So when the two of them were to go horseback riding, she brought along the necessary sanitary materials, just in case. Well, nothing happened. But two days later her period came, and it was a bit harder than usual. After discussing this with her later in the week, she began to surmise that maybe horseback riding caused her miscarriage. What a pleasant thought she commented.

    In the third case, the gal had her master’s degree in science education. She had a good job and things were going fine so she and her spouse decided it was time to start their family. When pregnant, she felt a need to do all the good things a pregnant woman should do, including exercise. That, I think was her downfall. Her body, not being accustomed to the jolts and jars of jogging, caused her body to miscarriage. This was a very sad gal. She missed a couple days of school and was in tears about what had happened. When jogging, one can step very lightly or one can step considerable hard causing jarring of the body. It appears that if this jarring occurs during or shortly (say within six hours or so from when her period should have arrived) the body senses something wrong and intensifies the flush chemistry.

    The fourth case involved a couple that moved to Alaska for a few years and decided to head on back home in the lower States. She was also pregnant. At that time, the Alaskan Highway was in no way like our present interstate highways. The rough traveling caused many jolts and jars to her body. It was announced later that she had a miscarriage. There was no indication as to whether this was a blessing or heartache. There was no indication also as to the timing of her period and the jolts and jars caused by the rough highway. In this case, we need more information – she did have a miscarriage.

    The fifth case involves a strong thought. People normally do not discuss their sexual activity. One may consider having the female on top on the day her period does not arrive as it should, and “ride” hard, causing that stiff “tool” to beat the uterus good if you wish a miscarriage. Otherwise, stay off the top and go for nice gentle sex for those few days, if you do not wish a miscarriage

    The sixth case involved a young, unmarried gal who became pregnant via her then boyfriend. When he learned that she was pregnant, being about the time for her period, he became so ferocious that he kicked her and jumped on her abdomen. She managed to get away and drove off and did not stop until in the next town to see a doctor. The doctor considered the case and explained to her that she would more than likely miscarriage and that there was not much he could do for her. She did miscarriage.

    In no way is this type of action advised. But again we have a jolting or jarring of the lower part of the body at the time her period would normally occurred. It is a signal to the body that things are not right which causes an intensifying of the flush chemistry.

    One should note that the bodies flush chemistry appears to be only present during the short period of time when she would normally be having her period.

    During most of the monthly cycle there is no flush chemistry or it is so weak that a miscarriage does not occur.

    So trying to cause a miscarriage during any other part of the normal 28-day cycle is futile. It just will NOT WORK! The time frame or window is very short, maybe hours or maybe a day and that is all. There may be some very extreme cases where the above does not hold up, but I do not know of any at this time.

    A few more ideas – give them a try

    1. You may wish to try just jumping up and down till you feel things tightening up a bit.
    2. Try jumping rope for a while.
    3. Try punching oneself in the lower abdomen for a bit.
    4. Try jumping off a low stool and landing a bit hard.
    5. If you have long legs, accidentally bump yourself into the corner of the table.
    6. As you lay on a bed, have one of your younger children bounce on the lower part of your tummy.
    7. Use an artificial penis in the vagina and move it so it pounds your uterus.
    8. How about riding a bicycle over a rough road, pavement or sidewalk?

    It appears that the flush chemistry is only present in a weaken state for a few more hours after she realizes that her period is not going to take place. If she does not do something in that very short period of time, she remains pregnant. That is how I see the workings of the body.

    Please report your observations to soon after they occur so that the data is still fresh in your mind. You will be helping me and researchers following me build a miscarriage data bank.

    Global Warming is caused by human activity therefore the fewer humans, the less Global Warming. Knowledge that very few people are willing to admit. Family size should be no more than two children. And PLEASE honey; wait till you are about 30 years of age. At that age you will have many of your wants paid for and you will end up with much better children.

    • invalid-0

      This EXACT same post was made on the “Get Real” thread about a 17 yr old girl that may be pregnant by her 19 yr old boyfriend. This “advice” is ill advised, medically inaccurate and potentially harmful if followed and should be removed. (KatWA and I both called for the posts’ removal on the “Get Real” thread for those reasons).

  • invalid-0

    i think that bristol have their own way to decide what makes her happy. we can see that palin had a hand in her daughter cause she want her get the best way. Well, we cannot judge who wrong and who’s right. Sometimes people must do a mistake to be better.