In the father’s original post he explains why he and his wife decided to go with IVF (in vitro fertilization) treatments to conceive:
We desperately tried to get pregnant for nearly two years, first the natural way, then via several IUIs (intrauterine inseminations). But getting pregnant when you’re both pushing 40 is sort of like trying to blow up the Death Star; it’s possible, but you need the perfect shot.
The couple chose to implant two embryos to increase their odds. Naturally they were overjoyed to discover the procedure had been a success. When they discovered that both embryos had successfully implanted? Not so much.
My initial reaction was full of disappointment, anger, fear, and guilt…As horrible as this might sound, we found ourselves wishing these twins away.
The comments section lit up with angry messages from readers accusing the anonymous writer of being ungrateful and selfish.
Feeling her husband was being treated unfairly, the mother took to the blogosphere to give her own side of the story. The expectant mother echoed her husband’s frustration with impending twins.
While I am grateful we are pregnant, I am changed…The “glass half full” person is no longer. The twins are coming fast, and I don’t feel a sense of joy…We only wanted one…Now, seven months into my pregnancy — and in therapy — I still feel remorse and am terrified of our future.
Her comment section was not much lighter than her husband’s.
I think the truth of this story goes way behind a couple of selfish millennials complaining about their abundance of blessings. This is a larger symptom of a society that has now raised entire generations of children who believe they are entitled to whatever they want whenever they want without consequence. This anonymous couple is nothing more than the Saved By the Bell version of Occupy Wallstreet.
These people are very close to my own age. We were raised by the children of the 60′s who were still high on modern feminism and sit-ins. We were taught that a woman can have it all. Nay, that she is ENTITLED to it all – the perfect career, the perfect marriage, the perfect family. We were raised to believe that “finding your own path” was a necessary precursor to having a family.
For women, ability doesn’t always lead to confidence. Here’s why.
Successful women know only too well that in any male-dominated profession, we often find ourselves at a distinct disadvantage. We are routinely underestimated, underutilized, and even underpaid. Studies show that women need to perform at extraordinarily high levels, just to appear moderately competent compared to our male coworkers.
But in my experience, smart and talented women rarely realize that one of the toughest hurdles they’ll have to overcome to be successful lies within. We judge our own abilities not only more harshly, but fundamentally differently, than men do. Understanding why we do it is the first step to righting a terrible wrong. And to do that, we need to take a step back in time.
Chances are good that if you are a successful professional today, you were a pretty bright fifth grade girl. My graduate advisor, psychologist Carol Dweck (author of Mindset) conducted a series of studies in the 1980s, looking at how bright girls and boys in the fifth grade handled new, difficult and confusing material.
She found that bright girls, when given something to learn that was particularly foreign or complex, were quick to give up–and the higher the girls’ IQ, the more likely they were to throw in the towel. In fact, the straight-A girls showed the most helpless responses. Bright boys, on the other hand, saw the difficult material as a challenge, and found it energizing. They were more likely to redouble their efforts, rather than give up.
Among the most infuriating aspects of the leftist/Alinsky strategy is that it has been so effective, given it can only succeed with the tacit participation of its intended victim. On those occasions when a conservative, who has been targeted by the…
Feminists are at it again, demonstrating they are equal to men in strength and independence — by damseling themselves, threatening to cry and faint and never step up to prove their equalness again if men don’t start protecting them from harsh words typed from behind anonymous screen names on the interwebs.
You can get a sample of that kind of thinking in this video.
Once again, they need men to clear the way, not of wild beasts or indigenous savages or foreign attackers, but of misfits and teenagers with laptops and low social IQs. Only when this scurrilous plague is extirpated can this brand of woman prove she can do anything men can do, and do it better, and do it in heels.
Feminist woman has so much to say; so many emotions to emote, and she will stand behind it all like Joan of Arc, as long as there are men around to shut anyone up who gives her a hard time. Or who disagrees with her. Or who might look a little creepy.
Her censorship target célèbre this time is the social media website Twitter, where, like everywhere else online, there is no shortage of under-socialized, and likely underage incorrigible misfits who get a rise out of getting under the people’s skins. The thinner the skin, methinks, the better.
Nothing gets under the wafer-thin porcelain epidermis of a feminist quicker than rapey-tweets, which apparently have been coming in abundance.
Mind you, the feminists have reframed these comments into rape “threats,” which almost none of them are. But don’t worry, I won’t bore you long with such realities. The fact is that many of these comments do have a kind of rapey aura to them, which is by design since everyone knows that use of the “R” word outside PSAs for the sexual grievance industry makes feminists wilt like cheap flowers and put 911 on speed dial.
There are actually two phenomena at play here. One is the comments themselves, which we will get to in a minute, but the first one is what I like to call Watson’s Law. This is the principle that social power and dominance for feminist women as a class is roughly equal to a manufactured crisis multiplied by the energy expended by obsequious men to charge in and fix it.
We saw this law’s namesake, Rebecca Watson, pave the way for her sisters by taking a few internet comments and turning them into a security crisis for secular conferences, thereby thrusting her (with her enthusiastic consent) into the public limelight. Since then she can giggle and smile while complaining that she can’t make it through the parking lot at a secular gathering without being raped, or maybe even being invited to coffee.
Anita Sarkeesian was a quick study in Watson’s Law. She took the basic principles and put them to work for profit. Sarkeesian posted some pro-feminist drivel in an online community where she knew it would not be popular, then took the predictable rapey-beaty reactions, parlayed them into a threat narrative and used that to damsel herself in a Kickstarter. She shrewdly manipulated her way into 150 grand, with which she has made a couple of Youtube vids aimed at ultimately asserting feminist hegemony in the gaming world.
Not bad work if you can get it, and these women can.
The decade of the “Roaring Twenties” featured unprecedented prosperity, largely because government minded its own business. When World War I ended in 1918, Americans were discouraged by the economic depression caused by the conversion from war…
Deneen started out as a runway model, starring in commercials, as she worked her way, for 11 years to obtain her Bachelors degree. I see that in terms of ‘where there’s a will there’s a way,’ and she did it! Her corporate career started with Phillip Morris and headed in the direction to Produce and co-host a radio show called The ‘CORE’ Hour. (CORE stands for Congress of Racial Equality). Now she speaks to thousands whether is at tea party rallies, Fox News, “Hannity”, “O’Reilly”, or speaking with Glenn Beck, and on behalf of Freedom Works as Outreach Director, a grassroots organization that educates, trains and mobilizes volunteer activists to fight for limited government. Deneen is also the author of “Blacklash: How Obama and the Left are Driving Americans to the Government Plantation.” As one reviewer wrote Deneen “gives tough love” about what is going on in the black community, not only going after the Democrats, but Republicans as well.
Read more and watch the full interview here.
Jun. 14, 2013 12:29pm
Actor Ken Wahl, known for playing several iconic roles in the 1980s and 1990s, has been increasingly vocal about the current state of affairs in America. He has openly decried the Obama administration, made his voice heard about the atrocities at Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s clinic — and is even considering pleas from some that he run for public office.
Considering the rare occurrence of a Hollywood actor coming out as a conservative — and an especially vocal one — TheBlaze spoke with Wahl to learn more about his worldview. The actor, according to his own account, hold views with little rooting in partisan politics, as he embraces values over party ideology.
Wahl’s Background and Apolitical Upbringing
“My family was very apolitical. We were just lower-middle class working people — and sitting around at the dinner table, politics was never a discussion,” Wahl told TheBlaze by phone of his childhood. “It was always about working — and I never considered myself a conservative. I never put a label on myself.”
Wahl noted that he was taught that the world doesn’t owe people anything and that it’s essential for individuals to work for themselves and their families — and to take care of their own.
“I didn’t realize I was a conservative until after I got into show-business,” he continued.
But rather than lambasting Hollywood for its politics or claiming that he was denigrated over his right-of-center views, Wahl said quite the opposite, citing inaccuracies that some conservatives advance about the entertainment industry.
“I think there’s been some misconceptions about that. … In all my experience — I had a very serious spinal injury — my entire career was only 11 years long, I can tell you that no one in Hollywood ever asked me for my political affiliation or my religious beliefs or anything like that,” he said. “What they care about is making money.”
That said, Wahl agrees that Hollywood elite are overwhelmingly liberal.
Published on Jun 16, 2013
Louisiana Senator Elbert Guillory (R-Opelousas) explains why he recently switched from the Democrat Party to the Republican Party. He discusses the history of the Republican Party, founded as an Abolitionist Movement in 1854. Guillory talks about how the welfare state is only a mechanism for politicians to control the black
It’s Not Meta Data – It’s My Data
Published on Jun 9, 2013
Transparency and Ownership. First part of a mull-part series.
Published on Jun 11, 2013
Profiling With Metadata