“Ditzie Queen”, Hanna Rosin Interviewed by Dennis Prager….November 12, 2012

This morning’s session listening to Glenn’s favorite guru of all time, Dennis Prager, brought once again the voice and mind of Hannah Rosen to his radio listeners.

It is a self assured Hannah, glib, quick of talk, smooth in rhythm and beat and destined to be in perpetual motion for the rest of Hannahlife.   Lefties, especially the Jewish, are quick and energetic of speech lest they give opening to anyone who might dare a question or  competing thought.

Within her closet Ms. Rosen spoke expertly about the current American condition in which she brags, yet moans that……well let me quote the title of her book for the reason why Dennis has returned her to his audience:

‘THE FALL OF MEN…….RISE OF WOMEN”.

Looking further I found the following description:

The End of Men: And the Rise of Women [Hanna Rosin] on Amazon.com. … education, and the younger generation of men are falling further and further behind.(When I sought to learn more about this feminist’s background I came up with the following results under the name, Hannah Rosen who was stationed for duty at “THE INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH ON WOMEN AND GENDER” at the University of Michigan.

So…..I decided to look up Hanna’s or Hannah’s background and got what I had expected:

• Education

  PhD, University of Chicago, Department of History, December, 1999.
  MA, University of Chicago, Department of History, June, 1989.
  BA, Cornell University, College of Arts & Sciences, May, 1985.

  Academic Employment

  Assistant Research Scientist and Director, Program Area in Gender, Race, and History, Institute for Research on Women and Gender, University of Michigan, June, 2009–present.

  Assistant Professor, Program in American Culture and Women’s Studies Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, July, 2000–May, 2009.

  Lecturer, Department of History, Princeton University, January–May, 2000.

  Courses Taught

  Undergraduate

  • The Era of the Civil War and Reconstruction
  • Gender, Slavery, and Emancipation
  • American Citizenship: History and Theory
  • History of Sexuality
  • Gender in America
  • Feminist Theory
  • Junior Honors Writing Seminar

  Graduate

  • Race: Historical and Theoretical Approaches
  • Histories of Racial Formation in the Americas
  • Race, Gender, and Citizenship in the 19th-Century US
  • Feminist Theory

  (I presume these  are in fact, two feminists  in one.   If I have erred, please inform me.) 

  Ms. Rosin or Rosen has been in a small closet of schooling all of her life.

  My old maid school teachers in the 1940s and 50s programmed me to seek  or request proof when such definitive declarations are made and sold as truth as Ms. Rosin is selling with her title.

  Again the title…..’THE END OF MEN”, etc…..How do you react to the title if you were, let’s say, interested to what degree, if any, the title were true?

  There might be an end of men on the island of Samos back in BC, maybe.    Or, perhaps in Lesbia, Iowa.    The “end”  of something doesn’t leave much to quibbling or gradation of conditions.  THE END MEANS THE END……not the ABSENCE, but the END.    

  In the interview by Dennis, articulate Hanna, or Hannah speedily qualified the title, claiming her book had more to offer than “The End of Men”, and Dennis extracted enough  information from her to prove the point.     (As an aside, why in hell name the book, The End of Men…..if   The End of Men, isn’t what the content suggests?)

  I decided to delve further into the Hanna “End” book and found:   

  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/books/review/the-end-of-men-by-hanna-rosin.html?pagewanted=all

  By JENNIFER HOMANS

  “The End of Men”? This is not a title; it is a sound bite. But Hanna Rosin means it. The revolution feminists have been waiting for, she says, is happening now, before our very eyes. Men are losing their grip, patriarchy is crumbling and we are reaching “the end of 200,000 years of human history and the beginning of a new era” in which women — and womanly skills and traits — are on the rise. Women around the world, she reports, are increasingly dominant in work, education, households; even in love and marriage. The stubborn fact that in most countries women remain underrepresented in the higher precincts of power and still don’t get equal pay for equal work seems to her a quaint holdover, “the last artifacts of a vanishing age rather than a permanent configuration.”

  THE END OF MEN

  And the Rise of Women

  By Hanna Rosin

  

  Illustration by Kelly Blair

  And to whom do we owe this astonishing revolution? If there is a hero in Rosin’s story, it is not women or men or progressive politics: it is the new service economy, which doesn’t care about physical strength but instead apparently favors “social intelligence, open communication, the ability to sit still and focus” — things that “are, at a minimum, not predominantly the province of men” and “seem to come easily to women.” And so, “for the first time in history, the global economy is becoming a place where women are finding more success than men.”

  Human history? Global economy? Her evidence for women the globe over consists of thin, small facts cherry-picked to support outsize claims. We read, for example, that “women in poor parts of India” are rushing ahead of their male counterparts to learn English so that they can man call centers. But will this impressive display of initiative really liberate them? And even if it did, are we to deduce a country from a call center?

  But Rosin’s real focus is the United States, and here she delivers a blizzard of numbers, studies, statistics. Consider: By 2009 there were as many women as men in the work force, and today the average wife contributes some 42.2 percent of her family’s income — up sharply from the 2 percent to 6 percent that women contributed in 1970. The future, Rosin says, looks brighter for women still. For every two men who will get a bachelor’s degree this year, there will be three women graduates. And even if they remain underrepresented at the top of just about everything, they have “started to dominate” in lower-profile professions like accounting, financial management, optometry, dermatology, forensic pathology and veterinary practices, among “hundreds of others.”

  Rosin has invented comic-book characters to explain the momentous changes she sees: “Cardboard Man” is rigid, stuck in old habits, mentally muscle-bound and unable to adapt to the fleet-footed and mercurial global economy. “Plastic Woman” (an unfortunate name choice, given the surgical “adaptability” it calls to mind) is infinitely malleable, nimble and endowed with “traditionally feminine attributes, like empathy, patience and communal problem-solving,” that make her the perfect match for the new economy. For her, the only way forward is up.

  But this “rise,” which Rosin so cheerfully reports, is in fact a devastating social collapse. It starts with inequality and class division. As Rosin herself shows, men at “the top” of society are not “ending.” It is all happening to the lower and middle classes, because “the end of men” is the end of a manufacturing-based economy and the men who worked there, many of whom are now unemployed, depressed, increasingly dependent on the state and women to support them. We know the numbers, and they are bad: since 2000 the manufacturing economy has lost six million jobs, a third of its total work force — much of it male. In 1950, 1 in 20 men in their prime were not working; today the number is a terrifying 1 in 5.

  And so, a new matriarchy is emerging, run by young, ambitious, capable women who — faced with men who can’t or won’t be full partners — are taking matters into their own hands. For the poor, things are especially tough. One single mother Rosin interviewed fell asleep standing in the elevator of the community college where she was studying to get her degree — between caring for three children and working a night job. No wonder these women don’t want to get or stay married: unless a man can pull his weight, he is just another mouth to feed. But as Rosin herself points out, the new matriarchy is no feminist paradise. To the contrary: we have been here before with African-American women, and it is not a happy story.

  The matriarchy isn’t just happening at the low-income end; it is happening among the middle classes too. Take the young women who are flocking to school to become pharmacists, one of Rosin’s favorite fast-feminizing professions. Giddy at the prospect of a $100K salary and certain they will never not work, even if they have children, these women are planning for lives without men — or without reliable men.

  That goes for the bedroom as well. If you thought today’s “hookup” culture was run by young testosterone-charged men who want sex and no commitment, think again. Rosin insists that women are often in charge and the primary beneficiaries. A steady relationship with a guy, as one researcher puts it, is like adding an extra course to an already full load. Who needs it? These women have “hearts of steel,” and the hookup culture gives them sex without getting in the way of ­career-building. Yet Rosin’s interviews with these young women are at times heartbreaking; they really do want love in their lives.

  Hookups notwithstanding, college-­educated men and women are more likely to marry and less likely to divorce. And although women still do a majority of the child care, men are changing, Rosin says; they are becoming, well, more like women: flexi-, plastic men willing — wanting — to share in domestic life. Some workplaces are changing too, and some women are finding more ways to work and have children. Everyone is happier.

  Except, of course, that everyone is not — or not quite. Rosin’s chapter on women at “the top” indulges the soul-searching of educated women trying to “have it all.” She gives us Silicon Valley as today’s mecca, insisting that companies like Google and Facebook — flexible, new-economy places — are (in spite of their notorious frat-house cultures) solving the problems of women and children and work. But while I’m happy to learn that a woman at Google persuaded her boss to fly her child and her nanny with her around the world business class, this hardly seems a viable economic model for most companies, or most mothers.

  And what about Rosin’s faith in the adage that for women to make it to the top, you need to get women like Sheryl Sandberg, the chief operating officer of Facebook, to the top so that they can “remake the workplace in their own image”? Sandberg aside, we know this doesn’t necessarily work: women aren’t always, or even usually, looking out for other women — or even being nice to them. Many prefer to work with men; and some are willing to put in the long hours it takes to wrest their way up the chain of command.

  In the end, there is something smug — and wrong — about Rosin’s depiction of “Plastic Woman.” Is it really a good idea to say that we are, by gender if not by sex, open, empathic, flexible, patient, prone to communal problem-solving and the like? We’ve known for a long time that men do not hold a monopoly on being rigid, hierarchical, close-minded or authoritarian. Yet the women in this book are almost all organized go-getters, whereas the men come across as lazy, unambitious couch potatoes.

  It is hard not to cringe when Rosin compares a Type A girl who sits still in school and makes pages of to-do lists every night with a sloppier but equally high-­performing boy who can barely remember what comes next in his day. Rosin holds the girl (her daughter) up to the light and suggests that the boy (her son) will need to find his own “inner secretary” if he is to succeed in the world we live in. Well, maybe, but everything in me wants to defend the boy for just being who he is. Do we really want an alpha-girl model, even if she does succeed in the new world economy, whatever that is? Do we want a model at all? Why should a son — or anyone, for that matter — want to be more like anyone else (much less his sister — or mother)?

  Above all, is it really a good idea to suggest that women are poised to inherit the economy and that over time men and boys, God bless them, may learn to adjust and become more — more what? More like us (except when we’re not)? To suggest, in other words, that success — material, social, sexual, emotional — depends on (our!) gender traits and not on the legal and institutional frameworks we live in? I’m all for each of us remaking ourselves from within, but this kind of argument seems carelessly apolitical, especially at a moment when we are faced with public officials actively working to undermine access to birth control, abortion, equal pay for equal work. Talk about endings.

  And I can’t share Rosin’s rosy faith in the global economy. Revolutions, economic or otherwise, have a way of disappointing women. They tear down the old, women step in and make strides, and as a new order sets in the strides disappear. Are Rosin’s Plastic Women genuine victors, or are they — or will they become — unwitting victims? Will the women who are so diligently training themselves as pharmacists today be as flexible and confident when the winds of the feckless global economy turn against them? How flexible can a woman be when she has been training for something for years and suddenly it is blown off the map by the “new” economy? Ask the men who are ended.

  Jennifer Homans is a historian and a distinguished scholar in residence at New York University. She is the author of “Apollo’s Angels: A History of Ballet.”

  Ditzy is as ditzy does….and Ditzy Rosin (Rosen) is for now the Queen of Ditzies….   Within the statements made above in review of ditzy news one might feel empowered if one were a single woman and ditzy, a redundant compound, I admit. 

  Let us examine the facts:

  What is the condition of the human female……let’s say in the one party black plantation culture of inner city America?    How about nearly any city, inner or outer, anywhere in the Islamic world?   

  Let’s try South of Sahara Africa.    How is your imangination doing folks?

  How about drugged and violent anywhere America?   How well do the women do  in that geography?

  WHEREEVER SINGLE WOMEN GO IN ABUNDANCE,  TRUTH  AND THE BRAIN POWER THAT ENERGIZES TRUTH,  DIES…….. INTELLECTUAL GROWTH BECOMES DECADENT, KNOWLEDGE FANCIFUL AND MEANINGLESS.   

  LEARNING AND CURIOSITY IS MALE DRIVEN…….SINGLE WOMEN PREFERING  ‘PEACE’ IN THE STATUS QUO, ARE KILLERS OF KNOWLEDGE AND PRIESTESSES OF CULTURAL ROT.

  Where in our own America except in the closets of women’s studies at university and their Obama propagandists, do women actually command control?

  The very fact that university is being feminized is the most powerful force to drive men from its campuses……..just as the ditzy in Churches drive anyone with a mind far from its crosses and steeples.

  I worshipped my old maid school teachers, because they were not ditzy….they were queens of knowledge  who could express their art of teaching and feeling for the advancement of human education……and most importantly IN A MALE CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT.

  As historian, Arnold Toynbee,  recorded  for human memory:   “Great Civilizations are not murdered.   They commit suicide.”      and he could have added when the human mind becomes female, no longer able to distinguish and thererore teach truth.

  American men, the unemployed and the  soon to-be unemployed, the growing numbers of the”uninitiated of Rosin’ feminist garbage at university, schools, and in the Oval Office,  are unlikely to  become simply Gone with the Wind.   

  Already idle American  boys are returning to their drive of nature,  violence……not knowing the why of their violence, the absence of rational men in their midst, they have reacted and will continue to react; their’s not to reason why……their’s but to do or die

The Ditzy in Life Never Consider the Consequences of Their Ditziness

NEARLY ALL SUFFERING FROM CHRONIC DITZINESS ARE LEFTWINGERS…….AND ARE TO BE CONGRATULATED FOR YOUR HARD WORK IN RE-ELCTING BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA TO CONTINUE THE DITZIFICATION OF OUR ONCE BELOVED AMERICA.   Librarian, Jan DeSirey forwarded the following congratulatory note……the source of which is unknown:   Congratulations to the Democrats and Young People!  You now own it.  The next terrorist attack, you own it.  Can’t get a job after graduation, you own it.  Sky rocketing energy prices due to Obama’s EPA shutting down the energy producing states, you own it.  A nuclear Iran, you own it.  Bowing to the new ‘Soviet Union’, you own it.  Another severe recession, you own it.  A volatile border with Mexico, you own it.  Trouble getting good health care, you own it.  Higher heath insurance costs and health care costs, you own it.  No budget, you own it.  Our allies mistrust us, you own it.  Another trillion of debt, you own it. More Benghazi situations, you own it.  No one willing to join the military, you own it.  Trouble getting a loan to buy a home, you own it.  More dependency on food stamps, you own it.  Trouble finding good employment, you own it.  Several part time jobs instead of a good job, you own it.  A World Government, you own it.  The UN governing the United States instead of ourselves, you own it. A Senate that will not bring any legislation to the table rather it is “Dead on Arrival”, you own it.   China controlling our world trade trampling all over us, you own it.  Loss of our freedoms as we have known it in the past, you own it.  The demise of a democracy that follows the Constitution, you own it.  Less take home pay and higher living costs, you own it.  Driving a car that looks like a toy, you own it.  More government corruption and lies, you own it.  More tolerance of extreme and fanatical Islamists, you own it.  Terrorist attacks called work place violence, you own it.  Your “revenge” instead of love of country, you own it.  President George Bush is out of it now, and now it is all on Obama’s watch. Don’t be surprised when it is impossible to clean up this mess you voted for.   So very sad. God bless the United States.  Soon it will just be “bless the United States”  God will no longer part of the US belief system.”   We all can make corrections of the above note celebrating  the modern American rite of passage to Obama Marxism.  I shall refer only the the final blessing’s replacement of the word “God”.    It will be replaced by  ‘ “Great Leader, Obama”……blesses his children throughout these  United States’.

Message to All Americans……Know Thine Marxist Enemies Well!

 

Obama Shouldn’t Back Down 

By E.J. Dionne – ….is the title of a lefty piece announced by lefties of the Washington Post.

Back down from what?   from whom?……..Whom do these Marxists at the Washington Post allege we Americans  should  fear?   

Well, you and me is whom they fear……the “they” being  Obamaling totalitarians who are determined to create a single government State  where superior Marxist wisdom can rule without interference from conservative rabble.

Conservatives must learn to read beyond the headlines of its media people to become acquainted with anything in Obamaland that resembles truth.   Learn to recognize Marxists immediately from the halitosis they are programmed at university and its dominions  to spread.

Select the names of the  news favorites worshipped by  your local Obamalings, remember them, and refer to them for future Obamaling Marxist worship in  tones, attitudes, assumptions,  and story-telling. 

E. J Dionne is one of my favorite Obamaling ‘teachers’, but you have thousands to choose from.

Select Maureen Dowd for your harpy lefty of shallow mind of biting teeth.    There are countless black leftists looming throughout Congress and the establishment press to provide concerned Americans seeking the fresh air of reality,  with  jewels of  prideful ignorance, unabashed  racism, and all the gusto decades of Black Pride has been pumped into them.    Many are at the New York Times….Try Charles Blow for beginners…..but try to forgive him for his eternal childhood.

Folks, it may seem painful to perform such readings.  But you must know how Marxists distort and lie, and beyond that, what their basic assumptions are which  propel them to destroy the America as we have known it.        Greed and notoriety may be their driving force…..but what they claim is true must be examined, and the untruth  exposed.

Here is Obamaling  E. J. Dionne  writing in the Washington Post, one of my favorite ‘stones among American lefties:

Obama Shouldn’t Back Down

By E.J. Dionne – November 12, 2012

It is said after every election that the victors should put politics aside and work for the good of the country.

If President Obama believed this pious nonsense, he would put his second term in jeopardy. Asking politicians to ignore politics is like insisting that professional hockey players switch to basketball. In a system with national elections every two years — and in which the two parties are in relatively close balance — politics never disappears.

Fortunately, the president knows foolishness when he sees it. He has been toughened by four years of unremitting Republican opposition and has behind him both a large Electoral College victory and an advantage of about 3 million popular votes. The word “mandate” is overused — just ask George W. Bush. But Obama was absolutely clear during the campaign about his insistence that taxes on better-off Americans need to rise as part of any deal on the budget deficit and “fiscal cliff.”

And so did Obama gracefully but firmly challenge Republicans on Friday to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the middle class immediately and then begin negotiations on how to raise taxes on the well-to-do. He was asking them to give up their leverage because he knows they don’t have much leverage to begin with. Meet the newly empowered Obama.

The voters clearly heard what Obama was saying during the campaign. According to the media exit poll, only 35 percent of voters said taxes should not be increased. Fully 47 percent of all voters supported raising taxes on Americans earning $250,000 or more, including 66 percent of Obama’s voters. An additional 13 percent, of all voters and Obama’s, said taxes should go up for everyone.

If Republican leaders in Congress want to pretend that Obama’s re-election means absolutely nothing, the president seems willing to let all the Bush tax cuts expire. This is the only way to deal with recalcitrance, reflected in the fact that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell didn’t even let the president make his case on Friday before issuing a flat statement rejecting any tax increases. Obama can only hope that he can break more reasonable Senate Republicans away from their hard-line leadership.

House Speaker John Boehner has tried to sound more reasonable, and Obama took him at his word. Graciousness comes easily when you are operating from a position of strength.

Still, even in his conciliatory mode, Boehner made clear that preserving low tax rates for the rich remains the GOP’s single highest priority. The speaker said he might support new revenue, but only through some vague “tax reform.” But that’s what Mitt Romney offered during the campaign. Boehner is saying he will make a deal with the victorious candidate only on the basis of the program of the defeated candidate. Here’s hoping this is just a bargaining position.

By emphasizing Obama’s victory as a demographic and organizational triumph, conservatives have been laying the groundwork for renewing their sotto voce campaign suggesting that Obama is somehow “illegitimate” or not “one of us.”

Yet the exit poll found that those who rallied to Obama represent a broad coalition of all of us. Yes, he won African-Americans, Latinos and Asian-Americans overwhelmingly. But the exit poll also shows that 32 percent of Obama’s voters were white women and 24 percent of them were white men, while 23 percent were African-American men and women, and 14 percent were Latinos. This is a genuinely diverse alliance.

Obama’s victory was also plainly a triumph for the center-left: 46 percent of Obama’s voters called themselves moderates, 42 percent called themselves liberals, and 12 percent said they were conservatives. Judging by its attitudes toward unfairness in the economy, this is far more a populist coalition than an establishment center. Obama’s voters are invested in growth, raising incomes and reducing unemployment, not austerity and budget balancing.

And this may have been the most important aspect of Obama’s first post-election policy statement. He did not lead with balancing the budget. “Our top priority,” he said right at the start, “has to be jobs and growth,” and then listed his proposals to expand opportunities.

Obama seems to understand that the interests of the coalition that elected him overlap with the national interest. That’s why he needn’t fear the politics of the moment. For the first time in a long time, the politics are working in Obama’s favor. 

The Economic Crisis Caused by Obamacare Is About to Begin in Earnest

As was predicted by all the knowledgeable before the Obama victory last week…..but ignored by the Marxists in Obamaland,  Obamacare is going to be very expensive for Americans and American culture.

Unemployment is going to explode  in those states where this State dictated “health” program will be accepted.     The majority of Americans seem to have trouble understanding that government does not create wealth….it spends wealth.   And American business cannot affort to pay for Obamacare for all of its workers and stay in business.   

Many companies will go out of business.   Others will  reduce their working staff by layoffs and/or reducing workers’ hours.

My own landscape company  won’t hire new workers if we have to pay for even an ounce of Obamacare.     We expect more work next years, but won’t hire.

Please read the following excepts from a piece sent by Mark Waldeland reviewing certain reality:

“Welch Allyn, a company that manufactures medical diagnostic equipment in central New York, announced in September that they would be laying off 275 employees, or roughly 10% of their workforce over the next three years. One of the major reasons discussed for the layoffs was a proactive response to the Medical Device Tax mandated by the new healthcare law.

Dana Holding Corp.

As recently as a week ago, a global auto parts manufacturing company in Ohio known as Dana Holding Corp., warned their employees of potential layoffs, citing “$24 million over the next six years in additional U.S. health care expenses”. After laying off several white collar staffers,company insiders have hinted at more to come. The company will have to cover the additional $24 million cost somehow, which will likely equate to numerous cuts in their current workforce of 25,500 worldwide.

Stryker

One of the biggest medical device manufacturers in the world, Stryker will close their facility in Orchard Park, New York, eliminating 96 jobs in December. Worse, they plan on countering the medical device tax in Obamacare by slashing 5% of their global workforce – an estimated 1,170 positions.

Boston Scientific

In October of 2009, Boston Scientific CEO Ray Elliott, warned that proposed taxes in the health care reform bill could “lead to significant job losses” for his company. Nearly two years later, Elliott announced that the company would be cutting anywhere between 1,200 and 1,400 jobs, while simultaneously shifting investments and workers overseas – to China.

Medtronic

In March of 2010, medical device maker Medtronic warned that Obamacare taxes could result in a reduction of precisely 1,000 jobs. That plan became reality when the company cut 500 positions over the summer, with another 500 set for the end of 2013.

Others

A short list of other companies facing future layoffs at the hands of Obamacare:

Smith & Nephew – 770 layoffs
Abbott Labs – 700 layoffs
Covidien – 595 layoffs
Kinetic Concepts – 427 layoffs
St. Jude Medical – 300 layoffs
Hill Rom – 200 layoffs
Beyond the complete elimination of a significant number of American jobs is another looming problem created by the health care law – a shift from full-time to part-time workers.”

Read More