I have long noticed that despite decades of feminist dogma, Americans still value boys more than girls. (Don’t hit me, Bev... I’m just the messenger.) Now there’s some statistical proof to back up my observation.
The statistical proof comes in the form of a study by economist EnricoPalazzo Moretti. Enrico found a statistically significant difference in marriage and reproduction rates depending on the sex of the first child. Specifically, he found this:
Based on these items, EnricoSuave concluded that the public has a bias in favor of boys because couples are more likely to stay together for boys, fathers are more likely to claim boys in a divorce, and couples with boys are more satisfied with the children they have when they have a boy. Now, this could just mean that men value boys more, but I don't think that's the case. I say that because the above fits with other observations I’ve made of human behavior over the years, observations which involve an implicit valuing of male higher than females... valuing done by both men and women.
For example, it’s still newsworthy when women achieve some level of equality. This tells me that there is a “surprise” factor in women being seen as equal to men. That suggest that women are still considered lesser. There’s also the issue of drag queens. Women in particular seem thrilled by the idea of female impersonators and drag queens, whereas no one is interested in male impersonators or "drag kings." I would suggest that this tells us there is a shock factor in men adopting femininity. That shock factor derives from the loss of status, and it's identical to when a boss in some story lose their position and must now live among the lowly employees. Conversely, notice that when women are dressed as men in magazines, it’s typically seen as sexy and playful. There is no shock because it has the feel of someone aiming for higher status, just as when children put on their parent's clothes, i.e. it is seen as "cute." Again, this suggests that society sees women as having less status as men, and thus men becoming women is shocking and women becoming men is looked at somewhat condescendingly as cute.
There’s also the fact that women are still seen as needing guidance and protection in all phases of their lives – just look at Obama’s Julia website which all but suggested that without his guidance, poor Julia would live a hopeless, failed life. No one would attempt to sell their platform as offering guidance to men, because society still sees men as functioning independently and women needing help. Again, this suggests that women are seen as lacking skills men possess, which again suggests a view that they are inferior.
Is it true that one is more valuable than the other? Not really. On an individual basis, there and both men and women who are extremely valuable and others who are worthless. And my sense is that on average, both are about the same. Men seem to be better at some things and worse at others, and when combined, the two form a pretty decent partnerships that cover all the options. But despite that, I do think that there is a lot of evidence that society still perceives males as having more value. Enrico’s statistics fall in line with that.
I guess the next question is, what's the source of this?
The statistical proof comes in the form of a study by economist Enrico
● Couples who have a boy out of wedlock are more likely to marry before birth than couples who have a girl.Each of these was in the 2-3% range, which doesn’t sound like much until you realize that means thousands of cases each year.
● Parents who have a girl as the first born child are more likely to divorce.
● Parents who have a boy as the first born child are less likely to have more children.
● Fathers are more likely to seek custody when the child is a boy.
Based on these items, Enrico
For example, it’s still newsworthy when women achieve some level of equality. This tells me that there is a “surprise” factor in women being seen as equal to men. That suggest that women are still considered lesser. There’s also the issue of drag queens. Women in particular seem thrilled by the idea of female impersonators and drag queens, whereas no one is interested in male impersonators or "drag kings." I would suggest that this tells us there is a shock factor in men adopting femininity. That shock factor derives from the loss of status, and it's identical to when a boss in some story lose their position and must now live among the lowly employees. Conversely, notice that when women are dressed as men in magazines, it’s typically seen as sexy and playful. There is no shock because it has the feel of someone aiming for higher status, just as when children put on their parent's clothes, i.e. it is seen as "cute." Again, this suggests that society sees women as having less status as men, and thus men becoming women is shocking and women becoming men is looked at somewhat condescendingly as cute.
There’s also the fact that women are still seen as needing guidance and protection in all phases of their lives – just look at Obama’s Julia website which all but suggested that without his guidance, poor Julia would live a hopeless, failed life. No one would attempt to sell their platform as offering guidance to men, because society still sees men as functioning independently and women needing help. Again, this suggests that women are seen as lacking skills men possess, which again suggests a view that they are inferior.
Is it true that one is more valuable than the other? Not really. On an individual basis, there and both men and women who are extremely valuable and others who are worthless. And my sense is that on average, both are about the same. Men seem to be better at some things and worse at others, and when combined, the two form a pretty decent partnerships that cover all the options. But despite that, I do think that there is a lot of evidence that society still perceives males as having more value. Enrico’s statistics fall in line with that.
I guess the next question is, what's the source of this?
46 comments:
I'm in no mood to ever defend Obamacare, but let me point out something... what OPM did for congressional staffers is not an exemption from Obamacare despite what you've heard, nor is it actually unreasonable (though I don't like it), and here's the key that people should know.... the Republicans did not make this happen in any way. This is all on OPM. So don't listen to certain nut jobs who are implying that the Republicans had a hand in this.
Also, while we're talking about Obamacare, I came up with something interesting. In the past 10 years, I've been in the hospital twice -- fake heart attack and blood poisoning. The two events were very expensive and I didn't have insurance, so they were all out of pocket.
So I asked myself, would I have been better off if I'd had Obamacare insurance that whole time.
The answer turns out to be NO.
Despite the fact the insurance would have covered both very expensive incidents, over that ten year period, I still would have paid just a little more in premiums than I paid in medical bills.
Now, I would imagine that few people are going to end up in the hospital twice in ten years for expensive issues. So for the vast majority of people, how can these policies possibly be worth it?
Not discounting anything said afterward, my initial and lingering reaction to Enrico's data is that the numbers fall within the margin of error for most surveys. (I'm basically quibbling with Enrico's choice of significance threshold.)
As to all the rest, I wonder if it isn't a nature vs. nurture question. After all, considering the amount of effort expended over the last century to combat those attitudes, everything you've listed doesn't suggest much success beyond their being manifested more benignly.
Of course, inherent in the question are assumptions about how value is appraised, regarded, and managed. Generally speaking, we don't toss the things we value to the winds under the assumption they will take care of themselves. That's a matter of perspective, I suppose.
Which probably sums the whole thing up. We continue to see women as less than men because we keep taking the vantage of women "proving" themselves. Certainly, that's an appropriate point of view when she rises to a CEO position. But we look at it the same way when she ventures into menial disciplines that no one would consider proof of anything besides being unskilled for something better. And we do it sideways all the time, too. First woman to manage the Target on N. 92nd Street! Whoop-di-doo! I wonder if "we" are really as enamored as "we" seem to be.
Excellent points. The study called this statistically significant, which means outside the margin of error by definition. I didn't bother checking because I'm super lazy.
I don't think the idea is so much that we "toss" males away as we think they are capable of handling their own affairs. Tossing away is more of what they do to women in the Middle East where they don't even educate them on the basis that spending resources on them is considered a waste. So I feel pretty confident in my assumption that our society sees men as more capable of independence rather than less worth helping.
I often wonder myself about these fake "accomplishments": first person without a penis to do X or first person with lots of skin pigmentation to do Y. To me, these are manufactured achievements. I'm curious if others see them the same way. But in any event, I think the fact that the idea is considered newsworthy suggests that women are viewed as having less value... otherwise, it would seem like nonsense that anyone would report a women finally achieving what a man has already done, i.e. the fact it gets discussed suggests some disparity in how we see the sexes.
A lot of that seems to be a stretch. For example, the fact fathers are more likely to seek custody of sons than daughters could just mean that fathers admit they wouldn't be able to tell their daughters everything they needed to know. I love my daughters, but if my wife and I separated, they'd be better off with my wife.
As for drag queens, on average heterosexual women seem to be more comfortable with homosexuals (male and female) than most heterosexual guys.
Also, women seem to like putting on the clothes of their significant others. I don't see that as gender bending, I see it as them trying to take ownership (of the guy, not the clothes). Guys wearing their girlfriend's clothes are making a completely different statement.
Okay, I've looked at the actual paper. He's using U.S. Census data, so he can reasonably say he has a margin of error of zero with that set. So I withdraw that comment. Even though significance levels are chosen arbitrarily (if you didn't know), I'd tend to agree that anything over 1% is significant with a near-perfect data set.
It's actually a very interesting paper, if you go to the SOURCE. I would highly recommend against reading any journalistic reviews of the paper, as at a very minimum, the first thing they all do is apply a vernacular understanding of "value" to the findings rather than the scientific one intended by the authors.
Moreover, the journalistic approach understands the findings as revelatory of "girl hate"--which they knew was there all along. I expect the right-wing reaction to the study will be to destroy the characters of the researchers. The paper itself, however, makes it abundantly clear that while first-born girls affect the decision making process, it is still very much unknown how and why.
Interestingly, one clue can be found in that the gender preference for Asians is seven times higher than for Whites (in the U.S.) with Blacks and Others both falling in the middle somewhere.
Women take an average of 12 years out of the work force for childbearing/rearing duties. That's today. So a woman who completes medical school with 200K in loan debt to pay back is in much worse shape than a man. Simple biology. Women have breasts and they want to use them to feed their babies.
I am not against women being educated or professional, I am both, and I am a mother of many children. It is just that life puts us behind the 8 ball, especially surrounding times of pregnancy and childbirth. That is also reflected in savings rates for retirement. The loss in earning years is set onto the woman's shoulders, who lives longer than the male. Overall, women have a hard life. Would I trade it? No. I love being a mother/wife/lover. But it's fricken hard out here sometimes.
One other thought, while leftist outlets will certainly champion this paper as confirming all of America's ills (while ignoring the aforementioned clue that we are less evil than the rest of the world, Asians being the closest proxy for the recently immigrated) I doubt they'll delve much deeper into policy implications than the paper's authors (suggesting a ban on sex-selection technologies).
It occurs to me that, if first-born girls correlate to higher divorce probability and all the social ills that entails, policies should focus on promoting family cohesion. However, such policies seem anathema to the American left (who paradoxically promote same-sex marriage while characterizing opposite-sex marriage as oppressive--a generalization, to be sure). Meanwhile, I expect the American right to be too stupid to reach that conclusion.
Blechchk, boys are ickey...
That being said, Opus#6, you are right. And it is something that "the women's movement" and young professional women refuse to admit and believe should not be part of the equation in any discussion. Employers invest a lot of time and money in training, and young women tend to leave their jobs after having babies. So they tend to advance slower. It's just a fact and can't be denied.
Anthony, It's certain a low level of evidence, but still, it raises an interesting question. And you are correct that there could be other explanations.
When I read the study, the point the guy made was that any one of these data points would be meaningless, but in his opinion, each of them together suggests that couple value boys higher.
On cross-dressing sending a different message, that's the point though -- it is a different message because of the perceived difference in status between men and women.
tryanmax, Glad you looked it up! :D
The race differences don't surprise me at all because you see the effects of that in India and China, where there are millions of missing girls.
On significance, I think it is important to remember that significant means "there is something here." It doesn't mean "there is something very important here" or "something that applies to everyone." Ditto on value. When a scientist says value, they mean it in the economic sense -- something that is considered a good. They don't add value judgments... that's what journalists do: "the public hates girls!!"
I think ultimately, all this study tells us is that there is a preference for boys. It's not clear why or what the cause is, but parent behavior seems to change when they get a boy child in ways that indicate they value the boy more than they would if it were a girl.
I also think it's significant that the number is so low. This suggests that Americans are all but over the kind of prejudice that existed in the past and still exists in less developed countries.
BTW, the left are the ones who have gone insane over this... "AH SEXISM!!" I doubt the right will even notice.
Opus, Very true. From an economic perspective, women have some serious disadvantages unless they don't want to have children.
On the other hand, there is much more to life than economics and kids are one of those things that are simply worth more. There's a quote that's made it into several movies by now that really sums this up: "Nobody on their deathbed ever wished they'd spent more time in the office."
That's something that I think a lot of people lose track of, and I know that economists and governments don't understand it because it can't be quantified. But it's true. Some things are worth more than their economic value.
tryanmax, You're in quite the mood, I see. LOL!
I do think it's interesting that the left pushes same-sex marriage as a right and a good thing, but they slams heterosexual marriage as oppressive. I also think it's interesting that feminists are more interested in forcing women to work than they are in letting them raise children.
I'm not sure what the policy prescriptions should be in this regard, or if there should be any. It seems to me that the issue is slowly taking care of itself.
Actually, that description of value includes more judgement than what is meant in scientific or economic jargon. Really, it just means "has a contributing effect toward X." It's a highly contextual term and it illustrates just how ingrained value judgements are to human speech. It's extremely difficult to find detached language. Something must, of course, always be identified as the positive in order to make discussion possible, and there convention will prevail.
Bev, boys are ickey... maybe so, but who will take out the garbage if not for us boys! ;P
I have always found it interesting that feminism (at least the official version) doesn't respect choice. It talks about choice, but then it makes it very clear that there is only approved path for women -- into the workforce. If feminists really cared about women, they would also push for other options and to make sure that women who raise kids... you know, "cookie bakers"... are given the respect they deserve for the truly vital function they perform. Without moms, this country falls apart in five hours.
Andrew, true, the assumption that all things contain policy implications is a potentially stymieing or even dangerous one.
tryanmax, True. That is what scientists are saying when they talk about value. But again, it's not what the public thinks of value. They think of "values" in a bigger sense of "covet." But science doesn't usually imply any sort of intensity.
tryanmax, True, but I think it's human nature to ask (1) is this a problem that must be fixed and (2) how would we fix it. That's deeply ingrained in human nature.
"I also think it's interesting that feminists are more interested in forcing women to work than they are in letting them raise children."
I was chatting on Facebook w/ a woman today, a stay-at-home mom who home-schools her kids*, who more or less said the same thing.
*Kids who I think might be child prodigies.
I was always under the impression that men wanted girls and women wanted boys. The girls tended to bond with their dads better and similarly boys to their mothers.
Which means that the predilection for boys is just another example of the ascendent matriarchy.
Or, our society has emphasized girls so much to the point where boys have a value that comes from not being talked about that much.
Just a guess.
"...just another example of the ascendent matriarchy."
K - and as soon as men accept this ascendency of the matriarchy, the sooner our task will be complete. At least that's what we discuss when we go in pairs in our super secret bathroom meetings...
Kit, I don't really see any evidence of our society emphasizing girls in that way. Liberals do a lot of "oh, they are so helpless, we must save them," but society seems to ignore that stuff.
K, There does seem to be a bonding difference.
Bev and K, I seem to have missed some memos. LOL! I thought the lizard people were taking over?
Bev: I KNEW it!!!!!
Andrew: You're right, but the lizards are all females except the drones.
Don't tell anyone I told you this BUT sometime women work with the lizard people...but you didn't hear it from me...
(insert ex-wife to snake comparison here)
Countdown to Catastrophe
AUGUST 3, 1914 (99 years ago today…) -Part 1 of 3
1:30 AM
-German Ambassador Below arrives at the Belgian Foreign Office in Brussels. He tells Permanent Undersecretary Baron van der Elst that the French have launched attacks across the border from dirigibles. Van der Elst asks where the attacks took place. When Below says they happened in Germany, van der Elst says he fails to see how that’s relevant to Belgian interests. Below then continues, trying to say that France has no regard for international law and, therefore, is likely to attack Belgium as well. Van der Elst is unimpressed and escorts Below to the door.
2:30 AM
-The final text of the Belgian response is completed. Though several ministers complain about King Albert’s decision not ask the guarantor powers for help, Albert gets his way. (He aims to follow the letter of the law in regard to Belgium’s neutrality, not asking for help until an actual invasion has happened.)
4:00 AM
-Belgium’s Council of Ministers finally breaks up for the night. The last to leave is King Albert, who is seen with a copy of the response in his hand as he stares out the window.
7:00 AM
-Baron de Gaiffier, political secretary to Foreign Secretary Davignon, acting on orders from his boss, delivers the Belgian response to Below at the German legation in Brussels.
8:00 AM
-Madame Toussaud’s Wax Museum opens a special exhibit on the crisis.
8:30 AM
-Belgium and French officials in Brussels start sending copies of the German ultimatum to other capitals.
Morning
-Bank Holiday in Great Britain. Thousands have flocked in massive crowds to London.
-British conservative leaders Bonar Law and Lord Lansdowne tell Prime Minister Asquith that their faction will support any impending war measures. Several anti-war ministers send resignations to Asquith. Chancellor of the Exchequer, David Lloyd George, has had a change of heart and now supports the war camp.
10:00 AM
-Grey arrives at the British Foreign Office and meets with German Ambassador Lichnowsky. Grey says that although Britain would prefer neutrality, that may not be possible if Belgium's territory is violated. Lichnowsky promises that, whatever happens, Germnay will respect Belgium's borders afterward (even if Belgium takes up arms against Germany), and that Germany will not attack France’s northern coast if only England stays neutral. Grey can’t promise anything.
K, That's good to know! LOL!
Bev, Thanks for the tip. We won't tell anyone you told us.
tryanmax, Tisk tisk.
Countdown to Catastrophe
AUGUST 3, 1914 (99 years ago today…) -Part 2 of 3
11:00 AM
-The British Cabinet meets. Board of Trade president John Burns has already resigned. Lloyd George convinces other ministers planning to resign to hold off on such actions for now- even if it only means a few hours. Lord Beauchamp, Commissioner of Works, and Sir John Simon, agree to hold off on their promised resignations. Lord Morley still resigns, but agrees to appear at the House of Commons that afternoon for Grey's planned speech before Parliament. In the meantime, the Cabinet approves Churchill’s mobilization of the British Fleet. Asquith, who is also doubling as war minister (for the moment), has ordered the British Army to mobilize.
2:00 PM
-The Cabinet ends its meeting and Grey begins preparing for his speech. He will have to convince the representatives that Great Britain must defend the French coast against Germany and take action if Belgium is invaded by Germany.
Early Afternoon
-In London, massive crowds have gathered outside Parliament House. Lloyd George remembered that it “was so dense that no car could drive through it.” He adds that “had it not been for police assistance, we could not have walked a yard in our way.”
3:00 PM
-The House of Commons gathers in full attendance for the first time since 1893 (when the Home Rule bill was first introduced). Ambassadors Cambon (France) and Benckendorff (Russia) attend, but not Lichnowsky. (He’s worried he’ll be a focal point for the anti-war crowd.)
Grey begins in his usual diplomatic way, indirectly. Eventually, he mentions the Franco-British alliance, which he says is not an “enegagement to cooperate in war.” He describes the Franco-Russian alliance as something England isn’t a part of, and that “we do not even know the terms of that alliance.”
Finally, getting to France, Grey says that Britain cannot stand aside, since, with the French fleet in the Mediterraean, France would be forced to split its forces to defend both that and the Channel. Such an action might leave Britain open to attack from Italy in the Mediterranean. (British leaders don’t yet know that Italy won’t back its Central Powers allies.) He focuses so much on this that Lord Derby, a Conservative in favor of fighting Germany, mutters, “by God! They are going to desert Belgium.”
Now, an hour into the speech, Grey announces the German ultimatum to Belgium. He mentions France’s pledcge to respect Belgian neutrality, and recalls the 1839 Treaty of London, which guarantees Belgian independence. He then quotes former British Prime Minister Gladstone, saying that if Belgium were crushed, Britain “would stand by and witness the perpetuation of the direst crime that ever stained the pages of history, and thus become participators in the sin.” He says that if Belgium falls, Holland, Denmark and France could be next, with Germany in full control. He final comment: “we are going to suffer, I am afraid, terribly in this war, whether we are in it, or whether we stand aside. “ And if Britain ignores treaty obligations over Belgium, Britons would “sacrifice our respect and good name and reputation before the world.”
-Most of the Commons breaks out into applause. However, many feel that Grey failed to make his case for aiding France and Russia. The Labour Party (unanimously) and 28 members of the Liberal party draft resolutions to oppose the war. (Oddly, Grey never mentioned that Belgium refused Germany’s ultimatum and had decided to resist. London had received the news at 10:55 AM. Whether this was because of Grey’s judgement, or office incompetence, is unknown.)
-As Grey and Churchill leave Parliament House, Churchill asks, “What happens now?” Grey responds, “now, we will send them an ultimatum to stop the invasion of Belgium within 24 hours.”
-After the speech, Lichnowsky wires Berlin. Grey’s nebulous way of speaking has him thinking that there is still a chance war with Britain can be avoided- although no one is really sure.
Countdown to Catastrophe
AUGUST 3, 1914 (99 years ago today…) -Part 3 of 3
4:00 PM
-During Grey’s speech (which lasts an hour and a half), Asquith, as temporary war minister, officially orders the British Army to mobilize.
Evening
-The Kaiser’s belated reply to King Albert’s peace request (from two days ealier), finally arrives in Brussels. The Kaiser says that “only with the most friendly intentions towards Belgium,” that...”as the conditions laid down make clear, the possibility of maintaining our former and present relations still lies in the hands of Your Majesty.” King Albert, a normally calm man, loses his cool and angrily shouts, “what does he take me for?” That night, he assumes direct command of the Belgian Army. However, Belgium still refuses offers of military aid.
-In Paris, Ambassador Schoen is order to deliver Germany’s declaration of war to French Prime Minister Viviani. However, because of decoding issues and Schoen’s car being attacked by French citizens along the way, he arrives an hour late.
6:00 PM
-After assuring French Ambassador Cambon that Britain will defend the French coast from German attack, Grey meets with the Cabinet again. They fail to draft an ultimatum to Berlin. Instead, they draft a simple protest, asking that the invasion of Belgium be stopped.
6:15 PM
-American Ambassador to France Myron Herrick calls the French Foreign Office, telling them that he has been asked to take over the German embassy. Viviani now guesses that the declaration of war is coming.
7:00 PM
-At the Quai d’Orsay, Schoen arrives. He announces that because of “organized hostility” and air attacks by French aviators over Belgian territory (not true), “the Gerrman empire considers itself in a state of war against France.” Viviani denies the charges, and then personally escorts Schoen out of the building. (Both Schoen in Paris and Cambon in Berlin then leave their respective cities.)
GERMANY DELCARES WAR ON FRANCE
Dusk
-Staring out of a window in an office at Whitehall, Sir Edward Grey watches the lamps being lit in St. James Park. He turns to a friend and says: “The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime.”
Had to do this one on the fly while travelling. I have to sign off now, but will be back tomorrow.
Rustbelt.......Your series has been very enlightening. I read it thinking (The Accidental War" like I think you wrote early on. I also think how these fools descend into chaos and war, and those of us "little people" then must be pawns in their global games and are enlisted in their slaughter.
A prime example probably of Washington's admonishment about involving the US in foreign entanglements.
Shoulda read my TIME magazine sooner. This week's cover is "The Childfree Life." Just looking at the pictures, it is ostensibly directed at couples, but the actual article is directed at women.
I recognize that social pressure to do something can make it awkward when one decides not to participate, but the TIME piece devotes six pages--27 paragraphs--to exploring that single point. It makes no others. And after reading the article, I'm dubious that as much pressure exists. TIME reveals that one-in-five women doesn't have children, a minority, but hardly a scant one.
The criticism of "mommy culture" is a red herring. For whatever decision one makes, there will always be reminders of the road not taken. A fleeting moment of "grass-is-greener" sentiment doesn't mean the other choice is forcing itself on you. Neither are TV ads aimed at people in a different demographic than you.
Finally, while both choices have their eventual point-of-no-return, the parenthood side hits a bit sooner. People fixed on a path tend to lionize their decision. So to the childfree, instead of scorning your childed counterparts, maybe you should pity them, instead.
tryanmax, The media is much more radical than the public, especially when it comes to feminism, and it's interesting how biased their worldview can be. Female journalists are basically the core of the womyn who decided to fight for total independence in the 1990s.
The other day I saw an article that just made me laugh. In the 1990s, these womyn were obsessed with not taking their husband's last names. You saw articles about this everywhere, and they were very snooty -- Hollywood pushed this too. Article after article told you how wrong it was to take a man's last name and how "archaic" this was and how "women aren't doing this anymore."
Well, the truth was they weren't doing it then either. This was something invented in the newsroom and which never made it far beyond those walls.
Anyway, the other day, I saw this article lamenting how 90+% of women married in the past decade took their husband's last name, with the rest being a mix of keeping their own names or hyphenating. What was interesting was how this idiot described this as "a culture change of attitude" and how this was a "new" thing.
Even more interestingly, she pushed this completely wrong worldview despite the fact she actually referenced a poll which showed that the phenomenon of women keeping their last names peeked in the 1990s at around 19% of new marriages.
So in her mind, 19% of marriages for one brief 5 year period (probably never more than 2-3% of total marriages nationwide) was "the cultural norm" for marriages generally. And now that this fad has passed, she's lamenting how the culture has change and a "new" culture of women taking their husband's names has emerged.
That's total nonsense. I could use that kind of logic to make anything a cultural norm.
To me, it reeks of them wanting public praise for their largely uninteresting choices. I don't think the vast majority of people care whether you do or don't have kids or take a husband's last name or not. Because nobody cares, most just go with convention. Bucking a convention that nobody cares about does not get one branded as "brave" and I think it irks them to discover this.
A particular passage in the TIME article made me snort. A woman was quoted as saying that she encounters judgement at every turn when she says he doesn't have kids. Her example was that somebody asked her who would take care of her when she got old? We seem to have reached an extremely low threshold for what constitutes "judgement."
tryanmax, I think that's true across the board. I think we are in the era of the insecure narcissist. Everyone wants to be seen as unique and brave in their choices... a daring trendsetter... whether anyone follows them or gives a crap about what they've done or not.
Only, unlike prior narcissists, these need validation, and they need validation from those around them. Thus, they will see everything through their filter of "braveness" and they will twist everything to give it meaning through their cause... no matter how irrelevant the idea really was. That makes them feel that they have made the right choice if everyone takes a stand on it.
You see the same thing with obsessed people who find their obsession in EVERYTHING around them.
P.S. I also think, in the case of those pushing these ideas in the MSM, that they think that if they just pretend that something is a fact, that people will start to accept it as a fact. So they are in a little different category -- they are essentially lying to try to sway public opinion.
That is behind these articles as well.
Countdown to Catastrophe
AUGUST 4, 1914 (99 years ago today…) -Part 1 of 4
6:00 AM
-Ambassador Below visits the Belgian Foreign Office for the last time. He delivers a note saying that since Belgium has rejected Germany’s “well-intentioned proposals,” Germany will have to do what is necessary for its security, “if necessary by the force of arms.” It is, for all intents and purposes, a declaration of war.
GERMANY AND BELGIUM ARE NOW AT WAR.
6:08 AM- 6:18 AM
-German cruisers “Goeben” and “Breslau” shell the cities of Bone and Phillipeville in French Algeria. They quickly leave, and are soon followed by British warships.
8:02 AM
-Six infantry brigades and three cavalry divisions of German soldiers cross the border from Germany into Belgium at the town of Gemmerich along the Meuse River Valley. Their target is the string of 12 forts surrounding the fortified city of Liege- itself a key junction of roads, railroads, and water passages- 30 miles inside the border. The Germans' move into the country has been made more difficult after the Belgian Army finished blowing up several bridges and railroads. Behind them are the massive heavy guns built by the Krupp Factory in Germany and the Skoda Works in Austria that will be used against the fortifications. When they arrive at Liege, the guns of August will open fire and continue to do so until the Western Front falls silent on November 11, 1918.
ORGANIZED MILITARY ACTION BEGINS ON THE WESTERN FRONT OF WORLD WAR I.
8:30 AM
-British cruisers leave Scapa Flow to begin their fist search for German naval forces.
9:00 AM
-King Albert of the Belgians rides to his country’s Parliament building behind an open carriage carrying his family. He rides a lone horse, wearing a plain field uniform instead of his military dress clothes. Crowds along the packed streets wave and cheer as he passes by. Addressing the Belgian Parliament, he asks, “gentlemen, are you unalterably decided to maintain intact the sacred gift of our forefathers?” (He refers to Belgium’s independence.) The representatives shout, “oui, oui, oui!” and vote unanimously to resist Germany.
Countdown to Catastrophe
AUGUST 4, 1914 (99 years ago today…) -Part 2 of 4
Morning
-Shortly after news of the German invasion of Belgium, the British Cabinet holds an immediate session. No records are kept. Asquith only calls it “interesting.” Afterwards, Grey prepares a telegram to Ambassador Goschen in Berlin. It will be Great Britain’s ultimatum to Germany.
-In France, late socialist leader Jean Jaures is buried. At his service, support for the war is drummed up. The leader of the confederated French trade unions, Leon Jouhaux, implores his countrymen that “we take the field with the determination to drive back the aggressor.” (Ironic, given Jaures had been the country’s leading anti-war activist.)
Noon
-King Albert appeals to two of the Guarantor Powers- Great Britain and France- for help against Germany.
Afternoon
-American Ambassador to Belgium Brand Whitlock arrives at the German legation in Brussels. The Germans have asked him to take over after they leave. He later says Below was nearly motionless, only wiping his head and smoking. Below’s First Secretary, Herr von Stumm, mutters, “oh, the poor fools!...Why don’t they get out of the way of the steam roller? We don’t want to hurt them, but if they stand in our way, they will be ground into the dirt. Oh, the poor fools!”
-Kaiser Wilhelm tells the Reichstag, “we draw the sword with a clean conscience and clean hands.”
2:00 PM
-Great Britain’s ultimatum to Germany is wired to Ambassador Goschen. It demands that Germany retreat from Belgium at once and guarantee that country’s neutrality. Germany will have until midnight, Berlin time (11:00 PM, London time), to give a “satisfactory response.” If Goschen doesn’t receive one, he is to ask for his passports.
Late Afternoon (?)
-Asquith gives up his temporary position of war minister. Instead, it goes to his first choice, Lord Horatio Kitchener of Khartoum, who was about to leave Britain and return to his post in Cairo as British Proconsul of Egypt and the Sudan. The face of the British military, he is- aside from King George- the most famous man in the British Empire. When he later addresses the War Council, he gloomily announces, (much to everyone’s chagrin), that instead of a few weeks with the troops at hand, the war last at least three years and require an army of more than one million men. (Not far off from the actual numbers of four and a half years and an army of around five and a half million men.)
-The United States declares neutrality.
3:00 PM
-France’s Senate and Chamber of Deputies meets in a joint session to determine whether or not to fund the war with “war credits.” President Poincare declares that “France has been the object of a brutal and premeditated aggression” (despite Germany not having invaded France yet). Prime Minister Viviani then claims that German forces have violated French territory three times and that Italy will not support Germany. (Neither of them mentions Russia’s secret military buildup.) He calls on France “to help us in bearing the burden of our heavy responsibility, the comfort of a clear conscience and the conviction that we have done our duty…we are without reproach. We are without fear.” The vote to approve war credits is unanimous. Poincare later remembers, “never has there been a spectacle as magnificent as that in which they have just participated…In the memory of man, there has never been anything more beautiful in France.”
Countdown to Catastrophe
AUGUST 4, 1914 (99 years ago today…) -Part 3 of 4
3:30 PM
-Bethmann addresses the Reichstag, also asking for war credits. He declares, “Russia has set fire to the building. We are at war with Russia and France- a war that has been forced upon us.” Without mentioning his infamous “blank check” to Austria, he blames Russia for mobilizing and starting the whole thing. “Were we now to wait further in patience until the nations on either side of us chose the moment for their attack?” The chamber responds, “Nein! Nein!” He then condemns France for stationing troops on the border in a breach of international law.
At this point, Bethmann makes a nearly unbelievable admission: he says that Germany’s invasion of Belgium is a breach of international law, but one that Germany had been forced to commit because of “French encirclement.” He adds: “he who is menaced as we are and is fighting for his highest values, can only consider how he is to hack his way through.” (Admiral Tirpitz later calls it “the greatest blunder ever spoken by a German statesman;” Tirpitz thinks Bethmann has the appearance of a “drowning man.”)
Finally, after claiming Germany will not violate France’s northern shores, (to satisfy Grey’s speech from yesterday), Bethmann says: “I now repeat before the world…now the great hour of trial has struck for our people. But with clear conviction we go forward to meet it. Our army is in the field, our navy is ready for battle- behind them stands the entire German nation- the entire German nation united down to the last man.”
The request for war credits is immediately passed.
7:00 PM
-Sir Edward Goschen arrives at the Wilhelmstrasse and finds Foreign Minister Jagow. Jagow says he can’t legally give a reply to such an ultimatum. Also, there’s simply not enough time to respond. He implores Goschen to talk with Bethmann. At their meeting, Goschen would say that Bethmann was “very agitated.” Bethmann keeps muttering “terrible, terrible” about the ultimatum. Finally, he complains about “neutrality…a word which in war-time has so often been disregarded- just a scrap of paper, Great Britain was going to make war on a kindred nation who desired nothing better than to be friends with her.” He claims the British move “was like striking a man from behind while he was fighting for his life against two assailants.” The two argue about this being a matter of “life or death” for both countries. Bethmann even asks if Great Britain has thought about the cost of defending Belgium’s neutrality. Goschen then ends the meeting so that, in his words, he would not “add fuel to the flame by further argument.” (Bethmann, for his part, says that Goschen “burst into tears” before leaving.”)
Countdown to Catastrophe
AUGUST 4, 1914 (99 years ago today…) -Part 4 of 4
Evening
-French Ambassador Cambon in London asks Grey to send the British Expeditionary Force to France as once. (It’s already expected to be almost two days behind in the Franco-British mobilization plans.)
(just before and until...) 11:00 PM, London time (Midnight, Berlin time)
-Britain's Cabinet Ministers sit in their room, waiting for a response to their ultimatum to Berlin. For a long time, no of them says anything. They only stare at the clock. At long last, 11:00 arrives. There is no answer. Through the walls, they hear Big Ben sounding the time. Lloyd George later recalls that the “Boom, boom, boom!” of the famous clock sounded more like “Doom, doom, doom!”
-All British reserves are mobilized as the government takes control of the railroads.
-In Berlin, a mob attacks the British embassy.
GREAT BRITAIN AND GERMANY ARE NOW AT WAR.
11:20 PM
-Britain sends out a wire to its armed forces, “War, Germany, act,” known since then as the ‘War Telegram.’
Late night
-Great Britain commits its first wartime act. A warship (sources disagree as to whether it was the CS Teleconia or CS Alert), is ordered to cut several German transatlantic cables off the Dutch coast. This action will prevent Germany from communicating directly with countries outside of Europe.
Patriot, thanks for the compliments!
I must say, this has been both enlightening and depressing at the same time. It's just confounding how that many (supposedly intelligent) people could act so stupidly all at the same time- especially with the fate of so many people in their hands.
As for people being pawns of the powerful...that's a theme many authors have touched on in regards to this war. Their solution? Why, socialism, of course! (Really depressing.)
A great many historians often focus on the socialists' opposition to the war, and how they seem to believe that, if only the socialists (like Jaures) were in charge, (a pre-EU European Union), none of this would've happened. I personally find it wishful thinking by left-leaning thinkers. First, there's no guarantee. Too many variables. Second, it ignores human behavior and assumes everyone will just behave and conform in order to create an 'international state.' And third, so many industrial workers (who overwhelmingly supported socialist parties at the time) immediately supported the war at the start, that I find it hard to believe they'd just forget their national loyalties when "the iron dice rolled"," no matter who was in charge.
Well, okay, I rambled a little bit there.
I think Andrew and I talked about this last week. Though there are parallels to conflicts abroad, I think it's hard to make a direct connection since all of these counties in 1914- even republican France- had only a small cadre of people (who weren't beholden to the public) making the decisions. So, I can see similarities, but they're not perfect.
As for "The Accidental War," I you've come up with a near perfect alternate title for this conflict.
Rustbelt, Interesting, socialism, i.e. the concentration of power in an elite, is really what happened here. This was a war started by the supposed experts who weren't as clever as they thought and who found themselves with the wrong incentives at the wrong times.
Had there been more Democracy in these countries, this wouldn't have happened.
Well all of that is very intersting and it is probably true that men and women seem to subconsciously value boys more than girls but whether that is innate to the species or a product of centuries of stories of Knight's Gallant and Damsels in towers I can not say.
:
But interesting enough one of the military's prime arguments to keep women off the front lines of combat is the Women are more important to the species than men. Kill off 500,000 males as we did in World War II and you still have a baby boom. If you dragged 500,000 women off to war and killed them you'd have a serious decline in the population.
:
As to the idea that we treat women as needing our help, that might be just the ingrained male need to protect mothers and children. Plus from what studies I have read women are much better at hiding emotions than men. They did a psychological evaluation of speed dating, asked the guys and girls to indentify the oppostie partners that liked them and did not like them. The women were spot on, knew which guys were interested and which were not. the men were clueless. Women may just be better at manipulating men to get what they want.
Post a Comment