Perhaps the salient feature of Chelsea Conaboy’s 4,000-word screed in the New York Times is its title, “Maternal Instinct is a Myth That Men Created,” together with the fact that she makes essentially no effort to make the case. Or maybe it’s that she claims to have written a book about the neuroscience of parenting, but barely mentions science and, when she does, it’s in the vaguest manner that in no way supports her thesis.
Good stuff. I wonder how these feminist ideologues keep it up. They’ve been going at it in the same key for at least 5 decades now with not a hint of cognitive dissonance. I suppose it helps that biology is actually a constant. That way there can be no actual end to their sense of grievance. I think they like it that way.
Well, they get a lot of goodies for being who they are. The DV industry gets money and attention and the courts give them power. Ditto the MeToo industry. And eternal victimization in whatever realm, particularly for women, gets plenty of attention and the protectiveness of others. If you're a really needy person, what's not to like?
Good stuff. I wonder how these feminist ideologues keep it up. They’ve been going at it in the same key for at least 5 decades now with not a hint of cognitive dissonance. I suppose it helps that biology is actually a constant. That way there can be no actual end to their sense of grievance. I think they like it that way.
Well, they get a lot of goodies for being who they are. The DV industry gets money and attention and the courts give them power. Ditto the MeToo industry. And eternal victimization in whatever realm, particularly for women, gets plenty of attention and the protectiveness of others. If you're a really needy person, what's not to like?