Next you're going to tell me that the book also says that men are the baby-deciders.

The most damning aspect to the interview, (& I can only assume it included in the book)
Is when Lukkas outlines her motivating for writing the PI guide.

“The thing that surprised me most—what really motivated me to write the book in fact—was when I began reading about fertility issues and the feminists’ efforts to keep women from knowing the facts. In 2001, the American Society of Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) launched an advertising campaign intended to make women aware of factors that affect their fertility—including age. Kim Gandy and NOW were outraged. They thought it was too upsetting for women to be reminded of these facts in the public square.�

Indeed: The willingness of the feminist establishment to be ant-intellectual and ill-liberal in defense of it worldview has caused many women to abandon its approach.
When they strive to keep women ignorant of their own elemental biology in a misguided effort to further secure some utopian goal of statistical parity, you know your dealing with people who have ideology and not women as their motivation.

as opposed to conservative anti-feminists who tell women not to work and be subservient to their husbands--they're truly the ones that have women's best interest at heart, right?

besides, that whole "reproductive age" thing wasn't about feminists being outraged at medical facts. it was about being pissed off over conservatives using embellished and misleading data as a scare tactic.

Interesting bio. I'm seeing a lot about Lukas' graduate studies at Harvard and work as a policy analyst, but nothing about a husband or babies. Did she "postpone" childbearing? Or is she taking advantage of the feminist-won right for a woman to be defined by her intellectual work rather than her family life?

Uncle Sam Sugar Daddy? And here I thought that for the past 100 years or so we've wanted economic independence. Guess I was wrong.
Ok, you go girl. You go and find yourself a man, don't deny-the-babies, get yourself a cute little apron, and prepare to go back in time. It sounds like fun: not being able to get jobs because you're a woman; being sexually harrassed with no consequences; no birth control, no health information; and slugging back martinis and valium (mommy's little helper) because you hate your life so fucking much.

From the back cover:

* Women’s lib has "liberated" men from having to commit, "freed" women from marriage, and often "unshackled" women from having a family. * More than ever, women in their twenties and thirties live alone, are discarded by boyfriends after "living together," and are watching their biological clocks tick past the point of no return. * Women still prefer men who are breadwinners and can protect them physically.

Don't let feminists fool you with a politicized word like "single." The preferred nomenclature is "alone and discarded."

The back cover also describes Lukas as a "young career woman and new mother."

Ah, yes. Trying to have it all, are we, Carrie? I thought that was a myth sold by feminazis to millions of unwitting American women. Maybe if Lukas and her ilk took their own advice and spent more time with family and less time at work, we'd be spared screeds like this.

I love this:

"Lukas: The feminist movement pushes for government to subsidize daycare. Policymakers need to know that for most parents, institutional daycare is their least preferred option—most would rather keep a parent home."

Because there are so many two-parent households (and no, we're not including those damn gays and co-habitators!). I'm sure my mom would have agreed wholeheartedly after being dumped with a baby and a toddler and with no job when my father left her for the "other woman."

I haven't read the book ( and don't plan to), but I can guestimate that it's nothing but cover-to-cover pap. It's sad to me that no one seems willing to validate stay-at-home fathers. Are women the only ones who are capable of caring for children? I think we should have an instruction manual for women who buy into this hooey: "How to Marry the Fattest Wallet," or "Girls Just Want to Have Funds," because, you know, if Uncle Sam isn't a sugardaddy, someone else has to be!

No thankee. I'll just keep on keepin' on, denying those babies....

I was most amused/infuriated by that part too Sylke! I also do not plan on reading the book, but find it funny that she doesn't mention maternity leave OR paternity leave while on the subject of policy.

What I don't understand is how feminists are simultaneously being over-achieving career bitches making their own money *and* living off government welfare. Something's not adding up, Lukas. Please pick one.

And how exactly are any of her ideas politically incorrect? I believe they are right in step with the current politics and administraion. But you know, those conservatives just have to keep believing they're victims.

So, how is it that the existence of subsidized day care would prevent someone from staying at home?

Also, I wasn't aware that feminists were telling women that there's no such thing as menopause. Can someone please cite a source?

It wouldn’t, But by subsidizing the day care – the single earner family (with the parent who elected to stay home) would be paying for the childcare of the parent who was working. (and foregoing presumably her own subsidized car)

Uh-care

(I dont know if she has a car)

Liberal vs Conservative feminism!
OHHH$$$!!! I’m gonna call Maury Povich, then CNN, then fox and pitch the idea for a “debate� show! The trash talk! The cat fights! Will you throw chairs Jessica? You get more money! It will be really really good for feminism, I swear.

Oh, and never mind the fact that without the feminist movement, she might not have been able to attend those fancy Ivy League colleges...

IMO, people who do not want rights should not have them. It's the same principle as the right to be represented by an attorney-- if a defendant wants to represent themselves, they can waive that right. Similarly, anti-feminist women should not be accepted into Ivy League colleges, should be paid less, should be constantly told to becomes homemakers, etc. etc. etc.

Why is it that men can get to a certain age and buy a sports car and look back over life thinking did I make the right choices and everyone says 'oh it's a midlife crisis, he'll get over it'. If a woman starts looking back over her life and thinks that maybe the grass would have been greener if she'd done things differently then it's time to start claiming that feminists 'told her' not to do all the things she wanted to really do. It's like feminists are being accused of mis-selling endowment polices or something.

The segment blaming feminists for Big government reminds me of David Neiwert's thesis about how extremism is migrating into the mainstream. I've seen a couple of far-right blogs arguing this: 1)Women got the vote, then we got big government. 2)Therefore women are responsible for big government. 3)This must be because all girls really want is to be taken care of. 4)Therefore, if we eliminate their right to vote, we also eliminate big government! It's a win-win!

Here we have the same sentiment, stripped off the call for disenfranchisement.

By the by, chem fem, great point on the last post. Hope I get to use it in an argument sometime.

Woman on cover of book in pearls, strapless evening dress and holding that pan of hot fresh biscuits....

Was the author of this drivel even alive, let alone directly cognizant of what was touted at women in North America at the time imaginary paragons of domestic suburbia like this were paraded in front of them?

It's pretty easy to sigh for the antebellum feminine glory of fiddle dee dee Tara if you never had to deal with the grinding reality of the times.

But then, the neocons have always found stage time for the apologists who are willing to say 'gosh, it really wasn't that bad at all being a legally non-person."

Because after all, they know the majority of people barely read, let alone read about actual history. This is why anti-education is kewl.

Can anyone cite good 'and this is why women fight/fought for civil rights' books that are an easy read? I'd like to see at least one held up every time one of these crap books is publicized.

Abby/Felix/Mike Fitzgerald/or however many names you want to go under:

Your comment was removed because you were misleading in posting a link to another site and saying it was one of our threads. Not to mention, you've been posting under different names (but the same IP address) and calling us "skanks." So yeah, deal with it.

I don't recall calling anyone "skanks" recently, but if I did and you point out where I'll offer my apologies.

As far as your assertion that the link I posted was "misleading", I'll note that in my last post, I explicitly stated that the link was to a parody site, and that parody sites expressed their viewpoint through humor and irony. I also asserted that it was heavy-handed to remove comments that conflicted with your own world view, and surprised that you did so, as it conformed to a stereo-type of feminists as modern-day bookburners intolerant of other world views. I expressed surprise you conformed to the stereotype so easily. As far as posting names, many on the internet use "nom de plumes", as many have throughout history, for reasons of privacy or simply because "Samuel L. Clemens" has a less inviting ring than "Mark Twain".

What excuse will you use in purging this comment?

P.S. - If you'd like me to go away and never return, all you need to do is ask!

Abby Normal- how is disagreeing with the content of a book comparable to advocating book burning? (Besides, I'm sure burning this particular book would only result in the release of unusually noxious fumes). We disagree but no one said "ban/burn the book."

Jessica did you delete my post responding to Naz, or was I simply too dumb to post correctly?

didn't erase it. you may want to email me however regarding our comments policy--i can't email you since the address you put in is a fake one. you're here simply to be disruptive and frankly i don't have time to deal with it. i'm happy to discuss with you via email--but not here. thanks.

OK I'll email you. Pity my last comment didn't get posted (I must've stupidly navigated away b4 hitting "post"); I explained that MANY people use a "nom de plume" for privacy reasons, or simply because their chosen name rolls off the tongue better than, say "Samuel L. Clemens" (Mark Twain). I also explained the value of parody sites. Sigh. It was a good post and I'm too lazy to recreate it here...

Naz - sorry I wasn't clear; I wasn't objecting to your criticism of the book above. I was referring to sev'l comments I had that were deleted here. I think it's good for people to challenge the premises of books like the one above.

Please contact me by ICQ: 728692626. I have a news for you.

I was surfing the web one fine day and I came across this, shall we say, "interesting" reasoning packaged in a book-like structure. It doesn't bother me so much that it was published (hell whatever makes money can get published), but the audacity or sheer insanity of some of it claims is troubling. Hell I'm lying: the fact that it was published also bothers me. Shouldn't there be a giant red sticker on it labeled "Extreme Opinion". It's sad that this non-coherent logic structure can be published. It's sadder that people may actually read it and follow its example.

I was surfing the web one fine day and I came across this, shall we say, "interesting" reasoning packaged in a book-like structure. It doesn't bother me so much that it was published (hell whatever makes money can get published), but the audacity or sheer insanity of some of it claims is troubling. Hell I'm lying: the fact that it was published also bothers me. Shouldn't there be a giant red sticker on it labeled "Extreme Opinion". It's sad that this non-coherent logic structure can be published. It's sadder that people may actually read it and follow its example.