[netmilsmom]

I tell my girls, you hold the power as long as you cross your legs.

Once you give it up, they have power over you.

[goodwithagun]

Went on at 16 because of so much pain & bleeding every month. Tried to have a baby 10 years later and found out that the reason I has issues was PCOS. The pill did not solve my problems, it only masked them. I went back on the pill after I had my son. After three days I felt like crap and threw them away. My milk production plummeted and never returned to what I had been producing. I will never use the pill again.

[wideawake]

Simply put it made heterosexual intercourse recreational instead of procreational, equalizing it with the other kinds of activity that are also non-procreational - masturbation and homosexuality.

[Judges Gone Wild]

If women don’t have the power, you haven’t been paying attention. Most married men I know are completely whipped.

If The Pill made contraception convenient, then why are there so many women with multiple baby daddies?

[Pessimist]

While approached as an economic analysis of sorts, I notice they make no mention of the actual economic aspects of relationships or divorce.

[JRandomFreeper]

Yet another reason to remain single, celibate, and sane.

/johnny

[wagglebee]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[Global2010]

59% of the men...

Well sure.

[TAdams8591]

This was clear ages ago. The Cardinal does a great job of clarifying what has been reality for a long time.

[Inappropriate Laughter]

The analysis seems rather silly to me, sort of a junk-sciency begin-with-the-conclusion (contraception is bad) and develop logic to support that conclusion. But I figured though Cardinal George Pell, the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, who wrote this article is no-doubt sincere, what do the boys from the seminary really know about dating between men and women, marriage, or markets? Perhaps he misunderstood.

So I read Reichert's original article, and Cardinal Pell did do it justice; however the journal First Things is a journal to advance religious ideas, and Reichert is trying to advance a viewpoint rather than being making an actual well-developed economic analysis. For example Reichert asserts (does not provide evidence for) that contraception means that women face "fierce" competition for men once they enter the "marriage market," and "this means that the 'deals they cut' become worse for them and better for men."

Simple logic tells us that every man who wants to get married still has to find a women, so men and women have about the same power from that standpoint.

In reality social and legal changes over the last few decades not caused by contraception have led to much greater power for women in relationships and marriage; for example GOMEZ V. PEREZ, 409 U. S. 535 (1973) reversed ancient common law, the wisdom of many generations, that if a woman wanted a man to support her child, she had to get married; the Court did so on 14th Amendment "equal protection" grounds.

Courts have become much more "woman friendly" in other ways also. Today a married woman with children can have an affair, divorce her husband, kick him out of the house, and her cuckolded husband must make large child support payments to support her and her boyfriend, who is now living with his children. This is common

And the cheated-on husband, when he tries to re-enter the marriage "market" is going to do so in an impoverished condition.

GOMEZ V. PEREZ is just one element in the social/legal changes that have made marriage more risky for men. The rise in the age of marriage that Reichert attributes to "the pill" could be attributed to these heightened risks and costs to men, and on the other side to the ability of women to access the benefits, such as child support, plus money and goods from welfare programs, that once could only have been accessed by her in a marriage.

If the Catholic Church wanted to help restore marriage using economic incentives it would advocate the restoration of common law in terms of child support, and advocate the end of government welfare programs, and only support private charity for "the deserving poor," ie widows and orphans. But the liberation theology influenced Church is supporting programs that are opposite of what would be required to restore economic incentives to marriage.

[TAdams8591]

"This revolution was reinforced by the music of the 1960s, for example Mick Jagger's Rolling Stones, or the Beatles."

It would seem the second British invasion caused more damage than the first.