22 Years Ago: Andy Rooney Tells Generation X to Get Off His Lawn

Because of the mini baby boom that commenced in 1978 and lasted throughout the 1980s, a teenager in 1994 was somewhat unlikely to have been an only child, and may have been slightly more likely to have had a younger brother or sister than to have had an older brother or sister.  Such a teenager is somewhat likely to have had exactly one brother or sister.

Many children born in the 1970s have older siblings.  But, according to Census records and birthrate records, if a 1994 teenager wanted an older brother, he or she would – slightly more likely than not – have had to imagine him.

Now imagine a time before America Online, before Windows 95, before the ubiquity of cellular phones, and before the North American Free Trade Agreement began to have serious consequences for manual laborers in the United States.  This is also a time well before the emergence of many of the gadgets and other mental disorder-mitigating gizmos that we take for granted in 2016.  Let us say this teenager has social anxiety and is the furthest thing from cool.  He has an older brother, perhaps a several-years-older half-brother from the previous marriage of one of his parents.

These “parents” – suppose the term applies in only the loosest possible sense.  They are divorced – for the second time in at least one of their cases.  The divorce was unpleasant, and it directly involved four people.  Two played hot potato with the unwanted minor child for the entire hearing.  A third, the older brother, a legal adult with a job at an automobile plant, wanted everyone to just shut up and go away.  The teenager sat there frightened to death over what his future held, and blaming himself.  As the tension between the parents grew exponentially regarding the custody issue, the brothers were just left there, awkwardly acknowledging each other’s existence once every ten minutes or so for several hours.

At the meltdown point both parents were held in contempt, and were ordered to remain married.  Consummation with another partner would be adultery, re-marriage would be bigamy, and any subsequent children with anyone else would be illegitimate.  That would show them.  During the fracas, at the older one’s suggestion, the two brothers left out the side door.

The brothers left court completely unnoticed.  Strictly, it was a kidnapping.  But it was the best thing that ever could have happened to the teenager.  Without legal custody, the older brother imparted some semblance of order to the younger one’s life, and helped him grow.  The older brother was moody and extremely self-critical, but so was the younger one.  And it was nice just to be able to finally live, and not be told that this or that emotional hang-up was a deficiency requiring medication.  The brothers bonded over video games, HBO, R-rated movies, and a common love for total freedom and hatred for being tied down in any manner at all.  The teenager’s admiration was so great that he began to mimic his older brother speech patterns, and to dress exactly like him.  The older brother, it so happened, was an armchair scholar of the Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard, and was also a writer of poetry, which he freely shared.  His compositions were so authentic and so relevant that the younger brother began to carry them around and memorize them.  The more the teenager learned about his half-sibling the more impressed he was, and the more inspired he was.  What could his prudish, selfish parents offer that was anywhere near as exciting as this?

The older brother could do no wrong, even to the degree that when the older brother could no longer hide a cigarette habit, it was no matter.  It wasn’t even thought of.  The teenager had a Cool Older Brother…the World’s Coolest Older Brother.

Then it was an illegal drug habit.  But it didn’t matter.  Nothing else mattered.

One day, the older brother had to work late at the auto plant.  He didn’t come home that night.  The teenager returned home from school the next day, and just as he was about to let himself in, he was greeted by an envelope with his name on it, on the doormat.

It contained a hand-written letter addressed to him.  The younger brother began to read it.

Your brother, rehabilitation case number 02201967, is deceased.  Police concluded that he committed suicide with a firearm.  The autopsy shows there were drugs in his system, very recently taken.

This would be shocking enough.  What had he done to be abandoned – left completely alone – like this?  What?  How did it happen?  What if it wasn’t suicide at all, but was murder?

With a gun?  How did someone that thrillingly close to the edge, all day every day, have a gun?  Why?  That would be the last thing you’d want to own.  It didn’t make sense.  It just didn’t square…at all…  Christ…  The teenager began to blame himself all over again.

It was the worst day of his life.  It was worse than any breakup, and it was much worse than his parents’ separation.  It was as if the Sun had gone out.

But let us suppose further, that the notice proceeded rhetorically in a shockingly cold and caustic tone, utterly lacking sympathy, suggesting that the older brother was a waste of a life, peddling unproven supposition and putting forward opinion as fact in a manner calculated to maximize the emotional pain inflicted.

By about two-thirds of the way through, the teenager was in tears.

If your brother just leaves you like that, what does that say about you?  Were you not important enough to him?  Was he escaping from you?  You might want to reflect on that.  The truth is he wasn’t so great.  He used stomach ulcers as an excuse to abuse heroin.  You didn’t know that, did you?

He did.  But it didn’t matter.

He was in a totally dysfunctional relationship with a woman crazier than he was.  They are a laughingstock of the community.  They have a very young child together, who for two years has had my undying sympathy.  You didn’t know that, did you?

Of course he knew.  The brothers had shared their deepest thoughts and concerns with each other for years.  It didn’t matter.  No moral failing mattered.  His older brother had changed his life.  He had given him hope.  His older brother was there for him when absolutely no one else was.

What happened to your brother was a natural consequence of the way he lived his life. 

What was that supposed to mean?  This was clearly a writer who was not only completely inconsiderate and out-of-touch with reality, but who was also totally ignorant of how well-known the older brother’s mistakes and imperfections were.

Life isn’t fair, but I’m sure you can manage.  You are better without him.  After all, you will be required to grow up.  Now take a shower, cut your hair, switch those ridiculous baggy jeans and that stupid-looking flannel for something civilized and go get a job.

P.S. His poetry was terrible.

Yours very truly,

Andy Rooney

“Nirvana means freedom from pain, suffering, and the external world.” --Kurt Cobain (1967-1994)

Nirvana was part of a movement that is now seen as a reaction to the excess of the hair bands of the 1980s.  The hair bands wore over-the-top costumes on stage and often put on pyrotechnic shows that were better than their concerts.  In contrast, Nirvana eschewed all of that, and (paraphrasing Cobain himself) made music primary and lyrics secondary.

They basically said, “We’re Nirvana.  We’re from Washington.  This is what we have to offer.  Take it or leave it.  Whatever…”  And 1990s teens and young adults took it, to say the absolute least.

The absurd screed which few Nirvana fans saw on 60 Minutes firsthand but is Rooney’s sad, miserable legacy as far as many of them are concerned, aired the second Sunday following Cobain’s officially intentionally self-inflicted shotgun death.  It caused such a hostile reaction that CBS expressed regret for having aired it. In 2016, video of the infamous segment is difficult to find, owing in part to the network’s efforts to suppress it for fear of seeming out of touch.  (Also, the Generation X members whom Rooney insulted as teenagers and adolescents have exponentially more spending power now than they did in 1994.)

My conservative Baby Boomer parents (b. 1955 and 1956) have, outside the context of Cobain’s death, gone on the record as saying Rooney is “an old coot” and “a windbag.”

Enough said.

Author and college professor Anna Quindlen (b. 1952) opposed Rooney’s comments in the New York Times later that week.

Being deserted by one’s family is a real problem.  The struggle with the severe obstacles of what was for years referred to as a “broken home” is a serious struggle.  Being told one “was an accident,” or was (or is) “unwanted” or “should have been aborted” are comments that cause real pain.  It is pain as real as the pain of hunger, and as real as the pain of watching a fellow soldier suffer and die.

Fundamentally, the tirade amounted to “get off my lawn,” something even Ms. Qundlen’s generation famously heard from the “Greatest” cohort numerous times, often in the context of the music they rocked out to together and loved.  Rooney’s 60 Minutes segment from April 17, 1994 amounted to a bloviating, false exaltation of the virtues and accomplishments of an aging and dying Generation over the virtues and potential of an intrepid, fiercely independent, emerging Generation – one which was doing its damndest to deal with a world which it did not create, and which was astonishingly hostile to it during its childhood.

The truth is all Generations are called upon to face incredible challenges and from time to time exhibit extraordinary bravery.  The cohort Tom Brokaw called the “Greatest” in a 1998 book does not have a monopoly on this.  Bravery shown on a large scale by one Generation may be of a different type than that shown by another Generation on a large scale.  In the private sphere, on a personal level, the Generation that Kurt Cobain and Nirvana spoke to so powerfully is the most maligned, hated Generation born during the twentieth century, by a wide margin.  Regardless of one’s ideological preferences, it is simply a fact that it was the most aborted Generation of the twentieth century by a wide margin.  As children and adolescents, it was the Generation most often deserted by parents and by guardians.

Make no mistake.  This significant, obvious schism between those who smugly nodded their heads in agreement with Rooney’s comments, and those whose nine-day-old wounds were ripped right open again, is Generational and not so much ideological.  Members of post-war Generations were more likely than members of pre-war Generations to have been shocked by the callousness displayed, even if they did not like, or even had never heard of Cobain or of Nirvana.

Generation X has emerged as quite well-adjusted and successful in the time since the angst-filled uncertainty of the 1990s.  It has largely declared victory over the insulting labels applied to it during its childhood and young adulthood.  It has taken change, including technological change, in stride.  Its members have founded, and continue to run, websites known worldwide.

It took the negative of a rather unforgiving, unpredictable adolescence, and made it into a positive.  Instead of feeling sorry for itself, its members learned from the hand they were dealt and created something better.  It was in fact the first Generation to widely insist upon some semblance of the work-life balance so associated with the Millennial Generation nowadays.  Members of Generation X remain married at a rate higher than that of the Generation that immediately preceded it.  Surely its own children are profound beneficiaries of this.

So, if anyone cares, no thanks to arrogant blowhards many decades older than they are, Generation X is largely happy, healthy, and from time to time, still, for old time’s sake, is facetiously wearing flannel, and rocking out to alternative bands from the Pacific Northwest.

Long live those blasted ‘90s teenagers.

Comments are welcome.


How to use the Flight Status widget from FlightStats (Part 1)

FlightStats ( is the 2004 creation of Conducive Technology Corporation, "a software development and information services firm" based in Portland, Oregon.  FlightStats aggregates real-time data on commercial passenger flights departing from and/or arriving at a major airport in North America, Europe, or eastern Asia .  It presents real-time weather reports from major airports in these regions.

FlightStats displays overall on-time performance data for individual flight numbers.  It also displays, for up to a day following the scheduled landing time, whether a particular domestic flight departed early, late, or on time; and whether it arrived early, late, or on time.  On its homepage, FlightStats presents real-time data on how backed up each major North American airport is.  (In the wake of the United Airlines computer glitch, the delay at Chicago's O'Hare International was deemed by FlightStats to be "excessive.")

Not all information displayed by FlightStats is in real-time.  Transponder, radar, and other information about a commercial aircraft's position in the sky, was aggregated into a stream of data made available to the airline industry by the FAA in 1991.  It is known as the Aircraft Situation Display to Industry (ASDI), and today, it is provided through the Department of Transportation's Volpe Transportation Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

FlightStats uses the ASDI stream to closely track domestic (United States) flights over from their point of origin to their destination.  It tracks international flights during their time in American or Canadian airspace.  FlightStats displays latitude and longitude coordinates, airspeed information, altitude information, and approximate heading information, for commercial flights over North America. However, for traveler safety and national security reasons, the data obtained from the ASDI stream, obtained and displayed by FlightStats, regarding planes currently in the air, are delayed by a few minutes.

Conducive Technology Corporation is also the creator of Pathfinder, an integration of real-time cargo flight data from 850 cargo airlines, with real-time ground shipment schedules from numerous delivery companies.  Pathfinder allows business owners who rely on seamless and quick transitions of their merchandise from one mode of transportation to another, to make more intelligent and cost-efficient decisions regarding how to ship, when to ship, by which routes to ship, and even whether or not to ship.  But unlike many of the features of FlightStats, most of the features in Pathfinder are not free of charge.

FlightStats offers several free widgets for webmasters to place on their travel-related websites.  In the right sidebar, immediately below the widget, there is something navy blue at the top, powered by FlightStats, and deceptively labeled "Flight Status."  In fact, this widget is capable of much more than simply telling whether or not a flight is expected to leave on time, or is expected to land on time.  Unfortunately however, the widget does not understand natural English, the way that search engines do to some degree, and high-powered computers do, to a great degree.  So here is an explanation of how to "talk" to the Flight Status widget from FlightStats, to get the information from it you want.

There are currently four different types of commands that the widget recognizes.  Those four are Airline Commands, Airport Commands, Flight Status Commands, and On-time Performance Rating Commands.

There are currently two Airline Commands the Flight Status widget understands.  The first command simply returns information that FlightStats has on a certain airline.  This information often includes (for United States-based carriers especially) website addresses and phone numbers to call if you have lost luggage, customer service-related links to the airline's website, the airline's local customer service phone number in (as many as) dozens of countries, a web link to information about its frequent flyer program (if it has one), a link to its mobile site, a link to for "floor plans" (so to speak) of its planes, and a link to the airline's page.

The command understood by the widget is simply the two-character IATA code or three-character ICAO code for the airline.  Typing in B6 or JBU will return the information on JetBlue Airways, for example.  Typing in "JetBlue" or "JetBlue Airways" will return a redirect page, because the widget does not understand natural English.  The widget tends to know a lot more about United States-based carriers than others.

The second Airline Command is simply the IATA or ICAO code for an airline, followed by the word "scorecard."  The command returns daily on-time performance data for the airline.  It shows how many of the day's scheduled flights it has information for, first of all.  But then, out of those, it shows how many flights that day have departed and arrived successfully, how many have been delayed (and by how long they have been delayed), and how many have been canceled.  It shows the all-important on-time percentage for the day, for both departures and arrivals.  It also breaks these exact same data down by the top ten departure airports for the airline, and the top ten arrival airports for the airline.

The widget can display an impressive depth of information on the number of flights flown each day, by even the smallest, most obscure airlines.  But it does not necessarily track them for on-time performance, especially if they are not .  The widget tends to know a lot about flights which depart from and/or arrive in either North America or Europe.  Thus, airlines without many scheduled flights that depart from or arrive in either North America or Europe will not be as carefully tracked for on-time performance by FlightStats.

Explanation of Airport Commands, Flight Status Commands, and On-Time Performance Rating Commands, will be in Part 2.

Thanks for reading, and enjoy the Flight Status widget from FlightStats.

original article (FlightStats)

Click on the Google +1 button below if you like the article!


Emmy-winning ad from Frontier Airlines

Super Bleep  (This one won the Emmy.)

others from Frontier

Leather Seats

Penguins 1

Penguins 2

Gris Can't Stop

Best Low Cost Carrier

Jack Gets Dissed

Best Baggage Handling


Why did I just post all that?

"What exactly is the wrong side of history?" parts 1, 2, and 3 are actually about a month old and have been online at a site I have not submitted for indexing by the major search engines, the way I have this site.  I have been blogging for three years, and on this other site over that span, I write from time to time, to a smaller audience than what I will eventually achieve with this site, with your help.  Although parts 1, 2, and 3 are accessible by the public in both locations, their other location is a site you would never find unless you were looking for it and knew where to find it.

That site is more of a personal journal which might or might not be of particular interest to the audience I will attract with this site.  Here and there I will copy posts from the other site to this one, when I believe it is appropriate.  For the next several posts, I want to shift gears with you a little bit, and I will justify that by telling you about a paragraph from an article about politics I read long ago.  The article's writer noted that statistically, people who are on the pro-life side of the abortion debate are more likely to oppose gun control than people who are on the pro-choice side of the abortion debate, even though "guns and fetuses are completely different things," in his words.  He wrote that opposition to abortion and opposition to gun control "are both particular expressions of a general cast of mind."

You might be able to Google that quoted phrase and find the article, if you're interested.  I don't know.  It was long ago.  But my point is this.  I believe that bloggers do not need a particular niche in order to drive traffic to their site, as much as they need to seize upon "a general cast of mind," and give that particular audience what experience has shown, it tends to enjoy, even if what it tends to enjoy is not necessarily all "philosophy of history" all the time (something most history Ph.D.s don't even enjoy).

Am I going too far to suggest that the love of history and the love of geography are both particular expressions of a general cast of mind?  The popularity of the three articles preceding this one has already shown that love of history and interest in politics are both particular expressions of a general cast of mind.  (No one truly loves politics, do they?)  Should a blogger who lives his real life in the real world, a world in which every discipline is related to some other discipline in some way, be forced to artificially choose one or the other as his niche?  I do not have an answer to that question because I dispute a premise of the question.  The question assumes, incorrectly, that such a choice is even possible.

All I'm saying is that I will sometimes wander to and fro, from topic to topic, with confidence that the "general cast of mind" of the readers I will attract is such that ninety percent or more of my consistent readers will take something of value away from ninety percent or more of what I write.

With that in mind, I want to tell you that tonight I will be posting the first section of a entry I made to my other site a little more than nine months ago.  This entry, in total almost 10,000 words long, was originally inspired by a person who, around that time, had the opportunity to travel abroad to some of the places I have only yet imagined seeing, but hope to see.

If you are of this "general cast of mind" then you will enjoy it.

Thanks for reading.  Comments, as always, are welcome.



What exactly is “the wrong side of history”? (Part 3)

I am not done with the subject of my last two posts.  Allow me to rant irrationally and randomly one more time.

I have gotten a little bit of grief from people for my last two posts, and I want to address it.  I acknowledge that people of the male sex and people of the female sex are not the same.  I’ve known it since I was about one, actually.  Okay, seriously though…I’ve known it in the sense of what people in the social sciences mean when they point it out, since early high school at the latest, and probably middle school.  You typically do not have to tell me, of all people, how or why any one group is “not the same” as any one other group.  My longtime readers can appreciate this I’m sure, as I am always pointing out how various belief systems based on the falsehood that “we’re all the same,” are wrong.  I am going to target another one of those in this very post as a matter of fact.

Ultimately, it is the same falsehood that I focused on last time, and the time before that.  But this time I will tell you about the social and economic aspect of it instead of the historical aspect of it.  I am no political scientist, but I believe that political scientists are entitled to the same snobbish attitude over their own discipline that historians sometimes exercise over theirs, should political scientists wish to exercise it.  Therefore, on matters of fact that I allege here, I will defer to political scientists in cases where I might be wrong.  This is not terribly complicated stuff, and though you might disagree with some conclusions I draw, I don’t believe I have any facts wrong.  But a historian’s primary province is the past, so I am a little out of my element here.  Just keep that in mind as we go along.

Two more things…  My longtime readers know about my willingness to let a group name itself within reason.  Here, I will somewhat liberally use the words feminism and feminist to include various individuals and groups that might wish to deny each other use of the term, and to exclude each other from the scope of the term.  I am not concerned about this if you are not.  Actually, even if you are, I’m still not.  This is simply a continuation of my long tradition of letting people label themselves within reason.

And lastly, I suppose my analysis assumes life in an industrialized, secular country or society, the only type of country or society I have ever personally known.  Now finally…  Onward…

If people who are nominally feminist are bound and determined to view the past, the present, and the future as some kind of deterministic progression towards some inevitable end, as it appears many are, then let us hope that the specifically Marxist view of history is wrong.  I can hardly imagine how an inevitable progression towards the demise of capitalism and the nation-state, and redistribution of wealth and power to a dictatorial group called the proletariat (whose primary group identity is economic in nature), would be beneficial to feminism in any way.  Indeed, Marxists were suspicious of early feminism as just another bourgeoisie movement that would get in the way, and delay the inevitable proletarian revolution.

And observant, open-minded feminists in the 21st century can see that the reverse is the truth today.  They tend to view women as causally, morally, and financially responsible for their own choices, and as creators of their own futures, even if it is as part of a public society constructed primarily by men.  Unfortunately, some however, still lean on teleological views of the past, the present, and the future that are detrimental to women.  They are detrimental because they accept as part of this inevitable progression they believe in, goals that have only ever been actively worked for (when actually achieved), in human history.

But if feminists do insist on viewing the past, the present, and the future generally deterministically (something I wouldn’t suggest), then let us hope that the specific view of history termed “Whig history” is correct.  (I don’t believe it is, but that’s not the point.)  After all, the inevitable progression towards ever greater liberty and enlightenment posited by the Whig historians would seem to bode much more fortunately for feminism than anything characteristic of Marxist economy, or of Marxist philosophy in general.

Moreover, an explicitly Protestant Christian determinist view of the past, the present, and the future also has nothing in particular to offer feminism that I can see.  That’s the theological view (of Luther, and Calvin even more so, I suppose) that original sin means that free will is either a negative trait (rather than a neutral one or a positive one) or is non-existent, and that any human progress (and ultimately salvation) is the work of God alone.  Historically speaking, it is (I would imagine), simply the gradual and inevitable unfolding over time, of divine providence, controlled completely by an omnipotent (and quite emotionally distant, it seems) God.

Ho hum…  Such a view of the past, the present, and the future has nothing at all to offer 21st century feminism…nothing that I can see, anyway.  Adoption of such a view of the past, the present, and the future is probably detrimental to feminism, in fact.

There is another way, though.  I’d like to suggest that feminists adopt a more free will-oriented view of the past, present, and future.  Would people who are nominally feminist rather stand back and wait for the future to just “happen to them”?  Or would they rather act to create a closer-to-equal society and future for women?  Would they rather be active or passive about this?  Instead of waiting for some glorious future to just “happen to them” through some deterministic progression towards some inevitable end, they might take a proactive approach instead.  Although I believe it is false, the ultimate truth of the Whig proposition of an “inevitable progression towards ever greater liberty and enlightenment” is feminism’s best hope if they absolutely must be deterministic about it…not Marxism for sure, which I also believe is false.

A pure feminist philosophy centered entirely on total public societal equality for women, as opposed to a philosophy only seemingly centered on women but in fact focused primarily on one or more other things, is something I can get behind.  But my mental detector of “other things,” I must say in full disclosure, is very perceptive and is never wrong.  Irrational and extreme hatred of men, disguised as “feminism,” for example, is something I cannot support, for obvious reasons.  Sundry other social, economic, and political issues often latch on to the cachet of feminism and try to ride along.  Usually, they try to hide, and disguise themselves as some kind of closely-related derivative of pure feminism.

But sometimes they don’t try to hide.

There is indeed such a theory, out in the open, called “Marxist feminism,” if you can imagine such a thing.  This seems flatly contradictory to me, and this is going exactly nowhere for true feminists, for a number of reasons…a fact that those people who are in it just for the Marxism hope the people who are in it primarily for the feminism never find out, by the way.  Marxist feminists are just Marxists whose numbers are dwindling.  Feminists who join this particular sub-group have been duped because ultimately this group’s non-negotiable priority is Marxism, not feminism.  A stated goal of Marxism in general, and of Marxist feminism in particular, is the dismantling of (or the inevitable disintegration of?) capitalism and all of its hierarchies, as a way to supposedly liberate women.

But how, precisely, would the dismantling of capitalism do that, in the 21st century?  In the 21st century, that would seem to hinder more than help, if I may say so.  Is not a stated goal of feminism to break through the “glass ceiling” in various areas?  I may misunderstand, but does not the “glass ceiling” include the assumption of a capitalist economy, and capitalist hierarchies?  I thought so…  Speaking of hierarchies, I am a graduate of a fourth-tier state-funded university founded in 1967, the English translation of whose motto is, “learning is good.”  And as such I may misunderstand this and therefore simplify this in a dysfunctional manner.  If so, I apologize.  (I am always learning.)  But the conclusion seems rather easily arrived at, to me at least.  Because of the stated goals of each, Marxism and feminism are rather obviously incompatible with each other.

Am I missing something?

Marxism makes an assumption, totally incompatible with feminism, that women will never be members of what Marxism specifically terms “the ruling class.”  At the Marxist “end of History” so to speak, there will be no “ruling class,” and the “glass ceiling” (not a Marxist term anyway) will be meaningless as a concept, because at the Marxist “end of History” there will be no hierarchy to speak of.  (There will be no United States of America to speak of either, by the way.  We will all pray toward Brussels and Frankfurt.)  Is that the society you want your daughters and granddaughters, if you ever have them, to inherit from you?

If it is, then there is nothing I can say to you.  You can finish reading this post out of curiosity if you wish.  But I am finished trying to convert you away from the lunacy of straight Marxism, and the self-contradictory bill of goods misleadingly called Marxist feminism.  And I think it is sad you are devoted to tearing down the very type of economy most beneficial to women in the 21st century.

In my view, feminists, to achieve their stated goals, need all the capitalism they can handle, especially now that girls are enrolling in college and university at higher rates than ever, and women are graduating from it at higher rates than ever.  In such an environment, not remotely contemplated by Marx, or even the early feminists, the more capitalism there is, the higher and higher talented women can rise.  And I can think of no faster way to take the hot air out of the balloon than to follow the precepts of Marxism.  So ladies, resolve a contradiction in a way that will actually be beneficial to you, and steer clear of Marxism and Marxist feminism.

If feminism is willing to ditch determinism, that of the Marxist variety specifically, embrace free will, and realize that economic Marxism and Marxist teleology need feminists more than feminists need them, I believe women will realize something very close to full social and political equality, or at least, something much closer to social and political equality more quickly.

Enough.  I only give you this advice because I care about you and want to see you do well as full-grown adults and have fulfilling lives, no matter what you consider to be a “fulfilling life.”  You are very intelligent, or else you would have dumped me to the curb after the first paragraph of this. And I am totally sure you will make wise choices as to what constitutes a fulfilling life.  I have a little more to write on this subject, but it can wait.

We’re not all the same.  Drop Marxism like a rock.  Free will-oriented feminism is my Hegelian synthesis for the day.  What’s yours?  Thanks for reading.  Comments are welcome.


Being on 'right side of history' won't help case (Nick Baldock, a former opinion writer for the Yale Daily News)

The wrong side of history? (Jay Ambrose at