Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Princeton Mom Detonates Feminist Advice Bomb

    Princeton Mom Detonates Feminist Advice Bomb

    Susan A. Patton, a  Princeton University alumna who was among the 200 ‘pioneer’ women enrolled in the Ivy League school in 1973, penned a fascinating letter to the editor of the Daily Princetonian addressed to the “daughters I never had.”

    Here’s what nobody is telling you: Find a husband on campus before you graduate. Yes, I went there.

    I am the mother of two sons who are both Princetonians. My older son had the good judgment and great fortune to marry a classmate of his, but he could have married anyone. My younger son is a junior and the universe of women he can marry is limitless. Men regularly marry women who are younger, less intelligent, less educated. It’s amazing how forgiving men can be about a woman’s lack of erudition, if she is exceptionally pretty. Smart women can’t (shouldn’t) marry men who aren’t at least their intellectual equal. As Princeton women, we have almost priced ourselves out of the market. Simply put, there is a very limited population of men who are as smart or smarter than we are. And I say again — you will never again be surrounded by this concentration of men who are worthy of you.

    As a college-educated professional, I admire Patton’s bravery in challenging the notion that career should be the #1 driving force in a young woman’s life. I detest the fact that gender-feminists promote the idea that women postpone childbearing until their career is established, despite the fact fertility drops significantly with age.

    In fact, the response to Patton’s letter prompted her to follow-up in the Huffington Post, where she expanded on the reason for promoting marriage-oriented priorities:

    I understand that this can be seen as retrogressive, but for those women who aspire to what used to be thought of as a traditional life with home and family, there is almost no ink addressing personal fulfillment outside of the workplace. Specifically, finding lifelong friends and the right partner with whom to share a life and raise a family.

    Interestingly, Patton’s advice is part of an intriguing trend I am seeing among younger women.  As I noted earlier this week, women are “dropping out of feminism” and choosing to stay-at-home to raise their children.

    But young women aren’t the only ones rebelling against the progressive feminist agenda.  At College Insurrection, I reported on an event by University 0f Toronto’s Men’s Issues Awareness Society,during which Dr. Janice Fiamengo (an English professor at the University of Ottawa and former radical feminist) denounced women’s studies.

    The focus of Fiamengo’s critique was the “women-as-victim” template used by equity feminists.  She also gave the men a few words of praise, noting “self sacrifice and heroism are not exclusive to men…but they are distinctive to men.”

    It is good to see that an Ivy League mom and a former radical feminist have come to the same conclusion as I: We all want young women to make fully informed choices about all aspects of their lives.

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    I have a few words for Susan A. Patton, a Princeton University Princess:

    You must lead a very sequestered life if the only intelligent men in your life were those at Princeton. [Roll Eyes]

    Perhaps you have other issues… like being a prima donna with an elitist complex.

    Any excuse will do to cover your failure as a woman who is not good mate material, right Susie? you poor poor thing you?

    It’s likely my IQ is well north of yours and I will tell you from first-hand knowledge, there are *lots* of really smart guys in this world.

    Your most likely problem is… you didn’t value having a life mate and raising a family and instead focused all your energy and years of young womanhood in a world of liberal feminist pretense where such things are not important. Sorry, Princeton Queen, you don’t get your life back… you time travel is one way. Now excuse me while I continue not to give a damn about your life choices.


     
     0 
     
     0
    serfer1962 | April 11, 2013 at 5:16 pm

    As one of the earliest “Practise Hunsbands” in the 60s I was stunned by the venom of the Feminazi movement…the demands for elimination of 90% of men, Abortion up to age 2yo, serial managomy, instant divorce etc.
    But it was decades later, still unremarried, that I blessed that usless slut because now I could surf, hunt, own guns,mountain climb, fish, drink beer, fart etc.
    If I had married that French chick in college I might still be married, still a millionaire but without the adventures.
    I don’t think women, & even men, know how essential they are to marriage, society & raising kids


     
     0 
     
     0
    Mr.FadedGlory | April 11, 2013 at 6:54 pm

    “Patton spoke by phone from her home in the Upper East Side, where she runs her own business as a human resources consultant and executive coach.”

    This is code speak for, “I worked as an HR generalist for 20 years. When my position was downsized, I couldn’t find work anywhere, so now I write resumes for $150 apiece. I refer to myself as a ‘human resources consultant and executive coach,’ because as a Princeton grad, it would be too embarrassing to admit that I’m composing resumes for a living.”

    H/T PatrickByrne


     
     0 
     
     0
    radiofreeca | April 11, 2013 at 7:10 pm

    It’s a foolish man who marries a woman who cares only about social status: what happens if he ever loses his job, or gets in a disfiguring car accident? Or simply fails to keep the same pace of social climbing that she has decided he should achieve?

    The key phrase in marriage is: “for better or worse”. Because when you’re talking decades, plus having kids, THERE WILL BE “worse”.

    OTOH, if you marry someone for their innate personality and abilities: kindness, generosity, able to work well with others – those things will always be there.

    Since when have biological imperatives, procreation, socialization, and evolutionary fitness been seen as retrogressive? The first level of social organization is the family. Each family, composed of a mother, father, and their children, is a society unto itself.

    Placing a priority on dreams of material, physical, and ego gratification, on the other hand, is retrogressive. It becomes a dysfunctional and corrupt ambition when it cannot be reconciled with the basic requirements of nature and respect for individual dignity.

    The first victim of progress was reason.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend