Barometer of American Values

Paris Hilton isn’t the problem; she’s just a barometer of American values. A highschool dropout with a GED and lots of plastic surgery, she is nothing more than the creation of a shallow, aimless society in search of itself: the real problem. America’s endless obsession with this professional attention-whore is more evidence (remember Britney, Lindsay, Rosie, and Anna Nicole?) that its priorities are screwed up.

People who seriously care whether Paris should have gone to jail, how she might be surviving in jail, what Aunt Kyle thinks, what sister Nicky thinks, or what Rick and Kathy are planning for their daughter’s getting-out-of-jail party in Las Vegas should be examining the meaning of their own lives — if that’s possible.

Narcissism is an epidemic in America, and Hilton is the most-visible example of it: she spends all her time admiring and kissing her reflection, while Americans hold up the mirror. Her immature behavior, which, at one time was considered shameful, brings her fame. Americans, however, just won’t break Paris’s mirror. If they would ignore Paris, she would disappear. But, they won’t … so she won’t.

In the scheme of things, Paris Hilton’s life is irrelevant. She is nothing and contributes nothing. Worse, Americans’ focus on Paris prevents them from seeing a real and harmful form of self-absorption: feminism. Feminism began with the valid goal of bringing equality to women. Alas, over the years, it has morphed into a pathos of blind conceit and misandry. Modern feminists have almost total disregard for the consequences of their actions. They are feminarcissists.

Moms Know Best

The other morning, I was reading through my local newspaper, the San Jose Mercury News. The first snippet in the Dear Abby column caught my eye: “Woman seeking a child should rethink her motives.” A 27-year-old woman declared to Abby that, if she doesn’t have a very strong relationship in place by the time she reaches 30, she plans to make a trip to the sperm bank in pursuit of single motherhood. She sought Abby’s opinion about the selfishness of her quest. Abby opined that a child deserves two parents. In my opinion, any woman who even ponders life as an unwed mother is selfish.

Feminarcissism abounds. On May 31st, ABCNews.com reported an unusual custody fight, over frozen embryos, now headed to the Texas Supreme Court. It seems that Augusta and Randy Roman, now divorced, are embroiled in a battle over their future unborn children. When these former lovebirds couldn’t conceive naturally, they harvested 13 of her eggs, fertilized six, and froze three. They both signed a consent form stipulating that, in the event of divorce, the fertilized eggs would be destroyed.

Of course, the former Mrs. Roman changed her mind, went back to female-ly court, and won custody of the eggs. A true feminarcissist, she wants what she wants, when she wants it — and to hell with everyone else. She cares not about the father or the child. It’s all about her, and — as expected — the misandrist female-ly court agreed. Mr. Roman countersued. Now, a bunch of state jurists will redecide what these two already had decided. How does this make you feel about prenups?

The week before the embryo story emerged, I was within seconds of appearing on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto for my weekly jousting match with Lis Wiehl, when an outbreak of fighting in Tripoli, Lebanon unexpectedly preempted our segment. We were going to debate the selfishness of Frieda Birnbaum, the 60-year-old psychologist from New Jersey, who underwent invitro fertilization in South Africa and then delivered twin boys — making her the oldest American woman to give birth. It isn’t even clear that she used her own egg.

Six years ago, Dr. Birnbaum gave birth to a son using the same science experiment. Her main reason for doing this: to show women in their 50s that it can be done! Is this a reason to become a mother? Of course not. Becoming pregnant isn’t meant to be a test of physical achievement, like winning a marathon. It’s supposed to be about building a loving, integral family. But, moms know best.

Should a psychologist be wiser about healthy motives and behaviors than the general public? One would think. In my opinion, this doctor is sicker than her patients. Her 33-year-old son and 29-year-old daughter are on the record as unhappy about their mother’s late-life birthing. And, what of Mr. Birnbaum, her husband of 38 years? His opinion isn’t clear. I’m betting he had little say in the matter.

When I announced my imminent appearance on Fox News to debate Frieda Birnbaum’s delivery of twins, a good friend of mine sent me the following letter, in horror:

My parents were in their 40s when I was born. I was thankful to “be there” for them as they got older, but my dad had health problems that kept him from playing sports with me (a stroke and heart attacks). He passed away when I was 28. It was tough watching them age every time I came home from a college break. But, if they were 15 years older [like Frieda Birnbaum and her husband], it should probably be against the law.

For a 60-year-old woman to give birth defies the very essence of both parenting and childhood. To be a 10-year-old child with 70-year-old parents is so ridiculous. Does this woman think she is raising caregivers? Her sons never will be normal, nor will their relationships, nor will their offspring. The ramifications are horrible.

This is the heartfelt perspective of a child born to older parents — a perspective that feminarcissists wouldn’t understand. By the same token, a woman implanting a frozen embryo in her uterus, against the father’s wishes, will produce an equally devastating affect on her offspring.

Because of the 50% divorce rate (women bring 70% of divorce actions) and the escalating out-of-wedlock birthrate (30% for whites, 70% for blacks), most children in America are raised by mothers. The female-ly courts encourage it, and the feminarcissists applaud it. But, such selfishness causes children and their fathers to suffer, and the fabric of society to weaken.

A home without two actively involved parents is not a healthy alternative lifestyle, despite what the feminarcissists espouse. It takes years to discover the damage done to the children whose mothers reproduced like human Xerox machines. Self-absorption is as self-absorption does.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

If you want to live a selfish life like Paris Hilton, I don’t care. But, if you choose to extend that feminarcissism into motherhood — like Frieda Birnbaum, Augusta Roman, and the 27-year-old who wrote to Dear Abby — I care a lot. Your obsession with yourself, and our legal system’s pathetic indulgence of your attitude, now affects my society … and me.

In this era of shallow existence, some women — especially young women — literally don’t have the reference points to evaluate their own beliefs or actions. Accordingly, if you are contemplating motherhood and cannot logically forsee the long-term consequences to all parties involved, here’s a three-condition feminarcissism test that will make it clear.

Never become a mother unless:

1. Both you and your man are READY to become parents
2. Both you and your man are WILLING to become parents
3. Both you and your man are ABLE to become parents.

If you cannot meet all three conditions above, and you still choose to deliver a child, you are a feminarcissist. But, you are not a mother.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 55+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth (ISBN 0974501719).

Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.

Copyright © 2007 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 13th, 2007 at 6:10 pm and is filed under TNNM. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. |  Print This Post