Sheesh, a guy (Mortenson) expresses his concern that his daughter, if she doesn't get into a long-term relationship, might end up lonely. He also suggests that if educated/smart folk don't have enough children to replace themselves, their population will decrease inexorably, reducing the number of education/smart folk. [I am mystified by why he referred to "white people"; this issue doesn't seem to be one of race.]

And Sarah Karnasiewicz concludes from this that Mortenson's insidious subtext is to covertly blame women for the future decline of western civilization?!?!?

It's been my impression that while women have final veto power if they do not want to get pregnant, almost all decisions to go ahead and have children are made by the couple involved. So I don't know why anyone would conclude Mortenson is blaming women for anything.

If the data clearly demonstrates (and I have no idea if it does) that educated/smart people are not having enough children to replace themselves, then it follows as the night the day that their numbers will inevitably decline. And since educated smart people are important to have around (just my opinion; I could be wrong), this may present a problem.

No one is to *blame* for this putative problem, fer crissakes.

But if it's real, then perhaps it would be worth trying to solve.

Obviously, the ideal solution for this is to hugely increase a mother's amount of paid time off from work to bear children and be with them, especially in their early years. A father's time off, too. In such a way that no one's career is damaged by the decision to have childen.

Apparently most western European nations are way ahead of us on this one.

(I forgot to mention: It goes without saying that all men hate all women. The only reason they put themselves in harm's way to defend their sisters, girlfriends, wives, mothers, etc. from any threats to their physical well-being, and even any kind of slander, is, um, it must just be an anomaly, signifying nothing. The men are just showing off to try to stroke their inflated egos, that's all.)

Seriously, do you folks have any principles other than to attack any group that, like women, is having problems that society as a whole might help solve? Any principles at all? So if another group of people seems to be having problems, you do some crazy little dance to come up with a theory why it's all a secret plot against women? This certainly looks like persuasive evidence against the women-are-compassionate stereotype!

Let me be clear: It is essential that we as a society help counteract years of historical, as well as residual current, oppression of women. It's likewise essential that we try to help *any* group of people that is experiencing serious problems. THAT's how we try to avoid the decline of Western Civilization: by helping each other out, not by declaring a blood feud against all other groups but your own.

The middle ground is to include sex education in and out of school -- and to provide easy access to contraceptive counseling and contraceptives.

This way the need for abortion will be reduced. Finally, its availability should be vastly increased -- perhaps midwives could earn an additional certification in abortion -- so that we're not reliant on the small number of physicians who are willing to provide abortion despite the intimidation campaigns against them).

I was in a somewhat similar situation a few decades ago. I had recently begun a relationship with a woman whose brunette "moustache" was noticeable to me, and a turnoff. This hadn't dawned on me at all before we got serious.

I asked if she'd consider shaving it (I knew nothing about waxing) and she didn't want to, I think because she wanted to be accepted as she was.

After some discussion she came up with a reasonable compromise: she would bleach it so it was almost unnoticeable.

That turned out to suit me fine. Perhaps such a solution would help in the case of the letter-writer.