20 year-old women freezing their eggs? Blame big government




 You can blame big government for the decline and subsequent postponement of Canada's birthrate.  Why do I blame big government?  A bigger government has bigger social programs and bigger tax burdens on its citizens.  Are we not over-taxed?  One of the main reasons women are having babies later or freezing their eggs is financial pressure.

The problem seems to be that young couples are under financial and other pressures which stop them from becoming young parents, and that is very sad... sad because it may mean they push back motherhood to an age when they will not be able to have as many children as they would like."

Women in their twenties are being courted to freeze parts of their ovaries so they can have babies later on and have a career or travel first:

Norman Wells, of Family and Youth Concern said: ‘Dr Silber seems to have lost sight of the fact that a woman’s childbearing years are limited for good reason.

‘As a society we have given motherhood a lower status than having a career with the result that large numbers of women are consciously choosing to devote their most energetic years to work outside the home rather than to bearing and raising children.

‘All too often children are regarded as consumer goods to be fitted in when it is most convenient for their mothers’ careers, rather than as gifts to be loved and cherished.’

There is this ongoing battle between stay-at-home mothers and career women where one side feels it's superior to the other.  In reality, neither is better than the other but the stigma still exists in our society for homemakers.  The title "Homemaker" just doesn't have the same ring to it as "Executive" or "Doctor."  At least in my circles it doesn't.  Has our society placed too much importance on women's careers?  Did it start with the government getting bigger and therefore imposing greater taxes, therefore increasing the financial burden on its young citizens, forcing them to delay child bearing?

How many families do you know of that can afford to live in a decent house with only one spouse working?  It requires a tremendous amount of sacrifice and tight budgeting, many families find it too difficult to live on such a tight budget.  The truth is that our birthrate is so low that we rely on immigration to fill the productivity gap so that our country can continue to generate enough money to sustain the government's voracious appetite for social programs.

This doesn't even begin to address the health concerns for women who choose to give birth later in life.  After 35, it's downhill fast and the list of complications increases dramatically with each year after.

We have our whole lives to work if we choose, why do women choose to sacrifice their fertile years to do what? Work!  Wouldn't it make more sense to have the babies first, career later?  Well, having a big government with big programs doesn't help and until being a "Homemaker" is viewed as being equally as important as the title "Executive", many women will continue to not have children or bear the health risks of having children in their forties or later.




 

Fire Flanagan? What about the Liberal party's assasination pics of Harper?

The loud cries for Flanagan to be fired from the U of C have a hollow ring to them. Hmm, how loud should we cry hypocrite??  Perhaps we should be sending letters in to newspapers calling for Ignatieff to never set foot on academic soil because of the disservice he has done with the Liberal party's posting of assasination pictures of Stephen Harper, among other crude and nasty photos??


"It is my hope, that as a society, we do not tolerate Flanagan's Ignatieff's comments, let alone permit and pay him to teach students in a university setting."

Aaron Hofman

No, I don't think we'd see that printed in any newspaper. 

Monte makes a good point on his blog regarding Flanagan's remarks:

That’s because reasonable people wouldn’t take a single set of remarks, attach all kinds of weight to them that Tom never intended for them to have, and characterize them in the worst possible way. That’s what people do if they themselves are extraordinarily intellectually dishonest. In my view the writers of the letter to the Herald hurt their own reputations with their hysterical faux concern about the alleged damage inflicted by Tom.

I agree.

AVON: the company for political correctness and environmental values- what women?

Seems Avon would rather get their oil from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela or Nigeria than Alberta.  Because as we all know, those countries are strong supporters of women's rights, something Avon is supposed to crusade for along with equality and integrity for women.  Is this an early April fool's joke, or did someone at Avon headquarters have a lobotomy recently?

From ctv.ca: Tim Shipton, the president of the Alberta Enterprise Group, a public advocacy group, said there is an irony in Avon switching away from oil sands crude to other supplies that may come from places like Saudi Arabia or Nigeria.



He goes on further to say: "I just don’t know how that jibes with their corporate mandate for gender equality,” he said alluding to reports of treatment of women in those countries. “It’s high time that Canadians stand up against some of these misinformed companies and their supposed efforts against Canada’s oil sands.”
 
It makes me wonder, who exactly is Avon trying to impress?  This wont win any favours from Avon reps in Alberta, or the rest of Canada.  I've sold Avon before and let me tell you, it's a pretty lousy company to work for.  Do not believe all the hype or the commercials for that matter.  Most items are never in stock, you have to chase down your courier and try to find out what happened to the order that never came.  Or you can put in an order and end up with items you never asked for.  If I was a store and Avon was my supplier, I would never do business with them again. 
 
Mary Kay anyone?

Egad!! The rich are getting richer! Damn those capitalists!!

Nothing like a left-wing think tank to find any scrap of evidence and twist it to suit their agenda!  Then they add their famous cry, "Oh the horror! The horror!"  Those evil capitalist bastards! How dare they make a profit and not share it with the rest of us!

Armine Yalnizyan from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives writes in the Globe and Mail , "There are good reasons to raise taxes on the most affluent."
Oh, but of course there are, what else would you expect from an organization that oozes socialism?

"The primary factor behind growing inequality is how much people get paid for their work. The data show that more of the income enjoyed by rich Canadians comes from wages than in the past, causing some people to trigger memories of Donna Summers and chirp that the rich now work hard for their money."Wow!! What an original idea!! Let's get people who already pay too much in taxes to pay more so that others can have a bigger pay cheque, thus diminishing their incentive to provide for themselves. Like punishing the rich will have no effect on the rest of us? 

As Mike Brock suggests in the Volunteer, maybe its NOT that we're not taxing the rich enough, maybe it's the result of our "comprehensive, systematic, corporatist government policy that ensures this outcome." Yes Armine, that's right!  You're blaming the wrong system, as usual.

I have to give props to Freedom is My Nationality for posting that fantastic video of Margaret Thatcher talking about the income gap.  Too bad the left can't seem to see that their policy ideas make everyone poor.