From Megan Non-McArdle, here and here. Sorry, but there is no meaningful way to excerpt these.
Two of the best posts I’ve ever read
Previous post: How to get good grades
Next post: Why is Brazil so messed up?
Our Books
Modern Principles of Economics
Launching The Innovation Renaissance
The Great Stagnation: How America Ate All the Low-Hanging Fruit of Modern History, Got Sick, and Will(Eventually) Feel Better
Create Your Own Economy: The Path to Prosperity in a Disordered World
Discover Your Inner Economist
Good and Plenty: The Creative Successes of American Arts Funding
Judge and Jury: American Tort Law on Trial
Markets and Cultural Voices: Liberty vs. Power in the Lives of Mexican Amate Painters (Economics, Cognition, and Society)
The Voluntary City: Choice, Community, and Civil Society (Economics, Cognition, and Society)
Creative Destruction: How Globalization Is Changing the World's Cultures
Changing the Guard: Private Prisons and the Control of Crime
What Price Fame?
In Praise of Commercial Culture
Entrepreneurial Economics: Bright Ideas from the Dismal Science
Contact Us
Using the comments from the last post as a guide, I think Megan should seriously try hard to find a grad student (in a logic based field) about to complete his thesis.
She IS the Megan McArdle who is also Jane Galt, right?
Just checking
and Robert sounds a bit insane.
interesting biological phenomenon. not sure i’m down with the whole ‘bloggers reveal their inmost secrets to the world’ fad though.
Hey all you loyal MR readers, Megan Non-McArdle is *not* Megan McArdle, or for that matter Jane Galt. That’s where the “Non” enters the picture. “Non,’ as in negation. But this other Megan doesn’t use a last name for her posts, as she wishes to remain anonymous.
In my defense, most people quickly scan over what they read, especially after midnight. plus the anonymous Megan has a very similar writing style as the Megan. I started off reading
it thinking that this isn’t megan mccardle, but the writing style is so similar that by the end i was coninvced it was her. which is probably why Tyler used her name.
I sometimes wonder whether it is a misfortune or bliss to have a body without a sensor of its biological clock ticking.
Why is any of this my business? Why would you even link this?
I already get ashamed rubber-necking Maureen Dowd’s downward spiral. It’s kind of like the post-collegiate Girls Gone Wild, but instead of breasts we get gratuitous emotional exhibitionism.
To paraphrase Ayn Rand, non-A is non-A.
Alex
Clearly, in every way, nature intended us to pair off in our early twenties. Starting out in life should be just that — starting out in life. One more reason to hate feminist ideologues.
I’d like to challenge the notion that wanting children is an innermost secret that I should keep to myself. It should be pretty open knowledge that single women in their 30′s who want children are scared it won’t happen. The reason I gave the background was to show that I am acutely aware of my position, and to demonstrate why it is mean to suggest that I should hide wanting kids. Saying that should remain a secret reinforces the concept I was trying to de-bunk.
I thought this was a blog that attracts libertarians rather than religous/conservatives.
Importantly, there’s lots of emperical evidence that shows that men and women who marry and have kids later in life have a lower rate of divorce.
now does that mean that getting married and having kids later in life dosn’t have its own emotional pains and angst. no. and megan clearly expresses this. but still, it’s wrong to cast her out like many comments have on this post. taking the tough road in life often creates difficulties.
I’d like to challenge the notion that wanting children is an innermost secret that I should keep to myself. It should be pretty open knowledge that single women in their 30′s who want children are scared it won’t happen.
Sure and I don’t see any reason not to be upfront about that even before the first date. For your situation, it’s a shame there’s no U.S. equivalent of the Indian marriage ‘market’. I don’t mean the family involvement in arranging matches, but the fact that people are advertising for a marriage partner rather than a casual boyfriend or girlfriend. Nobody wastes years screwing around (literally and figuratively) waiting to see if the relationship is going anywhere. If the relationship continues at all, it is serious and headed for marriage. If it isn’t headed for marriage, there’s no expectation that it will continue.
Or maybe there are already dating services out there where casual shoppers need not apply?
“more concerned with finding a man who is a good breeder than in finding a good man.”
LOL, add to that:
http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/Globe_and_Mail_Moms_Little_secret_14DEC02.htm
and
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/the_conspiracy_.html
It is somewhat simplistic to think that only men, or only women, are making genetic gambits.
Find peace where ye may.
“…why the double standard when it comes to those psycho-evolutionary urges that drive women?”
In fact, women who have large families (more than 3 kids) are kind of frowned upon, at least in your middle class and up, especially outside religious communities. Often these women are perceived to be having children out of hormonal motivation, without regard for the child’s economic security or quality of life. This irresponsibility in creating life is also one of the reasons male promiscuity is so criticized, especially since a promiscuous male is capable of fathering way more children than a woman with ‘babyfever.’
Aside from this, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with wanting to have sex with attractive females, any more than there’s something wrong with wanting to get married and have kids. But honesty is crucial here: women who trap eligible men by ‘forgetting’ to take their pills, for example, are just as bad as men who trick attractive women into sex by faking an emotional connection.
Comments on this entry are closed.