Charter Member of the Sub-Media

August 26, 2008

Still More Thoughts Related to the Gender Wars « Social Issues »

The quite-possibly insulting aspect of all this to males is that women have the assumption that the only way a man won't be willing is if he already has someone better looking and/or younger...and even if he does, he probably is still open for some action on the side.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 08:22 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
More Thoughts « Social Issues »

Part of the reason women don't work on pick-up lines is because (I think) most women have the assumption going in that men will find them attractive...or at least be willing. The trick for women, then, is how to just signal that one male that she is open to an advance.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 06:20 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

August 25, 2008

A Thought, Regarding the Gender Wars « Social Issues »

Isn't it interesting that (for the most part), women don't ever work on pick-up lines, they work on pick-up (dance) moves?

There's more on this idea, coming soon...

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 04:27 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

May 31, 2008

America: What Kind of Society Are We? « Social Issues »

The thought just struck me. We are called a capitalist nation, and Sweden is a socialist nation, and China is stuck somewhere in between, but moving towards becoming a free market nation (while there is a strong sentiment on the Left in the US to move towards becoming a socialist nation).

But reading this article inspired the thought that calling the US a capitalist nation or capitalist economy isn't really correct. At least, it would be more correct to say that we are an Ownership nation. We want to own things, where we stay, what we do. Nearly everyone aspires to ownership. Those who don't aspire to ownership are often shunned or looked down upon by those who do.

That explains some of the social tensions in our nation better than racism, sexism, or other prejudice.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:25 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

April 04, 2008

Interesting Thoughts on Poverty Causes « Social Issues »

Ummm, here's an article that contains interesting thoughts about poverty causes.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 05:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

March 17, 2008

Good/Bad Science « Social Issues »

Men like pale women, women like dark men.

The good part of the science is that the researcher substantiated some things about humanity.

But there are several bad science aspects to this.

First, if men prefer light-skinned women, why the tanning craze in the US (and Europe)?
Second, did he really need to substantiate this in the first place? "Tall, dark, and handsome" is a set phrase in English. And we've already shown that men in the US, at least, don't necessarily prefer pale women.
Third, when he gets into "why," he's way beyond science, and way wrong. Science can usually only explain "what happens", but not "why". That's why science is not a good answer to religion. ...and why religion gets into trouble when it tries to explain "what happens" as truth, but that's another story.

Bottom line:
People are attracted to wealth/success most. So whatever the wealthy people are wearing/doing/saying, etc, will be attractive to almost everyone.

"Fat" was attractive for centuries because only the wealthy could get enough food to be fat. When food becomes plentiful, only the rich can afford the chef to make low-fat food taste good, and afford the leisure time to exercise into fitness (and maybe the women are more committed to fitness so they won't get divorced and kicked off the gravy train for a more fit mistress to become the wife). Pale skin is attractive in agricultural societies, because only the rich get to stay inside all day. But in industrial/business-oriented societies, healthy tans are attractive because only the rich can afford the vacations to the tropics in wintertime. But men with dark tans were also attractive even in agrarian societies because it signified that the man would do the back-breaking outdoor labor, allowing the woman to remain pale and unfatigued in doors.

This is not scientific, of course. But if anyone wants to grant me a few million dollars, I'd be more than happy to do the research to substantiate my claims!

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 07:50 AM | Comments (12) | TrackBack (0)

March 06, 2008

Yah, Sorry, I'm Not Going to Feel Sorry for You « Social Issues »

Don't come crying to me if you can't find a job you think pays enough for your unskilled effort.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 12:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

February 29, 2008

Also Asinine, But On a Lesser Topic « Social Issues »

"I never got to go to college and this will be my chance to be in a sorority and have that experience."

"I never got to go to college..." Said Paris Hilton.

!??!?!!?

I guess she just couldn't scrape up enough cash for a community college class or two, huh?

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 07:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Truly Asinine « Social Issues »

Up is Down. Black is white. Speech Codes are Freedom. Pink is the new Black.

Only a black man can portray a half-black, half-white presidential candidate Messiah on SNL.

Maureen Ryan of the Chicago Tribune put the question bluntly: "Call me crazy, but shouldn't 'Saturday Night Live's' fictional Sen. Barack Obama be played by an African-American?" Ryan went on to conclude: "I find 'SNL's' choice inexplicable. Obama's candidacy gives us solid proof of the progress that African-Americans have made in this country. I guess 'SNL' still has further to go on that front."

SNL still has further to go on that front?!?!

I'm flabbergasted.

"Authenticity" is the new "Asshattery".

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 07:27 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

February 28, 2008

So I Was Browsing the Interblogs... « Social Issues »

...and I saw an advertisement for this website.

And I know that many people want to search within their own chosen cultural/demographical affiliation for love and marriage. And I know this is the US, where Muslim legalistic extremism (fully subject only to Sharia) is a rarity...

But I can't help but think that any women, and even some men, who participate are being a little naive about the risks they face.

I'll probably get hate-comments for this post, but it is worth it.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 08:31 PM | Comments (18) | TrackBack (0)

February 15, 2008

Why Men Should Embrace the Suck and Marry (UPDATED) « Social Issues »

Okay, since I talked about all the reasons men don't marry, I think I should make it clear that I'm not down on marriage. I'm not even down on the negatives of marriage.

To recap the argument: If men really don't marry as much anymore, it's because on paper, marriage has always had a high cost to men with little direct benefit, and liberalism/feminism has raised the cost to men of failed marriages, while reducing the cost to women for said failed marriages. This actually encourages women to allow/cause the marriage to fail and stick the costs to the man.

So with all that, why should a man get married?

Because it's good for him.

In the previous article, I slam "women" pretty hard. I discuss many of the negatives of Woman; by doing so, I'm not attempting to whitewash, ignore, or otherwise downplay all the negatives of Man. In fact, I come not to praise Man, but to bury him. Or something. This post is all about fixing what is wrong with Man. The last post was a little about shocking, a lot about telling women how marriage really looks to men these days...but not necessarily what I think my marriage is, or what marriage has to be.

Here's the thing. All the negatives of being married to a Woman come when she doesn't really love you. And let's be honest, most woman don't love their man. They may think they do. They may depend on their man. But they don't really love him. They are in it for themselves. Women marry in order to have someone who will make their own life easier, who will kill the icky bugs or keep their car running or clean out the gutters and lift heavy things and open jars and take out the garbage. --Yes, there are women who do any or all of these things...but most of those who do are not married. And a married woman won't do any of these things without adding points to her personal ledger of what he owes her.-- So a woman who doesn't really love her man has basically chosen a man who will give her the life she wants and believes she cannot achieve on her own without costs higher than she faces by marrying.

Make sense?

Now, in the rare cases (10%? Higher? Lower?) that the woman really does love the man, then it is great. The sex is frequent and extremely enjoyable for both (and not just due to biological clock alarm hormones). The companionship is warm and enjoyable for both. There is trust, and warmth, and mutual caregiving without any sort of resentment or tally of who is doing more, or who owes whom.

The vast majority of us will never experience that.

So the rest of us men face marrying a women who will be, to a varying extent, a shrew.

She will be demanding. She will fulfill the man's sexual needs on her own timeline and agenda (Every Kiss Begins With Kay!). She will take credit for every success he has, and blame every failure or problem in their life completely on his utter incompetence. She will demand he accept and internalize her standards and values while ignoring his. She will demand he do half of the work she considers hers, overestimate her own contributions and underestimate his, and demand he do 100% of the work she considers his, and require he complete his tasks on her agenda...usually during the big game she disdains. She will pressure him to abandon his friends, and raise the cost to him for pursuing his own interests and hobbies. Although she will never admit it, she expects him to plan for her retirement, not his...she is usually happiest if continues to work right up until the time he dies (both for the insurance/pension benefits are greater for the death of a still-productive employee, and because it keeps him from annoying her by being home all day).

And that is good. Because in meeting these demands, in living through these disproportionate requirements, a man truly becomes a Man.

There are few ways for a man to become a Man these days. The original article linked in my previous post about extended adolescence for males is actually right on. You can, to an extent, become a man in law enforcement or the military...but even in these institutions, liberal-think and politically-correct mentalities make it difficult (if not impossible) for men to grow up.

True maturity, true Man, is:
- Responsibility
- Sacrifice
- Effort
- Patience
- Emotional stability
- Dignity
- Honor
- Ruthlessness when necessary to those outside, Tenderness always to those inside
- Competence in every task
- Mastery in some select vital tasks

Our society doesn't teach these things. Our society teaches boys to become Androgynous Drones...emotionally fragile, metrosexual, touchy, eager to hire tasks out to specialists, argumentative and lazy moral cowards.

Marriage is unfair to males. But in learning to live with injustice, men become Men. We can't really charge the machine gun nest. We can't really fight off the savages to protect our family. We don't face poverty if we make the wrong business or employment choice, or if we stand up for our Honor and Dignity.
But we face an equally difficult road by choosing to become real men for our wives. Whether they appreciate it or not.

(and to tell the truth, I think if you grow into the ultra-competent, ultra-stable, successful Man, there is no woman who could help but return the protection and indulgence with anything but love and admiration)

We claim to be willing to climb the highest oceans and swim the most dangerous seas...and then we aren't willing to help do the housework.

That's wrong.

Marry, and give her twice as much as she demands. Expect to never be thanked. Embrace the suck.

Because when you grow up, it doesn't actually suck.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:55 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

February 14, 2008

As If You Didn't Have Enough Reasons to Distrust Democrats... « Social Issues »

...here is additional proof the American Dream is still alive and well:

Hard work and sacrificing instant gratification for long-term gain still results in quick accumulation of true wealth.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 10:13 AM | Comments (12) | TrackBack (0)
When Men Don't Marry...Why? « Social Issues »

Mr. Reynolds introduces two different comments to questions of men, women, and marriage. The first post (Kim Du Toit's) is a reaction to his wife's piece on the topic. Whereas the second (Rachel Lucas's) is a reaction to the original Lisa Gottlieb article that Dr. Helen was also vamping on. Except that Dr. Helen went ranging wide afar, also reacting to this article

Clear? Good.

Anyway, here's my thoughts. The connections to the above articles might only be tangential at best, sometimes. My thoughts are also pretty dang cynical. Bear with me.

Short answer to why men are marrying less/later: There's conventional wisdom that says: Blowjobs end when the marriage starts. And while that's glib and an insufficient explanation by itself, if you ruthlessly analyze that according to logic, you can begin to understand.

Men marry because they want to have fun for the rest of their life with someone they enjoy having fun with. Period. Women will do what they need to in order to attract a man, and when they feel they have him solidly locked in, they stop making the effort.

Women complain that men are romantic while dating, etc, and then stop once they are married, but in reality, these women are putting the cart before the horse, or are the pot calling the kettle black. Women think they can live off the desirability they demonstrated during courtship...but that their responsibility towards their man ends with "I do". They then shift their sense of responsibility to "the family". They still do things "for him", but it ends up being what they want, with a thin veneer of excuse. I can guarantee you that very, very few men really care about having a tea cozy, or care that the potholders match the kitchen curtains...but these are actual examples of things women supposedly do to show love after marriage.

So what it comes down to is that society is no longer telling a male he must be married and raise/support a family to be a man. Without that pressure, the "honey trap" of female dishonesty loses its attractiveness...and the internet society of free porn makes the honey trap even less enticing. Which, in turn, causes more women to offer more explicit sexual promises with less commitment from men, which then makes it easier for men to get the milk without buying the cow...

But that was just the explanation for the short answer, by the way.

The long answer is:

Our liberal and feminist-leaning society is ruining marriage through several simultaneous developments.
1) The hypocritical differing state attitudes towards abortion and child support free women from responsibility for their actions, while increasing the responsibility for men. It reduces men to a function without a voice or choice, i.e., providing material support to women who want to have kids without a continuing responsibility to a husband. And don't kid yourself that the state is just making sure chidren get what they need; if that were true, child support would be set based on cost of living, not the stipulated father's income. I say "stipulated" because there are hundreds of cases where the woman made false accusations of fatherhood that the state made stick, i.e., refused to release responsibility even after the man was proven to not be the father.
2) The skewing of law against men in child custody and domestic violence. A woman can (and usually does) lie to gain legal advantages. Women often make false accusations of sexual abuse to get custody of kids. It takes no more than a woman's word (sometimes false) to send a man to jail for violence, but clear evidence of violence by women against men rarely gets punished, and requires far, far higher thresholds of proof to get any legal relief.
3) As opposed to the above assertion that men marry to have fun with their best friend, women marry for one over-arching reason: to lessen the burden of achieving the life they want (or think they deserve). This shows up all over the place:
- in child support and alimony demands and laws
- in complaints that men don't help women keep the house clean to the level the woman demands (as if her standards are automatically correct), while she feels no responsibility to help with what she considers "men's work"
- with the hypocrisy of women complaining about men stopping courtship behavior without recognizing (or caring) that such stoppage is a direct result of women stopping their courtship behavior first
- the establishment of sexual harassment rules that pretty much only benefit women, and are clearly subjective, i.e., it's only harassment if she doesn't like you...and she doesn't even have to tell you first
- the typical hypocrisy that a wife hates infidelity by her husband greater than anything else...while refusing to even try to meet his sexual needs/desires
- the social hypocrisy that it is wrong for a man to divorce his wife for getting old/fat, but perfectly acceptable for a woman to divorce a man for failing at work or business

All this adds up to a simple fact:
Marriage has always been for the benefit of the woman. Society strengthened the institution of marriage so that a woman could be gatekeeper to the fulfillment of man's physical needs, and receive protection. Liberalism and Feminism have weakened the institution of marriage by raising the cost of a failed marriage to the man, while reducing the cost of a failed marriage to the woman. To attract men into this riskier proposition, women offer more of what men want for free.

Bottom line:
Thus, marrying is more dangerous to men than it used to be, and a man getting what he wants/needs without marrying is easier than every before.

Next (tomorrow?) I'll talk about why men should marry anyway...and how.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:12 AM | Comments (242) | TrackBack (0)

January 18, 2008

Blather « Social Issues »

Blather from "Reason" magazine, to be specific.

The puzzle is what happened next. In the 1990s, the pattern changed again, but the surprise involved men. The wage premium for a college degree continued to rise smartly. Women responded just as economic theory predicts that rational actors would: Their college attendance rates kept climbing because the more they learned, the more they earned.

Men, however, ignored what the market was telling them: Their college attendance and completion rates barely rose. Why? "That's the big mystery," says Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution.

Are you serious? Or, rather, are they serious?!?

Big mystery?

Not at all. Affirmative action is absolutely a good part of the answer. Females were encouraged to apply to college. Males, not so much. When applying females are given preference to start with. Aside from actual preference, college admission standards were changed away from SAT scores toward things like essays on life experiences, goals, dreams, and your favorite color for a pony. And then once in college, males are castigated in pretty much every field except Engineering and Music, teaching styles are shifted toward those females prefer, speech codes and sexual harassment rules are biased against males, and the whole college experience is generally hostile to men across the board.

The article says men "ignored the market". Not so. The "market" included a much higher social cost for men to attend college than women. Men have responded by staying away in droves.

Big mystery?!?

Not for anyone with eyes and a brain.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 07:52 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)

January 16, 2008

Money: Better to Have Actual More, or Relative More? « Social Issues »

Karol at Alarming News is asking (in reaction to an LA Times article).

My response:

$100k. I could care less what anoyone else makes. I don't need gadgets, houses, cars just because others have 'em. I've $45k in the bank and could buy just about any nice car I wanted, cash, to include BMW 3 series or Audi A4 or Lexus IS350...but I choose to drive a '99 Corolla because it cost me $6k, insurance is low, it doesn't bother me when someone dings the door, and it gets me there just as capably as a car worth 8x its price. So as long as all the other prices/costs are the same, I absolutely want 2x as much money to buy guitars, books, food, vacations, and save for retirement.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 11:39 AM | Comments (20) | TrackBack (0)

January 14, 2008

Stupid Commercials « Social Issues »

I saw a commercial the other day about a guy who comes home after a late night out with his friends, at 5:30 AM. His wife wakes up as he's undressing and asks if he's just getting home. He says, "No, I'm heading into work early to prepare an important presentation!" and she smiles in happiness at his future work prospects. He saunters off, happy that he got away with it.

Is America's character declining that far that our commercials celebrate someone who would lie so easily to avoid a little trouble?

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 11:48 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

January 11, 2008

Wah. « Social Issues »

Let me say it again: wah.

Money quote:

But in the end all the cashmere in the world cannot insulate you from the cold truth that such men will always love their money and their jobs more than you.

By "more than you", she means, "loves their money/jobs more than you do", because the article is about women who marry for money alone.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 07:48 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 03, 2008

Related Thoughts « Social Issues »

Is being attracted someone for their money any worse than being attracted to them for their looks? (I changed the title slightly to be more in line with the article's main thrust)

Beware the Office Pirhana.

The moral of this story? Guys, you aren't as handsome as you think you are. She wants what's in your pants, true enough...but it's the wallet, not the body part.

UPDATE:
Okay, maybe that's too harsh. But if a woman suddenly starts coming on to you without having much time to know who you really are...the above warning applies.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:03 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

December 06, 2007

Yes, the Girl is a Hero « Social Issues »

But the the person who put the little girl into that situation should be publically castigated.

And I'm not talking about the gunman.

There are four principles in the story. Woman, daughter, friend, boyfriend. And guess what? Four different last names! Where is the daughter's father? And the boyfriend? 4 felony convictions. Yeah, that's good step-father material. This woman apparently has a history of making bad choices.

I hope her daughter doesn't repeat those mistakes when she grows up. At least the little girl shows courage; that should help.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 08:13 AM | Comments (18) | TrackBack (0)

October 19, 2007

Other Appropriate Analogies « Social Issues »

Glenn Reynolds approvingly quotes Bill Gates for one of Mr. Gates' new projects.

I have to believe that one of the reasons Bill Gates (and Glenn Reynolds) care about this is because of the human toll, as Mr. Gates explains:

This week in Seattle, an extraordinary group of people – scientists, policymakers, and advocates – came together for three days to discuss what can be done to stop malaria. Melinda and I issued a challenge to those attending the meeting. We asked them to begin charting a course to eradicate malaria – not just to control or reduce it, but to work toward a time when no one on earth is infected with malaria, and no mosquitoes carry the disease.

Today, malaria kills more than one million people every year, most of them children in Africa. That’s the equivalent of losing every student in the New York City public school system in one year.

1 million per year. That really struck me. It's a big number.

I thought of that in a different way: A few years back, I was thinking of how to better understand that number of people dying every year, and at the time, San Antonion had a population of about 1 million people. So I thought of it as: what would the reaction be if a city the size of San Antonion were destroyed every single year, all the people dead.

It was a different toll I was thinking about, not the number of malaria-caused deaths per year.

Bill Gates could have used the number I was thinking of, instead of the number of kids in the New York School system.

1 million dead a year.

That's the number of abortions in the US every year since Roe V. Wade.

Hmm...I wonder why Bill Gates didn't use that as a way to help people understand how many people die of malaria every year?

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 08:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 30, 2007

Something I Believe to be True « Social Issues »

All non-voluntary behavior is conditioned to a greater or lesser degree.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 11:37 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Education News « Social Issues »

You know what's cool?

Seeing a blog-worthy topic, being too lethargic to post it yourself, then seeing it covered quite nicely somewhere else, so that you can just put a link and consider your point covered.

GMan states my view rather well, as does Erica. I don't agree with Mr. Martinez. I particularly dislike how he assumes that those who don't agree with him must have blinders on. I'd say that's typical of the liberal/left, but in truth it is merely typical of those who don't like to consider the opposite view may have some good points. I think it is more a function of youth and immaturity than anything else. And youth/immaturity certainly has a high correlation with liberal/left populations, but that's another issue right there.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 07:31 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 29, 2007

The Cost of Weddings « Social Issues »

Here's one answer.

Then there's this one:

A boy asked his dad, "How much does it cost to get married?"

The dad looked perplexed and didn't answer.

The boy said, "Dad?"

The dad said, "I don't know..."

The son said, "Well, how much did it cost to marry Mommy?"

The dad said...

Read More "The Cost of Weddings" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 08:37 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

August 28, 2007

Honeypot Squad? « Social Issues »

The Blogfather asks:

Well, either [Republicans are] more likely to do [the things that create sex scandals], or more likely to get caught in ways that become public. Which is it?

Professor Reynolds is talking about this.

Well, the obvious answer might be that the left-leaning media tends to play up Republican scandals much more, in word count and story-framing devices. The media can still act as gatekeepers on some issues and storied.

But I truly wouldn't be surprised if there is a self-designated "suicide squadron" of ideologues who makes it their mission in life to entice Republican leaders into embarassing positions, then expose and discredit them. Please note: I'm not speaking of the Craig incident, which involved a police officer...just discussing the trend of news reports in general.

If this is true, it wouldn't change the fact that if the Republicans acted in a moral manner, there would be nothing to expose and discredit.

But the glee in which the supposedly homosexual- and sexual freedom-supporting left castigates Republicans engaging in extra-marital sexual relations is disturbing.

I'm not claiming there is such a deliberate activity. I just wouldn't be surprised if there is.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 08:05 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

August 24, 2007

A Really Interesting Experiment « Social Issues »

No bathing or washing for 6 weeks!!!

And she was apparently very honest about the results, including being jealous of others getting to take showers, and gross teeth.

But there are some benefits, however. Good reading.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 07:56 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

August 23, 2007

"Juan, I'm Sorry About This" « Social Issues