Cynicism fueled writings

2008-02-18T21:28:00.001-08:00

In honor of the most recent Hallmark holiday, I want to write about something, because that would indeed be a change, and to write about a subject near and dear to my newly single heart (the divorce is final May 19^th). Recently, a total hack writer and “researcher” Kay Hymowitz wrote an op-ed piece in City Journal about what some are calling the “Peter Pan” syndrome. In short, men are not getting married in the numbers they used to or as young as they used to. Mrs Hymowitz, who for her research read a few Maxims, watched the Man Show, but didn’t actually interview men (and I wish I was making this up, but this is by her own admission), has ascribed this trend to men not growing up. Apparently, wanting a life of your own choosing, even if that means having casual sex, playing video games, and partying with friends, makes one a child. For her, men need to have kids and wife to be an adult. However, she doesn’t really address who these “boys” are randomly hooking up with (unless she was trying to subtly imply that around 60% of men are secretly gay or bisexual), and she seems to think that responsible women should be shopping, gossiping with friends, and otherwise enjoying life (again, her words). Apparently, she couldn’t be bothered to think about an alternative explanation: marriage is, on average, a no win situation for men, and we are starting to wise up to that.

Now I should say that yes, there always exceptions. Everyone’s girlfriend is “special”; every woman is “different”, so it is with a heavy heart that I am going to actually have to look at statistics and information, as well as the nearly meaningless anecdotal evidence. Legally, marriage is a bad deal for men. Prenups help, but can be gotten around by a clever lawyer. Let’s say you are a man, live in a community property state (which a good deal of the states are), and you are married for 7 years. At that point in many states, you could come home and find her in the process of sleeping with the milk man, and it wouldn’t matter. If you divorce (or more likely, when she divorces you; most divorces are initiated by women), she gets half of all the assets, and you probably will be paying her alimony. Sure she cheated, sure she might have exposed you to a whole host of disease, but it doesn’t matter. And it gets better. Let’s say she gets pregnant by the milk man; the kid would be yours, legally. You would have to prove, on your dime, that the kid is not related to you to get out of child support payments, and even then you have to prove it in a certain span of time (in some states its 6 months or less). Sometimes even with proof, the court will order you to pay the child support, and if you don’t, it’s off to jail with you. This happens because, when married, the husband is assumed to be the father of any of the wife’s children, even she has been unfaithful. Add to that the built in bias against men in family court’s, and where is the legal benefit in marriage for men? You can get all the same medical benefits and such from power of attorneys, and with a lot less risk.

According to pretty much every study done on the subject (Dr. Pepper Schwartz actually has a few good relationship studies published, if one is looking for a good read), marriage does indeed kill sex lives. Cohabiting couples have more sex than just about any one, except for gay men (I know, I was surprised too). Why is this? There are plenty of reasons that are proposed, the most likely (i.e. put forward by some researchers who think they have an idea) is that the cohabiting is like a probationary period for a job, and the partners (usually the female one in this case) is putting forth more effort till the deal is sealed. Now here is where anecdotal accounts come in to play. Married men, on average, are not happy with their sex lives it seems. Most commonly, they seem to be told that their partners are too tired, too stressed, or that they are not interested. Sometimes the wife will say that the husband has gained weight and as such is not attractive any more. All well in good, except that often times it seems like it’s more than that. Here is the thing, and whether the basis for this thought is true or not is unimportant, at least in terms of its effect on men getting married: men these days seem to expect women to pay mind games. We do, because we are told so by women usually, and because the shows made for female viewers (Sex in the City et al) pretty much tell us you all do. So it’s hard to believe, as a man, that you are always “tired”. We are expecting you to use sex as a weapon once you know we cannot easily find another supplier. Moreover, if you were always in the mood before the wedding, why should things be different afterwards? What is different, other than there is now a piece of paper saying you can try and take half my stuff, my 401k, and my paycheck? Sure, kids can have an effect, but then, according to most valid studies, kids at best have no effect on a relationship, and at worst ruin them, so that’s to be expect. But still, why would a man want to get married if he knows that doing so is going to kill what sex life he has, especially when knows he will be expect to not look elsewhere for it?

Now, I don’t expect all this to sound like a well written, scientific research paper, because it’s not meant to be. The thing is, more and more men are thinking like this. I know I am not a misogynist, and most men these days truly are not I feel, but that doesn’t change the fact that there is no logical reason for men to enter into marriage. Why work harder (for instance, in an op ed piece in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper, it was suggested that men, in order to get their spouse to sleep with them, should basically do all the house work.) for something that we are, thanks to more liberal cultural values, able to get without marriage and thus with less risk and work? Why should we run the risk of being saddled with some other guy’s kid, alimony, and passionless marriages at all? Is love the reason? If that is the case, then we are already ruined as a species. If “love” is only proven by a legal document provided by the state and kept by legal threat, then is love really worth it?

2007-12-01T23:34:00.000-08:00

So recently my dearly loved state has ruled that pharmacists do not have to give out the morning after pill if they have religious objections to it. They do have to “help” you find a pharmacy that will, but otherwise they are free to ignore their duties and tell you to kiss off. Now mind you, I am ok with people having objections to abortions, especially in the later stages of pregnancy when the fetus actually has a nervous system and looks like something more than a small cluster of stem cells. Of course, denying people this particular pill will just lead to an increase in said abortions, but whatever. What I have a problem with is with this “right” that pharmacists now seem to have. I think it’s a case of people believing their un-provable beliefs someone else’s rights while still claiming to be a real professional, and that this sets a rather dangerous precedent.

Right off the bat, I have a problem with people taking a job knowing what maybe asked of them, and then demanding that they not have to fulfill said roles and duties. What duties do pharmacists have? Well according to the America Pharmacists Association, the code of ethics that all pharmacists should be living by is as follows:

I. A pharmacist respects the covenantal relationship between the patient and pharmacist.

Lastly, and I do normally hate slippery slope arguments, but where does this end? Do other medical professionals get to decide for their customers and patients what they can have access to? Does this get limited solely to religious reasons? Does a vegan pharmacist have the right to refuse to hand out any medicine made from animal products, like some varieties of insulin, on the bases of moral objection? How is such a refusal really any different that this case? Granted there are other options, but do they really have to right to restrict them for anything other than concern for the patient’s physical health? And what if the patient is sensitive to anything but say bovine insulin? Sure they could go to another pharmacy, if there is one nearby, but should they have to? What if doctors stopped treating patients on the same ground? What if the only neurosurgeon in the area happens to be Muslim, and refuses to touch female patients, even during emergencies? Is that ok? What if a Hindu oncologist thinks that the most moral act they can do is to deprive a patient of chemo, so that way the patient can die and be reborn? What if a Pastafarian ER doctor (Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) decides that it’s their moral obligation let all anti-choicers bleed out on the table, and that they need to prove they are prochoice before the treatment? Granted, every one of these doctors would have taken an oath to not do these things, but the way I see it, this ruling basically is saying that moral beliefs trump your sworn word. I am not saying that any of this will happen, but now, it could, and there is nothing that can be done about it.

I. A pharmacist respects the covenantal relationship between the patient and pharmacist.

II. A pharmacist promotes the good of every patient in a caring, compassionate, and confidential manner.

III. A pharmacist respects the autonomy and dignity of each patient.

IV. A pharmacist acts with honesty and integrity in professional relationships.

V. A pharmacist maintains professional competence.

VI. A pharmacist respects the values and abilities of colleagues and other health professionals

VII. A pharmacist serves individual, community, and societal needs.

VIII. A pharmacist seeks justice in the distribution of health resources.

Not a bad set of guidelines, and I do hope that any pharmacist I deal with follows them. The people who don’t want to give out the Plan B pill seem to not be following them, especially number 3, number 6, and depending on whether or not you think this world needs more people, numbers 7 and 8.

First, number three. I don’t see how telling someone that they cannot have a medicine that they legally are allowed to have, a pill that they are choosing to take knowing what it is intended to do, is respecting their autonomy. Doubly so since the reason you are refusing said medicine is not out of concern for their health, but rather because of beliefs that are not universal, and really add nothing to the medical profession. Now true, the pharmacist is a person too, and has rights as well. However, the patient is not the one who swore to uphold certain values and ethics when they started in a profession that no one made them pursue.

Item six, as near as I can tell, means that a pharmacist should respect doctors, and should expect respect back. If a patient comes in with a legal prescription given to them by a physician who presumably not only knows the patient and their medical issue at hand better than the person behind the counter, and is refused, how is that showing any level of respect? Perhaps this is the weakest argument I have, but really, how is not disrespectful to basically say that you know better than another professional based off of no evidence?

7 and 8 together now. There are 6 billion people, give or take a few million. Most are poor, starving, and living generally miserable lives. So why add to them? Oh sure, every life is a special gift from god, which is why he dumps most of them in the third world. Hell, many kids even in the first world have shitty lives. Why make more? Why put more strains of society, in terms of a draining of funds and increased crime rates, by adding more unwanted kids? And make no mistake; the poor are the ones who will suffer the most from this. The rich or even middle class can afford to hunt for a pharmacist that is willing to do their job, but the poor may not. Moreover, what if that pharmacist is the only one in the area that accepts Medicare/Medicaid? Now they have no options, and the pharmacist gets help from the government to make the world a worse place while forcing their religious beliefs on someone else.

Now all that aside, what exactly do these pharmacists hope to accomplish? Nothing will change, other than people will lose respect for them. As it stands right now, they might even be able to be fired for causing a boycott; their employer may not be able to fire them for religious beliefs, provided more than 50 people work for said employer, but for causing a boycott or disturbance is still likely. Also, preventing the use of the morning after pill will only lead to more abortions. If you don’t want the kid, a self righteous guy in a lab coat isn’t going to make you keep it. Hell, I can think of three or four easily acquired and just as safe as the pill plants that would easily have the same effect. No prescription needed, and most naturopathic doctors can probably list of a dozen or so more. I am not saying that people are going to flock to non standard medicine as result of this, but some might. All that will result from this is that a few pharmacists will get to have smug self satisfaction, and sadly a bunch of women are going to get screwed over.

2007-11-04T18:03:00.000-08:00

Pornography is one of the most pervasive forces in media. Some estimates put there being almost 250 million web pages with erotic material in some shape or form, and that just the US. The industry as a whole brings in around 3 billion dollars a year, by some more conservative estimates. Yet despite its prevalence in our society, a lot of people hate the industry. A lot of people flat out refuse to admit (and lets be honest, some one is watching or reading all this crap, and its more than just a few perverted old men) that they have any form of porn. I think this is in part due to what amounts to a smear campaign run by, admittedly well meaning but misguided, feminists in the 80’s and 90’s and religions conservatives (see, there is something that they can agree on). The major arguments against porn seem to be that one, it’s degrading to women, and two, it leads to rape or sexual crime.

Feminism, as far as I understand it, is the thought that women have the same rights as men, including the rights to their bodies and to controlling their own destinies. I am going to assume that every one (at least every one sane) can agree with this definition. Now, is it degrading for a woman to have sex for money? To fuck for fun and funds? Maybe; maybe not. Maybe it was; that being said, times are changing. Hell, porn stars write books and get interviewed by CNN. They have their own version of celebrity, and their award shows. So how exactly are they being degraded? Really, how are they different than actors or musicians? In all cases you have some one willing to do something for our entertainment in exchange for money. Said activities can lead to a loss of privacy, to people who don’t know you judging you, and often enough, people blaming you for the downfall of morality. So again, where is the difference? Furthermore, if porn is so damn bad, why not go after gay porn too? Is that just as degrading, or is it ok to degrade men? Is all porn bad, or is some of it ok? Who gets to decide? In any case, this point is the hardest to argue, for or against. Some people will always see porn as degrading, not just to people on the screen, but to women as a whole. Never mind the fact that while porn has been increasing in popularity, we are seeing more equality between men and women. I am not trying to suggest causation; I am however saying that there doesn’t seem any reason to draw a negative correlation between the treatment of women and the popularity of porn.

Now lets talk about the fun stuff: rape. Many, every one from psychologists to women studies professors to cops, have said that porn leads to rapes. One of the editiors of Ms. Magazine, a Robin Morgan, can be quoted as saying: “Pornography is the theory; rape is the practice”. Of course, she is an honest to god feminazi, having also said that “ 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act….”, so lets not take her to seriously. Now rape is a serious crime; possibly worse than murder really, so I take any evidence linking a raise in rape and some other thing pretty seriously. Here in lies the problem with argument number two: there isn’t any evidence linking an increase in rape to the increase in popularity of porn. Not one single good study. What Ms Morgan and company fail to consider, or just ignore for the sake of a good sound bite and to advance a cause, is that there are always Z factors. For those of you who are not all hip to statistics, specifically correlation statistics, a “Z factor” (it goes by other names too) is a third, out side factor that explains what otherwise appears to be a correlation. For instance, there is a 100% positive (meaning that as one goes up, the other goes up) correlation between those who drink water, and those die. Does that mean that drinking water is what killed you? Of course not; the initial appearance of a rise in rape cases in regards to the rise of porn also probably has a Z factor. That factor: increased reporting.

Way back in the day, if you got raped, it was your damn fault. If you reported it, you might have gotten laughed at, and even if the bastard got caught and prosecuted, you would have a good deal of stigma attached to you. Thankfully attitudes changed, and rapes get reported more often, and as such we have a higher report rate, but not necessarily a higher incident rate. Of course, I might be wrong. There maybe another Z factor, or none at all. So lets take a look at 1993 to present. The rise of the almighty internet. Porn for all, and much of it free, if you know how to do a good Google image search or use a torrent system. One would suppose, with all this porn, of all varieties, being so easily available and increasing in amount that rapes would increase, if porn causes rapes or sexual assaults. That’s not what we are seeing though. Since 1993, according to the FBI, sexual assaults as a whole are down 68%, and rape itself is down 72%. What does this show? Well for starters, it shows that Morgan and company are not only wrong, but as wrong as one can be with being so wrong as to be parody and satire.

Now lets take a broader, and probably more controversial step back for a second, and talk about something related. Women have tons of magazines directed at them, many of them that seem to feature stories talking about what they, the magazine editors, think men want. I would dare say that few if any women have ever understood men, as a whole. If you did, you realize most of the previously referenced articles are crap, but that’s a different story. Also, touching on the issue of degradation, much of what is taken as “degrading” that men do to women, we do to each other, in one form or the other. The things men call each other or do to each other would get them shot or arrested if they didn’t do them primarily to their friends. What I am getting at here, is that you can tell feminist theory doesn’t understand men, not even a little, by this one statement: rape is always about power. It’s wrong on so many levels. First point of evidence on for my side: in places with legalized prostitution, there is less, but it still happens, rape. The desperate have an outlet. The second point of evidence, and this comes from what seems to be the majority of statements made by rapists as a whole “She wanted it, look at the way she was dressed” or some variation. Most rape isn’t violent. There is a lot of rape that involves drugging up a person or getting them drunk or some such. Where is the power in that? Speaking as a person who definitely leans on the D and S ends of the BDSM spectrum, I can safely say that there really isn’t a lot of domination or taking power from a victim when they are passed out. Its still rape if you do it, but it’s about sex. Until researchers are willing to look at that aspect of rape, we will never start to fix the problem, and researchers will never be able to look at this side of the problem until feminists sit down, shut up, and stop pretending that they know men better than men do.

2007-10-30T11:23:00.000-07:00

First off, brownie points for anyone who guesses who first coined the phrase “nothing is true; everything is permitted” and what group he was famous for starting.

It’s almost my birthday. It’s also almost Samhain (Holloween for you non pagan types), which has always been a special day for me, regardless of religion. It’s a day for the dead, and I always feel alive, for a variety of reasons. It’s the day to let things go, and I think I am getting close to letting my marriage go. I don’t know if I will ever entirely let Jasmin go, but in time I think I might. The marriage however is ready to be buried; I have been mourning it for a year and I have done my time. I don’t have the papers back from her, but I figure they are on the way. I have been having dreams lately, about her, about our marriage. Some of them are replays of events, both good and bad. Others are scenes that seem familiar, but didn’t happen. The message is always the same though; it wasn’t meant to last. Nothing could have happened to change it. Either she would have left, or I would have left. I learned a lot. I grew a lot, despite what some people seem to believe. In long run, our relationship kept me going when I had little else, and taught me to what to look for in the next girl. We did have a lot of good times, and I am going to try and remember those forever. Those being said, on my birthday, I am going to get a bottle of mead, toast my dead relationship, and throw my ring into the water, and it will be done. Then its birthday party time.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in governme

2007-10-26T15:18:00.000-07:00

Let’s talk about guns. I should start out saying that I am fascinated by weapons. I like collecting them, I like practicing to use them, and over all, I think that some of mankind’s greatest achievements were in the field of weapons design and manufacturing. I mean really, take a part a well made handgun or rifle, and look at its workings. Swiss clocks are not made with the level of precision that an MP5 has. I feel fortunate that I live in a country that lets me pursue my fascination, with in the reasonable limit that I don’t use said weapons on other people without a good reason. Now I should pause a second and remind people that I am not a Republican. I don’t like Bush or Rush. I think Jesus was a pot smoking hippie who had a few good ideas, but mostly was an annoying twit who pissed of the Romans and the Jews in power (which was never a good idea back then). I am not even a member of the NRA; they have a few good ideas, but are a bit extreme at times. That all being said, I think the Second Amendment to the Constitution is possibly the great part of our legal frame work. It’s part of what makes America great and unique.

First to take a step back, and have little information on who gun control advocates can blame the Second Amendment on. The man responsible: King James the Second, the last Catholic King of England. One Jimmy took over, his country was mostly Protestant, and not entirely happy about him ruling. He shut down Parliament, and banned Protestants from owning weapons. Once he was ousted, the English Bill of Rights was passed in 1689, and one of said rights was that Protestants have the right to “have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law”. So, much like many things in American law, we ripped off the Second Amendment from something the Brits did first.

Now, since not everyone knows exactly what the amendment says, here it is, as it appears on the original copy of the Bill of Rights
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
It’s that damn comma that causes so many problems. I will admit it’s not the best piece of writing, but then, this wasn’t it original form…
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person”
…that was. What does that all mean? Basically, anyone can pack a weapon, and not be involved in a regulated militia, but that said militias (now called the Nation Guard) are vital to a state’s security. All of this was put in to the Constitution to make sure that while the federal government will be strong, the States and the citizens will not be defenseless against it. Through a series of revisions, the defining and what was probably considered extra verbiage was dropped, and that comma is really more of a period. A State should have a militia. People have the right to be armed.

“But guns kill people! Wont somebody think of the children!” As much as I am loathing to use this cliché, guns don’t kill people; people kill people. You can be hit by a car, beaten, stabbed, poisoned, drowned, starved, and so on. And that’s assuming you are just killed. You can still be hurt, raped, and/or robbed. Some people of course like to point out that guns help commit crimes. True, a weapon helps commit crime; but it doesn’t matter what weapon it is. You are just as dead if I kick you to death as you are if I stab or shoot you. But, I know that logic is rarely enough, so let’s look at some numbers. Let’s take a gun free country, say England. It’s a beast to get a gun in England legally; rifles and shotguns are not even as common as they are here. Criminals of course, have guns, because they are criminals. According to the statistics provided by the British Home Office, there were 1,220,198 incidents of violent crime (murder, rape, robbery, and so on), in 2005, with a population of about 60,776,238. The US on the other hand had 6,367,589 incidents of violent crime (number provided by the Department of Justice) in 2005, with a population of round 300 million. Now, we have more crimes committed, no doubt about it. But when you look at the incident rates, there is one violent crime per 47.619 people in the US, compared to 1 per 49.808 in England. You are more likely to be beaten, robbed, raped, or killed in the UK than you are here in the US. Is this because we allow weapons? Maybe; but look at it this way, over there you can assume granny is a law abiding citizen and thus don’t worry about her packing heat. Over here, granny may be a life time NRA member and expert marksmen. Yes we have more gun deaths; that’s because people over there are getting stabbed when they would have been shot over here.
Now for a brief section on children: if a kid gets shot, an adult is to blame, and it’s likely the parent. You can blame society, the media, or whoever you want, but ultimately, barring being an accidental bystander being shot, a parent fucked up somewhere along the line. It’s not hard to lock a gun; it’s even less difficult to not load the damn things when they are just sitting around. Furthermore, it’s not hard to teach a kid how to properly act around firearms. Rule one: don’t touch them. Rule two: don’t be around other kids holding them. Rule three: if you see one unattended or another kid holding one, get an adult. End of the goddamn lesson. If you cannot or will not teach your kids how to be safe, it’s your fault if they get hurt, not Smith and Wesson’s.

The Founding Fathers wanted us to be able to defend ourselves, both from each other, and from our government. To take away some ones right to be armed is to effectively take away their ability to defend themselves, and hands total control of their life over to the government. The criminals will never go unarmed; where there is a will, there is a gun. Criminals will likely always have bigger and better guns too. That being said, one doesn’t become a criminal because one wants to work, or wants to do things the hard way. You become one to get something you want in the fastest, easiest way possible. Dodging bullets is never easy and getting shot sucks. Furthermore, once you have no ability to defend yourself, you are effectively owned by the government. It’s not likely that in a modern democracy the police would start large scale operations of just start snatching people off the street and making them disappear, but it can and does happen even now in small scale. It’s not likely that democracy will turn in to a full on fascist state, but it can and has happened. The one thing, the only thing, that stops the government from abusing its authority, from crushing the people, is the people. It up to me, to you the reader, and to the people near us to be ready to do what is needed to preserve our freedoms. That usually means filing suit against the government, protesting, and voting for the people we think will best serve us. However, there may come a day when we have to “vote from the roof tops”, whne we may have to take up arms and remind the powers that be that the power of this nation comes from its people, not the leaders. As long as the people in charge know that out there, spread all over the nation, are people who are willing to fight to hold on to their freedoms, they will never be able to take too much. Once a population is unarmed, there is nothing to stop the government any more.
“…what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”
-Thomas Jefferson

2007-10-17T14:22:00.001-07:00

I love a good conspiracy. I really do. Being in them is the best. The whispers, the secret messages, most of which mean nothing, not to mention the secret handshakes and the knowledge that you are in the in crowd. You know something that most people don’t, and if they did, it would change their world. That being said, you cant always be a part of every conspiracy, and to an extent, I am glad. I often wonder what it would be like, if it turned out that there really was a shadow government running things behind the scenes, and I found hard, concrete proof. I don’t know what I would do. I mean on one hand, here I would be with evidence that would prove that life is not as we believed. Some may not want to believe it, but then, some might, and for those who do, they cannot go back. Every significant piece of information, once really understood, should and does change us. That being said, if you knew, and could prove, that for instance, crab people were really running the world, should you really tell people? This would be important, life changing. We would have to break out some serious amounts of butter and big pots of boiling water to wage war on our crustacean masters. But should you tell some one something like that? We would build our lives on how we perceive the world; if that perception is challenged, we resist, and if it is destroyed all together, our minds may well snap a bit. Is it really fair to do that to some one? To in essence destroy their world? Maybe conspiracies are secret for a reason; the people who should know, the people who can handle knowing, will find them. Maybe the knowledge is worth it; maybe its not. Maybe its worth just living life in ignorance, and being happy with our chosen reality.

2007-10-12T10:37:00.000-07:00

So another school shooting has happened. Once again its being billed as a "tragedy", once again the media is falling all over themselves to paint the shooter as a Goth who liked Marilyn Manson (who was last popular around the time this kid was learning to write). Of course, there will be a few fingers pointed at the school, which totally failed both the dead, and the shooter. In this case, as in most if not all of the others, the school was aware of the fact that the shooter was being bullied on a regular basis, and like most schools, they probably punished the kid for reporting the abuse. No, the people most to blame, and who never get any of it, are the bullies themselves. This kid was not born a killer, he was made one.

When someone takes a dog, beats it regularly, and then is attacked by it one day when their guard is down, do we blame the dog, or do we blame the owner? True the dog attacked, but then, it also might have done so at least in part out of self defense. It didn't want to be hurt any more. I believe that most people can at least agree to that. Why is that we treat cases like this any differently? This shooter, this kid, was picked on nonstop, and at least according to modern psychology, verbal and emotional abuse is just as bad as physical abuse, which he also got. He was beaten up for being different, for expressing opinions. He wasn't too fond of Christianity, and in according the teachings of Jesus, a Christian kicked his ass. By all accounts, the school did nothing to stop this, even though they were made aware of it. So basically, this kid is in some respects being forced to go to an environment that was blatantly hostile, and yet we blame him for his actions. One could say that the bastards who were shot, teachers and students all, didn't do anything to deserve it, but then, what did they do to stop it? The Good German defense is hardly a moral position I would want to stand on. Sure, some of the victims were kids themselves, and maybe one could say that they shouldn't be blamed for being bullies; but if we are not going to hold them accountable for their actions, why blame the shooter?

I think far too much society teaches people that it's ok to be mean, rude, to abuse people, and then walk away and expect nothing to happen. I mean, sure, we may get some stares and maybe a few unkind words aimed our way, but that's all most people really seem to think will happen. We never really seem to stop and ask "what did the victim do to create this crime?" Why not blame the victim for what they did to contribute to the event? Society itself may or may not have a hand in the crime, but seeing as an awful lot of violent crimes are committed by someone who knows the victim, why not start looking at the victim?

Something different

2007-10-03T20:52:00.000-07:00

Cranberry-orange oatmeal cookies.

1 cup all-purpose flour
3/4 teaspoon baking soda
1/2 teaspoon salt
1/2 teaspoon ground allspice
1/2 teaspoon ground cinnamon
1/8 teaspoon ground nutmeg
3/4 cup unsalted butter, at room temperature
1/2 cup sugar
3/4 cup packed light brown sugar
2 large eggs, at room temperature
1 teaspoon orange extract
2 3/4 cups rolled oats
3/4 cup cranberries

Preheat the oven to 350. Put the butter, salt, and sugar in a bowl, and hit it with an electric mixer till its all mixed, and the butter is light and fluffy. Then, add in the spices, and the eggs, and mix on low till totally incorporated. Then, add the baking soda, and the flour, and again mix on low till combined. Add in half the oats, mix on the low, then the other half. Finally, mix in the extract and the cranberries. Then, spoon on to a cookie sheet, or preferably, a silicone pad or parchment paper, and bake until golden brown, but still spongy (a tooth pick should come out of one wet and a bit sticky), which is about 12 to 15 minutes. Then put on a cooling rack.

Plans?

2007-09-20T20:01:00.001-07:00

I did a lot of thinking today. In between bouts of crying of course, but thinking none the less. I do honestly think I will be ok. It sucks, I hurt, but I will survive. The first thing I want to do is look at getting a job working with Shell, cause the extra pay would be awesome for me to get my debt load down faster. Secondly, and this will take a bit, I want to get really serious about losing weight and getting healthy. It would be awesome to have a work out buddy, but I gotta do what I gotta do. I figure I got more motivation and fewer distractions now. Third, I am going to continue working on my issues; I got some books and such, and I am seeing about getting into therapy again. I am well aware that I am in no condition to be in any kind of meaningful relationship, and while I don’t plan on entering into one for quite some time, I want to be ready for when I do. Which leads me to a point of interest. I emailed the therapist that Jasmin and me were going to, well, end it. He said he wasn’t surprised. He then went on to basically tell me that he recommends I keep working my issues, and hope she does the same. Then apparently, he thinks it wouldn’t be a bad idea if me and her, down the line, made another go. He doesn’t think I should plan on it happening, and I don’t, and he also thinks I would have to move, which I know I would. Its funny, I don’t know. I mean, I am not opposed, once I know we both are better and able. No point in making the same mistakes. I got married too young, too broken, to really be a good consistent partner. When things are good, they were really good; when they were bad, it was misery. Hell, last night was even good, other than the obvious. Our therapist said more than once, and still maintains, that we could be very good for each other in terms of helping each other deal with our problems, physical and mental. That being said, I am not hoping and praying for this outcome. I am not even sure we can be friends yet. We are going to try, but that doesn’t promise success. Jasmin would also have to want to one-day maybe give it another shot, and to do that, she would have to go against the advice of several people. And even then, we are talking years, and this is day one. Who knows what or who will happen? Maybe one or both of us will find some one else, some one better. Maybe some one will die. Bah. Interesting point though, but something to worry about later. It would be nice to be friends though, if nothing else.

2007-09-10T19:45:00.001-07:00

So I read this article in the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB118903209653018615-lMyQjAxMDE3ODA5NjAwMzYyWj.html

and it pretty much made want to curse loudly. For those you who don�t/cant/wont read it, let me summarize it for you. Men are getting scarred to be seen talking to or being near children, even their own, because of the fear of being labeled a pedophile. Cops have gone up to guys sitting around with their own kids and interrogated them, just because someone, almost always female, told them that the man was suspicious. Apparently, a guy having a burger with his little girl warrants a cop stopping by and making the guy prove the kid is his. Some states, such as Virginia, are running campaigns encouraging people to call the cops if they see anything they deem questionable. There so much wrong here, I don�t know where to start, so let�s start with the source of the problem: people.

The human, as a whole, is stupid, easily lead by its collective nose, and as a rule doesn�t like to think about unpleasant truths. And the truth is the biggest danger to a child is its parents and family. A child�s MOTHER is the person most likely to beat or kill it; if it�s sexually abused, it was most likely done by a relative or family friend. Not a stranger. But we don�t want to think about that it seems. Sure, we may know these facts, but no one really wants to think that their brother, you know, the one who is always really friendly with kids, is the one who is molesting their kid. Furthermore, men have been basically slandered in the media for the past 20 years. I am not talking about the women�s mags that seem to like declare men as unable to feed and clothe themselves, or like to point out how we are simple beasts. I am talking about how, when a man kills his child, he is strung up, but when a woman does it, she has to be mentally ill. When a man beats a woman, it�s because he is a drunk, or because society has told him that is ok to do so, or because he is deep down a scared little boy. When a woman beats a man, the man will get arrested because she will have a bruise somewhere, even if it�s from him trying to pin her arms so she doesn�t hit him again. Hell, look at the Duke rape case. One false accusation and three boys go through hell. Now they are legally free and clear, but where is NOW and the women studies department at Duke? Where are the apologies? They had no problem ripping into these guys, but now no one is standing up to defend them, to retract their statements. Men are guilty by default in any case involving domestic abuse (of any kind), rape, or child molestation. And yes I know false accusations are rare, but no one does a damn thing to stop them, and they still ruin lives. So now, as a man, I won�t volunteer for things like Big Brothers. I really don�t feel ok helping your child if it�s lost, or hurt. It�s not worth the risk to me. It�s sad, but it�s the truth.

Now, for the enabler of these problems: the government, certain political organizations, and a particular popular TV show. Yes, as with many issues, the government takes a problem and makes it worse. I want to make children safe, I do. Child abuse and molestation is a bad thing. Making every man a suspect isn�t going to stop it. But the government has to do something to appear productive, to appear that it is some combating this issue. Given that the offender in the majority of reported cases is male, it does to an extent make sense to single out men. The problem with this is the word �reported�. If you talk to experts about this issue, and not just the reactionaries, they will tell you something to the effect of �we don�t know the actual statistic, because incidents involving female offenders are underreported.� So why do we hear about these statistics? Because of organizations dedicated to spreading them. Varies organizations don�t do any actual research; they just parrot what others tell them, and do so rather loudly and with total conviction. They don�t actually read the studies to see what they really say, or what the researchers are defining as assault or what have you. There is no money or attention gathered when you do that, and make no mistake, any organization wants money and attention for their pet cause. So they will take questionable statistics, spin them to make it as though they are gospel, and both demonize men and completely ignore the facts that most men are not predators, and that the crazy woman down the street is as much if not more of a threat as the crazy ass guy in the van.

That all being said, let point the finger at who I think is the biggest enabler of this craze: the media, specifically, Dateline�s �To Catch a Predator�. For those of you who haven�t seen this fine piece of fear mongering, the premise is this organization called �Perverted Justice� trolls the internet, gets pedophiles to engage in sexual conversations with what the pedophiles believe are 12-14 year old kids, and then get the pedophiles to agree to show up at the �kid�s� house. Of course a reporter is waiting for them to talk about why they want to nail a kid, and then the pedo gets arrested, usually by getting tackled and restrained, even if they are not resisting or running. It�s great, but it�s not. First off, in many states it is illegal to encourage or enable someone to break the law. By targeting pedophiles, this organization may be breaking that law, as they do everything they can to steer the conversation in the direction of an adult talking to a minor about engaging in sexual acts together, which is a crime. However, Perverted Justice maintains that since there is no minor involved, there are not breaking the law. This is where they are helping pedophiles. The founder of Perverted Justice actually has been brought into court for this stuff, and that was his defense. Now, the pedo is saying that he never really believed that he was talking to a kid, even if he acted as if it was a kid, and as such, no kid no crime. If this flies, every online predator could use it as a defense, and it would be up to the state to prove what the pedo believed. Furthermore, because Dateline is putting all these guys on tv, they are opening up a chance for these guys to claim insanity. The logic: they want to be on TV so bad they are willing to pretend to be pedophiles. Attention seeking behavior to an extreme is a mental disorder. So now they have given these guys two options that can be used together, to get out of all these crimes. Lastly, and this is just about as bad as it gets, Dateline is helping these guys beat their convictions by virtue of the show. Most of the men captured in these stings are set free, for various reasons that involve improperly gathered evidence, tainted jury pools, and entrapment. So, even the guys who are guilty, and I think they all are, are just getting walk free. They aren�t even shown on TV, since in many states Dateline would need them to sign a release to show them on TV. All they have really succeed in doing is adding fuel to a fire and making a crisis out of a problem.

So where does this leave us? Pedophiles are getting more weapons to fight convictions. Non-predator men are scared, and rightly so. What we are going to have is generation or two where increasingly large number of men are uninvolved in the lives of children, including their own to an extent, and it�s all due to fear. We see PSA�s encouraging us to be mentors and foster parents, and then we see PSA�s telling us basically to act as if every man around a kid is a potential pedophile. What is a man to do? And make no mistake, I don�t blame women as a whole for this: any good parent is alert for potential serious threats to their children. This increasing fear is only going to hurt women too. For starters, as men do less with kids, including their own, more pressure is going to be put on the mothers. Also, because of this increasing public fear, there are a few mothers making their kids make false accusations. It doesn�t happen often, but it does happen. This is worse than false accusations of rape, and what it may end up causing is a general suspicion of any woman who shows any level of instability as being the kind of woman who might make a false accusation, and thus someone to be shunned. And think about the generation we are raising. We are telling little girls that every man is a threat, and not to trust them, and we are telling the boys that they will grow up to be a monster. No one will trust anyone when it comes to kids, and unless we all get along and get our shit together, we are just going to fail the kids. Find the pedophiles, but so in a way that doesn�t make every man a predator. Protect the kids, but don�t put them in a bubble. I am not saying we shouldn�t inform and prepare our kids, but there is so much more out there that is a bigger threat their health and well being, like their diets, guns, drugs, driving like retards and having kids of their own? I figure, worry about the big things, and if you see some creepy man or woman in a trench coat and a white van, call the cops. Otherwise, why not give each other the benefit of the doubt? Hell, I am one of the biggest bastards I know, and even I wouldn�t hurt a child. Why assume that the average person on the street would?

2007-09-03T21:53:00.000-07:00

“Being paranoid simply means you are in possession of all the facts.” One of my favorite quotes ever, and it comes from one of the greatest works of fiction, Transmetropolitian. See, I am paranoid, technically. I often worry about what people are really planning, what can happen to me and to those I care about. My mind is often filled with what if scenarios and what plans as to what to do if something does happen. That’s why I carry a weapon with me, everywhere I go. That’s why I look my door, even when I am inside, and always lock my car doors. I figure, I can trust people, but only in so much as they will act in what they see as their best interests. It’s a rare person that I truly trust, that I truly feel safe around. Maybe its because I just how fragile the human body is (any one can kill any one else, if they go about it properly), maybe its because I have been burned in the past. In any case, I would feel bad about this, but there has never been a truly good and decent person, through and through, in the history of the world. That’s right, every one, saints and sinners alike, are evil and good in their own ways.

Ghadi hated black people, and was likely a pedophile. Mother Teresa was a sadist, who acquired, by some estimates, over 50 million dollars in donations, but spent almost none of it on the people she was supposedly devoted to aiding. On the other hand, Hitler was animal rights nut, to an extent (he was a vegetarian and hated hunting), and Ted Bundy by all accounts genuinely loved and cared for his girlfriend, who he never once hurt. People are not inherently good, nor are they inherently evil. People are animals; we will do what we need to do to survive, to benefit ourselves and those we care about, and we will do so in whatever way gives us the most reward for the least over all effort. Its all subjective, of course, so sometimes a person will do the “right” thing because doing so benefits them more than doing the wrong thing in their opinion, but different person may see it in a different perspective. This is why psychology and sociology are soft science: no one, no matter how skilled they are, can accurately predict what every one would do in a given situation. All psychologists can do is make guesses, based on statistics. For instance, on average, men are more concerned about physical infidelity than emotional, and for women it’s the opposite. However, that is not the case for everyone; just most people. Some people care at all, some people care about both, and so on.

So, knowing that people, especially the ones we don’t know well, are unpredictable, why should any one trust any one? Sure, trust your dear friends, trust your family (assuming you can stand them), but no one else should be trusted, at least not to appreciable extent. No one can know what any random person on the street will do. Now I am not saying to treat every one as your potential murder, but I have always run under one assumption: only the dead are totally reliable. Every one else, in some ways shape or form, can fail you. They may not, and in some cases, will go out of their way to avoid hurting you. But ultimately, we are all only human.

2007-08-26T20:50:00.000-07:00

I do not believe in entropy. I do not believe that all things tend toward an end. Now I know that physics tells us that all things tend towards entropy, but I am not buying it. For starters, I was always told that both energy and matter cannot be created, or destroyed. What is there is there, even if it’s in a different shape. For instance, if I take a house, and knock it down, I have destroyed the house. The concept of the house may be gone, but the material, the matter that made up the house is there; it just has a new form now, that being rubble. I have destroyed nothing that is tangible. Even if I burned the house to the ground, I have simple changed the matter that made the house. Energy would be generated by a chemical reaction called pyrolysis (wood doesn’t actually burn), but according to my admittedly meager understanding of chemistry, energy and matter can be converted into each other; nothing is really created, its just changed. Everything changes, but nothing is truly gone. If things could truly come to an end, why haven’t they? After billions of years, stars still burn, and we are still here. Sure, some have burned out, but others took their place. If entropy was the goal, why are new things standing up to replace the old? Also, if there is a true end, where is the real beginning? Yes, there was the big bang that kicked off the formation of the universe, as we know it, but something had to be here to start the process. Something existed. What that something is, don’t know, and don’t really care. Something was there.

Now, again, I will be the first to admit I am not a hard science person. There are a good many things I don’t get, and really, I don’t care to understand. What does interest me is whether there is a point to all this. Why are we here, and does all the pain and suffering serve a purpose? I think that honestly, it doesn’t. I don’t know what are purpose is, if indeed we have one. Some see this as a depressing thing; I see it as a comfort. If we have no purpose, then we cannot fail. We can live and die how we choose, and really, it won’t matter. Our world, our universe has no real end, and no real beginning. We are made of the same stuff as the earth, the trees, and the stars. When we die, we will, decay, and live will feed on our bodies. A cycle will continue, just as the Earth will orbit the Sun, and the galaxy will spin, forever. Well, the Sun will burn out one day, but the heat and light from it will go on for decades, if not forever, until it hits something, and gives that something its energy. I find comfort in all this; part of me as has been, and part of me always will be. My body may die but constitutes it will carry on, in one form or the other, forever.

2007-08-16T17:55:00.000-07:00

Einstein came up with a theory that basically states the faster you go, the less time effects you. Travel through time and travel through space are set up as if they are in an inverse correlation, on a scale with 0 being one end, and c being the other. Now as we approach c in terms of speed, we get closer to 0 in terms of how fast we relatively are traveling through time, so that if you were at 99% of c, years would zoom passed you and would only perceive a few seconds. But, what if reversed that? What if we stopped moving in space? As it is right now, we are not totally still. Our planet spins, rotates around a start that its self is in a galaxy that rotates. But if we were to leave our planet, and figure out all the different speeds and directions we are moving at, and counter act them, we maybe be able to truly stop, or get really close it, in terms of our movement in space. What would that be like? Would time slow down with us? Would everything just seem to stop, while we keep on aging? Would truly stopping kill you instantly from every one else’s point of view, leaving nothing behind, except maybe dust? That got me thinking, maybe that’s what it is like to die, in some sense. Maybe dying is in essence truly stopping, for the whole universe to slow down while we keep going. Maybe our life doesn’t so much flash our eyes in a moment; maybe we relive it, over and over again. Maybe a part of gets free, and gets to see the universe in a second. Meh.

A rant

2007-07-17T19:50:00.000-07:00

So apparently, according to the London times, Pius Ncube, the Archbishop of Bulawayo, has asked for Britain to invade Zimbabwe (that’s where he is from), because shit has officially hit the fan there. See, Britain used to own Zimbabwe. After World War Two, they turned it over for self rule, in part because the people there were demanding it. Now, a bit more recently, Robert Mugabe was elected President of Zimbabwe, and things have been going down hill from there. Up till a few years ago, Zimbabwe produced far more food then its population needs. It was sort of an up and coming nation. Now, not so much. It all started when Mugabe kicked a lot of white farmers off their farmers, and gave them to his friends, who apparently don’t know how to farm. He then blamed all the problems his nation has on “the White Devil”. Of course, this is just one of several bad things this man has done. Anyway, as things stand now, Zimbabwe is facing a severe food shortage, 15,000% inflation (prices doubled in one week), and things are in general crap. As such, the very same people that were blamed for causing all the problems are now being begged by more than a few of the people to come in and fix things. Of course, they don’t want British control, which is understandable, but they also want no British influence, British culture, you know, the things that allowed Great Briton to actually get shit done. They want the money and support, but don’t want to change in any way or give up anything to actually improve or truly stand on their own. We see similar behavior elsewhere, some place closer to home, and in some ways quite subtle: you can see similar behavior in the modern American (well Western, really) woman.

That probably got some people’s attention. I should start by saying that not all women engage in the behaviors that I am about to rant about, and that some of these problems are more of a problem with the way various systems are set up, not with the women themselves. That being said…

First, lets define feminism, for the purposes of this writing. For this little rant, feminism is the fight against double standards, the belief that the playing field should be totally level. In more philosophical terms, negative freedom, in the sense that no one is standing in your way. Under this definition, most women that call themselves feminist are not. Many men, even those who would never claim to be, are in fact feminist. Let me explain. As the system is set up now, and how many women consciously and unconsciously act, there exist many double standards. Let start with a common one: dating. Who pays for the date, 9 times out of 10? The man. Why? Is there any good reason? We could point out that it is done this way do to evolutionary psychology, as a means for a man to show the level of resources at his disposal. However, if we run under that assumption, then we have a few other issues. One, it could basically turn the date into what could be a very expensive prostitution arrangement. I buy you dinner, you have sex with me. I buy you enough dinners, you marry me, and let me get you knocked up. Second, assuming that sex is not implied, then the arrangement, rather than make women sex objects, objectifies men as procurers of resources, not necessarily as people. Sadly, I find this to be all too often the case.

More than a few men report at least feeling, if not having been bluntly told, that it doesn’t matter to their wives, or their girlfriends, if they like their job. Fulfillment, having a job that is challenging and enjoyable, all this is second to making money. Now, and here is where the societal double standard comes in, women are encouraged to find a fulfilling, meaningful, and enjoyable job, and heaven help their husband if they are not super supportive. More than a few wives don’t see the problem with telling their husbands to bite the bullet and take a job that they don’t want, that doesn’t suit them, but then refuse to get a higher paying job themselves, because they enjoy their current, low paying job. When women do take a decent paying job, they are often, in terms of salary, paid less then men. Now, lets ignore the sort of half assed studies saying that women are paid less because they don’t stand up for themselves as much as men. Lets instead focus on harder facts. Women don’t work as much as men, as a rule. Its true. Don’t bitch, don’t whine, don’t argue. A place called Employment Policy Foundation did a study, and found that there is statistically no pay gap when you look at unmarried men and women, and a 3% difference between married but childless couples. That’s right, it’s the kids fault. Who goes home to take care of the kids? Mom. As such, mom works less hours, thus less exposure at work, less over time, and thus a smaller paycheck. Not one bit of this is the fault of men. And yet, we still get to hear about it. We still have to deal with policies that tell us women are the equals to men, but they need special hiring preference. That women are just as thick skin and tough as us, but heaven help you if you crack a sexist joke. But don’t even think of complaining to HR if a women makes a sexist comment; you will just get laughed at. I would have to say, that in terms of jobs, men are on the short end of the stick when it comes to double standards.

Lets talk a bit about relationship dynamics, specifically relating to sex. Men, ask yourself, how many times have you been told by your girl she isn’t in the mood? How are you supposed to handle it? All understanding right? No complaining, no whining, and it better not visibly hurt your self esteem, cause that will just ending up basically annoying her, because then it would seem like you are trying to guilt her. Want to see your girl mentally fall apart quickly? Reject her advances. Tell her “no” one night, that you are not interested. (And don’t give me this whole “that would never happen” line; every man has at least one night where he is too tired, too stressed, or too busy.) Some girls will be ok with it. Most girls wont be. Sure they may not say anything, at first; but then comes the questions and doubts. The “is it me”, or “is it another girl?” Don’t get annoyed with them though, cause then you are not taking in to consideration their feelings.

Now, lets talk about every one’s favorite, happy making activity: divorce. Women got it good in divorce, and I have never, not ever, heard of a supposed “feminist” trying to change the system. Lets start with alimony: women, and men, don’t deserve it. Not a dime. You could argue those who get married say before 1990 might have a case, but its kind of iffy. Split the assets, and be done with it. Yes, some women do stay at home and raise kids, but who made them do it? I mean really made them. Their husbands? How can he? Hit her? He goes to jail. Her priest? Her faith is her choice, and as such the consequences are hers. You don’t even need to be a full time stay at home parent to raise good kids, especially after they start school. So who is making them stay at home now? No one, its their call, their consequences, but no one is really holding these women accountable, not if we are making their ex husbands support them. And please, dear readers, don’t start with any kind of “but she got used to a lifestyle/standard of living”. As many a comedian, such as Chris Rock, has pointed out, men get used to certain things too, like sex. I have yet to hear of a court ordering a women to pleasure her ex to maintain his lifestyle. Before you start saying its an unfair comparison, well, think about it. Post divorce, with no alimony, the woman has to go and find a job, assuming she isn’t working, and will have to survive, will have to start over again, or just live off of her share of the assets. The man, assuming he even wants to, has to hit the dating circuit. He may well have to move, which is expensive, and also may entail him getting a new job. Add to that the fact that the first thing many divorce lawyers will tell their female clients is to claim the husband was abusive. That kind of stigma sticks with you. So, if she deserves money, the guy does deserve something to take his mind off of things. But never mind, honestly I doubt such an arrangement would happen, and really it shouldn’t happen. Alimony should just be abolished, if nothing else because again, because it seems to be a system that’s sole purpose now is to reduce some one to a source of income, and not a person.

Finally, lets talk about the last area: psychology. People are slowly coming to the realization that the whole trying to raise and teach boys to be girls, well, its stupid. The whole idea that boys play with guns because we give them guns is flawed. It’s wrong. It’s a product of feminist philosophy trying to be hard science, when there is not one creditable study to back up the notion that boys and girls have similar play styles. Also, telling men to share and open up has never been really proven to be healthy for men. Also, being sensitive is counter-productive for guys in terms of evolution. A few scientists did a study, and found that at the height of their monthly reproductive cycle, women don’t want the nice, cuddly, sensitive guy. They want the Neanderthal. Sometimes it it’s the same guy; you can have a linebacker with a brain and a soul. But never the less, women don’t seem to respect the whiny boys as much as the bastards. Furthermore, what’s so great about the way that women think and at? Not saying its all bad; but lets look at it. Women out number men. Women as a rule have better immune systems, and can out survive men in a variety of conditions. Men run things. Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. I see it as a two fold problem. First, and to some extent least, is ambition. Men seem to have more drive to succeed, and in addition to opening more opportunities, propels men into plans and ideas that lead to power and wealth. Women gossip; men scheme, plot, and climb over the corpses of their enemies. Warren Buffet didn’t get rich by gossiping, or sharing his feelings. Rome wouldn’t have been built and taken over a lot of the world if it was run by women. That’s not say that there are not some ambitious bitches to complement that ambitious bastards, but they are rare. Getting more common, which is good. The second, and greatest, roadblock in the way of women getting power is organization. Women suck at getting their shit together and following a leader. Too much talking, not enough doing, in my opinion. Don’t believe me? Watch a group of women try to form a team. It takes a long while to get the group cohesion that men hit almost instantly. There is bickering, bitching, backstabbing, tears and hurt feelings. With men, we find a guy who knows what’s going on, who presents a plan, and we go. Some of us don’t even ask questions, which isn’t good, but does allow for a particularly ambitious man to get a good deal of other men to follow him, while the women are split. Men get more done, in my opinion.

Now, all that being said: so what? What does it all mean, who cares, what should we do about it? Yada yada yada. Well, to relate this assembled mess to the original story, women are kind of like Zimbabwe. They wanted to be put on the playing field, to be treated as equals, but hey, being an equal hard. It involves suffering, sacrifice, and goddamn it, who wants to do that, when you can use long establish double standards and flawed systems? Why not place the blame for failing on some one else, make them pick you up and support you while at the same time demanding to be treated as an equal. I mean, its only fair right? Way back when this other group was really mean, not to us personally, but so what, I am gonna sit here and whine. Sure, doing so really doesn’t help anything, but progress is being made, right? Women are become more equal, right? Aren’t they? Maybe, for now. Ask yourself this though: back in the day, there were many male feminists, who put in a lot of energy fighting for equality. Now, they are going into groups to fight misandery, which is good, but some of those groups don’t want to just stop there. They see the whole goddamn feminist movement as a mistake, and they are organizing. This is not so good. Add to that, my generation of men seems to be looking at marriage as something to be avoided, and not just from fear of commitment. They just don’t want to give an ex half their stuff, and support her. Now sure, marriage isn’t a big deal for many women and such, yet. For some women it never will be. But imagine, if you would, what it would be like if say 40% of the current 18-26 year old men never wanted to marry. Are there really enough women out there who are ok with never getting married, not even once, to compensate for that? We as a species have this almost pathological need to pair off. Can you imagine, dear readers, the kind of power men would have over women as a whole, if say we got 30% of us to agree to never marry a women unless she conformed to a certain template, agree to support certain causes. More over, what if we also agreed that we would never have kids with a woman, unless she fell into a certain template? The biological clock is a powerful thing, and sure there will be other guys, for a bit. But they might get snatched up, and even if they don’t, the kind of guy willing to just randomly knock up girls probably isn’t too interested in child support. So maybe that’s what we a group should do guys. Not get married, or if we are married, don’t get married again, and stand up for ourselves more inside our marriages. Make her work as much as you. Don’t have agree to have kids, unless you are totally happy, and if she threatens to leave, pack her stuff for her. We, as a generation, were told not to hit girls. That girls are special. They are not the rare commodity; we are. Especially the apparently prized members of our gender. I think we need to remind the ladies that they need us, as much as we need them. Many women need to be reminded that men are just as special as women, and that if they want our respect, if they want equality, they have to earn it, they have to sacrifice. Could it be worth being bastards, denying them and ourselves very nice things, all in the name of progress and true equality?

Well, not sure where all this leads, or how to end this, so I close with this. I am not sexist; I prefer the company of women. Certain things annoy me, certain suck. A few things down right frighten me with their potential. But in the long run, I like diversity, the dichotomy.