Advice Goddess Free Swim
I've been out picking brains all night, and I have to go to bed now, so have at it! Whatever you want to talk about. (I'll post more later on Thursday, and maybe even live blog some of the sessions at HBES, the Human Behavior and Evolution Society Conference.)
One link per comment, please, or you'll get drop-kicked to my spam folder.
I saw that you went to the conference earlier. I went to a talk and was surprised at something that was missed: awareness as a survival trait.
Radwaste at June 17, 2010 2:46 AM
Check out Free Range Kids - this is one of the most disgusting examples of injustice and general fear of all males: http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/2010/06/16/outrage-of-the-week-14-y-o-arrested-for-abduction-of-toddler-he-helped/
KarenW at June 17, 2010 6:22 AM
As a male he is guilty until proven innocent. If he is proven innocent, there will be a lingering cloud of doubt asociated with him forever.
David M. at June 17, 2010 7:14 AM
I was just about to post that Karen. Thank you.
Jaded at June 17, 2010 7:26 AM
I remember a while back when that movie "The Reader" came out with Kate Winslet playing the middle aged Nazi woman who slept with the teenaged boy.
The article mentioned how for a nude scene she needed to wear a "toupee" as women back then had more hair.
I saw an article today making me wonder if men were going the same way.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/fashion/17skin.html?pagewanted=all
According to a new survey, 47% of men now do at least a LITTLE grooming below the neck.
--That jumps to 61% for men between 18 and 29.
--The most popular areas to trim, in order, are . . .
#1.) Groin
#2.) Armpits
#3.) Chest
#4.) Back
The body shaver market has also hit an all-time high of $10 MILLION a year . . . and NAIR FOR MEN is bringing in $4.5 MILLION a year.
Steve at June 17, 2010 8:47 AM
Not that any of you want to know this, but since I was a teenager I have shaved my toes.
Eric at June 17, 2010 8:53 AM
I keep starting over with this post, which is in reference to the boy in Florida and the little girl he was trying to help.
I read the story and watched the video. I have also read about the two British boys who walked out of a mall with a toddler who got separated from his mom. What they did to that little boy gives you a clear definition of the word "vile", and it has admittedly colored my perception of this incident.
The young man wasn't with his mother when he found this child. If I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, I'll believe it just didn't occur to him to do the sensible thing and go to a store employee, or to find his own mom, as opposed to wandering around with the child and leaving the mall with her. I have a little trouble with his thinking the mom might have been outside and apparently forgot she left her kid behind, but yeah, it could have happened.
On the other hand, it's too easy to think about how fast he could have hurt or killed that girl if he wanted to. Sure, he was with his mom, originally. But he wasn't with her when he found that child.
As I recall from the original story, a store clerk called 911 after the mom requested it. Her own thought processes might have been influenced just from the size of that boy. Which might also have something to do with why the cops cuffed him.
Or it could just be because Florida is messed up in general.
I hope someone does a follow-up to this story.
Pricklypear at June 17, 2010 10:16 AM
Nair causes the worst skin rashes
lujlp at June 17, 2010 10:40 AM
Eric, you shave off your toes? doesn't that make it hard to walk? :devil:
yeah, the topiary manscaping issue... or whatever the cute made-up word for it is today. My question is when to stop? It's not like most bears have a good demarcation point to decide where to shave, and where not to. So, you shave the pube, and the legs and the belly and chest and the back... so what makes me like a man anymore? Trying to make me androgynous or something?
SwissArmyD at June 17, 2010 10:47 AM
Body hair and the oppression of men? Seriously? That's what we're about?
OK, body hair. Like, whatever. Everybody has somatic preoccupations now and then.
But how come Amy's blog has become a magnet for all these guys who wanna whine about how our culture done them wrong?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 17, 2010 12:39 PM
Crid, I could tell you, but then...you know.
Pricklypear at June 17, 2010 1:34 PM
If you want me mouthing your nether-regions, it needs to be neatly trimmed to a respectable length-there is some wiggle room as to what length per guy. It also makes your penis look larger, as an added plus. Doesn't have to be fully shaved. Hair also holds odors and-when damp-encourages bacterial growth (stinky). So shaving your pitts is a good grooming idea for us all.
I think only the people there can get a feel for that teen/toddler situation. It could have been fine, or very very not fine. From what I saw, I lean more to not fine. Again, Ms Lenore picks a poor situation to get people on her side.
momof4 at June 17, 2010 1:52 PM
Momof4, not fine why? You can't seriously believe that a boy on a shopping trip with his mom was trying to abduct a toddler. And there was no evidence of him trying to bring the girl to a secluded area, or anything else to make him seem like a pervert. Did he handle the situation perfectly or use exceptional judgement? No - but duh, he's 14 years old and I'm sure he's not an expert on what to do with a lost child. If it was one of my kids walking around with a teenage boy (when they were toddlers, they are old enough now to know better) I would freak out at first. Then, when I found out that he was just trying to help, I would give him the benefit of the doubt, especially since his mom was there knew what was going on.
KarenW at June 17, 2010 2:10 PM
But how come Amy's blog has become a magnet for all these guys who wanna whine about how our culture done them wrong?
I just found her blog, but my guess would be because she does not automatically stamp them as "sexists" for doing so. "Sexist" being code for "bad person" or "all that is wrong with the world".
Steve at June 17, 2010 2:15 PM
> but then...you know.
Got it. (Psst— The eagle flies at midnight... The eagle flies at midnight! All prisoners will be freed! Tell no one your saw me!)
> my guess would be because she does not
> automatically stamp them as "sexists"
Is it OK that I mock them as "weenie-men"?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 17, 2010 2:19 PM
>>"Sexist" being code for "bad person" or "all that is wrong with the world".
Steve,
I agree "sexist" can mean whatever the user wants it to mean. Which makes it a lousy (and boring) code word.
Jody Tresidder at June 17, 2010 2:30 PM
s it OK that I mock them as "weenie-men"? -Crid...
"Dennis: Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
King Arthur: Bloody peasant!
Dennis: Oh, what a giveaway! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw him, Didn't you?" - MontyP :grin:
SwissArmyD at June 17, 2010 2:46 PM
"All prisoners will be freed!"
And don't forget--if asked if you're a god, you say YES!
Pricklypear at June 17, 2010 3:00 PM
Verily... Gozer always comes in one of the pre-chosen forms....
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 17, 2010 3:15 PM
Even the commentary for that movie is funny.
Pricklypear at June 17, 2010 3:34 PM
Random advice: If you don't turn the cap on the end of a catheter, pee leaks all over the place.
MonicaP at June 17, 2010 3:44 PM
Good to know.
Pricklypear at June 17, 2010 3:50 PM
> I agree "sexist" can mean whatever the user wants
> it to mean. Which makes it a lousy (and boring)
> code word.
We should compose a list of those as a summer project... Conceding at the outset that the champion will be "love". And for each entry on the list, we could offer a series of probable translations.... e.g., "compassion" = taxation, "sustainable" = socialist, etc.
> Even the commentary for that movie is funny.
It's one of the few Hollywood blockbusters in the post-Star Wars period (i.e., in the era when moviemakers were started aiming for readily-translated, international success) where you don't begrudge them the money. (And with the possible, possible, exception of Groundhog Day, no one involved ever again did anything nearly as entertaining.) Y'know, Caddyshack was just as funny, and the gopher puppets were a lot cheaper than the Gozer effects... The world needs more teen comedies that grown-ups can enjoy.
I read a little about it a few years ago. Ackroyd's original draft had a lot of sincere occult stuff in it, but somehow, they knew just which parts to keep. A favorite Hollywood line: 'Three are three simple rules to making a successful film... And no one knows what any of them are.'
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 17, 2010 3:52 PM
The only good gopher poontang is dead gopher poontang.
I don't no anyone who can look as disturbingly stupid as Bill Murray doing that loose lip thing.
Pricklypear at June 17, 2010 4:04 PM
Manganese. A lot of people don't even know what that is...
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 17, 2010 4:11 PM
I meant I don't KNOW NO ONE, etc. sheesh.
Apropos of nothing much, at one time all of my favorite TV show were male ensemble groups. WKRP in Cincinnati, Barney Miller, MASH (in the early seasons, before Hawkeye got all sensitive), and Taxi. There may have been more at that point in time, but I don't remember them at the moment.
Yeah, there were women involved too, but they weren't trying to be topical and meaningful. It was really all about the guys.
Pricklypear at June 17, 2010 4:14 PM
Genuinely normal question, Crid.
The Sopranos.
Were you ever smitten?
Jody Tresidder at June 17, 2010 4:25 PM
Never saw it, not a single episode. Haven't owned an actual TV since '92... But have watched more for work than the rest of you put together. A friend passed me a disc of Mad Men a couple years ago, but I know it's not the same thing
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 17, 2010 4:34 PM
Never got caught up in Mad Men - love Breaking Bad though
lujlp at June 17, 2010 4:51 PM
Haven't owned an actual TV since '92 -- Crid
Does that mean you a non-actual TV? Maybe one of those cardboard things that the furniture stores use?
The Former Banker at June 17, 2010 4:59 PM
I saw on dating discussion board a link to a paper which unfortunately was not publicly accessible and soon removed. This appears to be an earlier work or version: http://www.bradley.edu/academics/las/psy/facstaff/schmitt/documents/Jonason-Schmitt-2009-DarkTriad-STM.pdf The study reports to have found that qualities like narcissism and psychopathy and Machiavellianism lead to more short term matings for males.
The Former Banker at June 17, 2010 5:06 PM
Oh, yeah. Night Court. I knew there was another one. That report on short term matings brings John Larroquette to mind.
Pricklypear at June 17, 2010 5:12 PM
> Does that mean you a non-actual TV?
The computer, that's where I watched the Mad Men. Also F1 races... There were some 50fps downloads from Montreal last weekend that were just stunning. (I could tell you where I got 'em, but then Pricklypear would have to kill you.)
There's so much video on the web nowadays that one can't pretend to be an intellectual who doesn't have time for TV.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 17, 2010 5:21 PM
The plan is going swimmingly. Ehhhhxcellent. Soon you will all be whimpering weeniemen and I will rule the world. Me and Pearl Forester.
Pricklypear at June 17, 2010 5:40 PM
Well, I'm wondering what people will think about what happened at my house tonight. My daughter who will be 13 in August asked to have 2 friends sleep over. One mother called to make sure it was ok and that I'd be home. Mother #2 just dropped off. The girls walked less than a half mile from my house to meet another friend. The girl excited about a new store called her aunt to tell her it was coming. Mother #2 picked daughter up from my house because apparently she is not allowed to walk to where they went. I apologized to her and said I didn't know that she was not allowed and that I felt terrible. She glared at me and left. I do feel bad because I would not have allowed them to go, but seriously it is less than a half mile in a populated area with a few of them. Thoughts?
Kristen at June 17, 2010 7:01 PM
[A. ] I am so glad not to have kids.
[B. ] I am so glad not to have daughters.
[B. {Subsection a }] And glad not to have sons, too.
[C. ] Comment again in 2030 and let know how Mother #2's daughter's life turned out.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 17, 2010 7:47 PM
At age thirteen, that girl is old enough to know what her mom will or will not allow, and old enough to call and ask permission if she isn't sure. I don't believe that was your job at all. The mom sounds like an asshole.
KarenW at June 17, 2010 7:50 PM
Well Crid, I have a feeling Mother # 2 will not be letting her daughter hang out with mine any more so I don't think I'll be able to update you. Even if I disagreed with her rules, I certainly would have either told the girls they could not go or told the girl she could not come over. Mother # 2 should not be dropping off her daughter without calling or speaking to the mom in charge if she has such explicit rules. At least those were my thoughts. Just reminded me of some of the Free Range topics.
Kristen at June 17, 2010 7:53 PM
Yeah, Karen, she was pretty rude. Still, while I don't think it was my job, I try to be responsible for kids at my house and did feel bad. I just was surprised that she was the mom that didn't call me to see if it was ok if her daughter slept here or even to meet me if she was so concerned about what they'd be doing.
Kristen at June 17, 2010 7:59 PM
If Mother #2 had restrictions for her daughter, I feel she owed it to the you to inform you. That includes if she's afraid to let her daughter walk anywhere.
I'm a little confused about the phone call part & how Mother #2 found out the girls went into the Forbidden Zone. You sound like a decent mom, and this is obviously bugging you enough to make you doubt yourself a little.
Tragedies happen, but I've read more than one report that kids are all in all as safe as (or safer than) they've ever been.
Your daughter is almost 13. I guess her friends are probably close to that too. I think most girls that age are almost totally beyond their mother's protection. (Not that you don't want to protect, simply that you can't. Not if you're trying to raise adults, anyway.)
I don't have kids myself, that's true. But I was raised in a household of girls, and grew up with my close friend's family of seven more daughters. I know allll the tricks.
Any, in the end, I think Mother #2 is a big party-pooper who doesn't trust her daughter.
Pricklypear at June 17, 2010 8:07 PM
Yep, she owed it to the you. I gotta start checking better. Read it over and missed it twice. And that last sentence is supposed to have a whole anyway in it. Me write pretty one day.
Pricklypear at June 17, 2010 8:12 PM
That mother sounds like my ex sister in law. She expects everyone to just know her rules. In the case of my ex-SIL, they don't always make sense and change often. Nobody including the kids know what rules are going to be applied when. Heck, I doubt she does either till she applies them. That leads to really flustered and confused kids.
The Former Banker at June 17, 2010 8:57 PM
TFB, I have a friend whose sister is like that. She'll punish the kids the first time they commit some random infraction they didn't know about. So she's constantly grounding her kids or taking away toys and the kids will have no idea that they were supposed to know that whatever it is was wrong (I think one time it was walking across the street by themselves, which had been fine before).
Randomly enforcing rules will get you the same result as enforcing no rules: like you said, flustered and confused kids.
NumberSix at June 17, 2010 9:20 PM
>>But how come Amy's blog has become a magnet for all these guys who wanna whine about how our culture done them wrong?
Maybe, must maybe, though this almost certainly transcends your ability to comprehend, our culture has done wrong to a lot of men. Which is exactly why I say any man in the US who isn't working on an exit plan is an idiot. Let me point out it sure looks like you don't have an exit plan.
40% divorce rate, and studies have shown most divorces did not involve bad marriages. Yet, we have to listen to morons who say we deserve it, even though most divorce involves women who have chosen to take up other men.
Many judges rule the man is supposed to maintain the standard of living of the woman and kids after divorce, which is insane. If she wants her standard of living maintained, she had damned well better not divorce him.
Half of divorced fathers are permanently and illegally, with no real cause, separated from their children forever. But, forced to pay anyway, though the actions involved show he is not considered to be a father.
Tens of thousands of false sex abuse charges every year, almost a routine move in divorces where there is a chance Mommy might lose custody. Guess what happens to Mommy's who file false charges?
Unemployed men tossed in jail for not paying money they don't have. That minor abuse alone justifies taking every building in the US flat to the ground.
Open discrimination against more qualified men and women get first crack at jobs, while still whining about how hard it is for women in the workplace.
Hundreds of men facing false rape charges every year, with laws specially written to make it easy to convict in false cases.
Men first hit by their wives, then arrested not because they did anything wrong, but because they are bigger and stronger, and thus have the capacity to do more harm, even if they did nothing.
And, on top of it all, any man who points this out is mocked and ridiculed by incredibly stupid people as if there were something wrong with him, not what the culture does to him.
When I counseled divorced men I encountered a lot of 'men' (I would like to say idiots, but I don't want to piss Amy off) just like you. Don't suffer much from feelings of superiority, do you?
irlandes at June 17, 2010 10:14 PM
> Which is exactly why I say any man in the US who
> isn't working on an exit plan is
Apparently this is a big, unimprovable theme with you.
> Half of divorced fathers are permanently and
> illegally,
Gonna need a cite fer that.
> with no real cause, separated from
> their children forever.
The "real cause" is that they divorced the mothers of their children.
> 40% divorce rate, and studies have shown
> most divorces did not involve bad marriages.
Gonna need a cite fer that. ("Studies have shown"! Science!)
> even though most divorce involves women who
> have chosen to take up other men.
Gonna need a cite fer that.
> If she wants her standard of living maintained,
> she had damned well better not divorce him.
Sell that, OK? Go tell women that apparently, NO MATTER WHAT, they have to put up with his misconduct or lose the investment of their lives. See how much traction you get.
> That minor abuse alone justifies taking every
> building in the US flat to the ground.
You're a grim little guy. Let's wrap this up...
> Don't suffer much from feelings of superiority, do you?
Some people make those feelings come easily.
But others don't. America is more challenging than other places. It's more complex, less flattering to mediocrity, and less patient with the disengaged and the unimaginative and the petulant. Accidents of birth (family, masculinity, etc.) mean less here than anywhere else. America doesn't often ask what you think you deserve for just being you... It wants to know what you personally, can deliver now. And that includes the social sphere... But the rewards here, from women no less than from other fulfillments (economically, for example), are the finest on the globe. When you earn a woman's love in the United States, the candy is especially sweet... 'Cause girlfriend got options. The USA's the best; there is no second prize. We get the best out of everybody, not least of all from women.
So you took the blessings of your American character and moved to the Third World, to a neighbor nation not only financially dependent on proximity to the United States, but enchanted and confounded by her beauty and elegance.
Now, I don't mean to criticize your marriage... (1), who knows, and (2), who cares.
But this "exit plan" chatter is lunacy.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 17, 2010 10:57 PM
Crid, I don't think I've actually said it before, but I am in serious envy of your ability to parse.
Apparently this is a big, unimprovable theme with you.
It damn sure is, and I am tiring of it as well. I find it terribly amusing that irlandes rags on women who complain how hard it is to be a woman when he uses the same whining in his posts. It's just so haaaaard to be a man in this climate, so instead of trying to, say, do something about that, he takes off and advises others to do the same. I have zero tolerance for whining without action toward improvement.
irlandes, you say that "our culture has done wrong to a lot of men." For the third time on this site, I will ask you to stop with the self-pity, get off your self-righteous ass, and actually do something.
NumberSix at June 17, 2010 11:15 PM
Men make up the vast majority of legislators. I guess bitching, whining and pussy power has bent them all to our will. Which apparently is to pass laws to make life difficult for men.
Like I said, the plan is going swimmingly. Mmmmmoooohahahahahaha!
Damn, and I thought I liked men. Well, as soon as I get this world domination thing licked, I'll fix that little emasculation problem.
Pricklypear at June 17, 2010 11:30 PM
This might be too much information, but did anyone else have serious plans for world domination as a child?
lujlp at June 18, 2010 2:38 AM
There's something seriously wrong with you if you can read about the results of family court decisions and sexual assault citations in this blog - and then promptly forget them to beat on irlandes, however much you don't like the "exit plan" idea.
My company just decided to make an example of a guy in a sexual harassment case. A field operator offended a female coworker - of equal employment position - by suggesting that rather than walking over to a containment hut to place her monitoring instruments in the shade, she could just "hold 'em here". He demonstrated, on himself, that she should hide them from the sun under her considerable breasts.
This cost him a month's pay - about five thousand dollars - and a transfer, within the Site, to another area. That'll be interesting because the "victim" can take jobs monitoring for contamination anywhere on site. It'll be simple for her to complain next that she can't work somewhere because he's there.
All of this without leaving the company office.
While the case is anecdotal, the company policy is not.
Come on - show me the fines and punishment for women who do this. Show me the fines and jail time for women who do not obey court orders and/or file false charges. It should be easy to find, right in this blog.
Know how you tell what class of being is unable to cope? It gets protection. Again - there's policy as evidence. It does not care that these people are supposedly adults who can cope. One class is simply weak, and must be protected.
Radwaste at June 18, 2010 2:54 AM
>>There's something seriously wrong with you if you can read about the results of family court decisions and sexual assault citations in this blog - and then promptly forget them to beat on irlandes, however much you don't like the "exit plan" idea.
Fiddlesticks, Radwaste.
The "exit plan idea" isn't an optional extra with irlandes. It's his entire frigging philosophy.
He's not about working to change family court assumptions, or appealing to the enemy (and for irlandes, the enemy is every single ball-breaking American female - over the freshly fecund age of fifteen), or fighting for fairer sex consent policy.
There are plenty of commenters here from both sides of the gender aisle who speak up thoughtfully every time Amy posts on specific outrages.
Irlandes believes the US has already gone to the dogs (that would be the ladies) - and that there's no going back.
All he ever offers IS his "exit plan idea" - a male separatist movement with Mexican benefits.
Also, he totally makes up statistics.
Jody Tresidder at June 18, 2010 6:00 AM
'She'll punish the kids the first time they commit some random infraction they didn't know about. So she's constantly grounding her kids or taking away toys and the kids will have no idea that they were supposed to know that whatever it is was wrong'
My mother has been cloned?
crella at June 18, 2010 7:20 AM
I did, but I flunked out of evil medical school.
Conan the Wannabe Evil Grammarian at June 18, 2010 7:30 AM
This might be too much information, but did anyone else have serious plans for world domination as a child?
I pondered it. But I have ADD, so I would see something shiny and wander off. It was probably for the best.
As for the "exit plan," I think it's a super idea. If all the men who are as negative about American women would move to Mexico, we'd all be happier.
MonicaP at June 18, 2010 7:36 AM
"Know how you tell what class of being is unable to cope? It gets protection. Again - there's policy as evidence. It does not care that these people are supposedly adults who can cope. One class is simply weak, and must be protected."
I agree. We were supposed to be getting stronger, strong enough to hold our own with men. (And I don't mean hold our own under our "considerable breasts".
The guy made a stupid remark, especially in this day and age. I would have preferred to hear she shut him up with a remark about him right back. Like if he was fat or old she could say that his own manboobs could serve the purpose. Or maybe that it was a pity his package was too small to shade anything. I don't know, but I do know the look on a man's face when you get him back is worth a month's pay all by itself. Of course, I've hung out with truckers and sailors so I have a different perspective.
I do hate this whiny, tattletale shit. The guys might fear or dread her, but they'll never respect her.
Pricklypear at June 18, 2010 7:51 AM
>>Gonna need a cite fer that.
I don't do cites any more. I used to, and after spending a lot of time and creating detailed supporting information, the next words out of the mouth of the person who demanded cites was, "Yes, but..."
I finally realized demanding cites was just another debating tool, giving me something to do to distract me. So, if you want cites, you look for them. If I found them, you can, too. Well, maybe not, but that's your problem, not mine.
If you actually looked around, you wouldn't need cites on men leaving. Back in the mid-90's, MONEY magazine did a feature article that the first time in history a significant number of people were leaving the US for a better life. At that time, it was around 250,000 people a year.
I haven't seen the latest figures, but someone told me it is now running closer to a million a year.
Anyway, all you are doing is changing the subject, since my list of reasons men should be leaving is well known, by you as well as everyone else here.
>>>>The "real cause" is that they divorced the mothers of their children.
You really have no clue at all. Close to 80% of divorces are filed by women, and without any reason. Please stop lying. It is one thing to have no clue,, some people can't help that. But, the lying is inexcusable.
irlandes at June 18, 2010 8:14 AM
Too much work.
To really dominate the world, you'll need an army of minions. Do you know what a pain it is to deal with minions?
They never manage to get you sharks with laser beams strapped to their heads.
And they can't fight worth a damn. I mean James Bond and a coupla guys can take down your evil fortress in a few minutes while your minions just line up a die.
You're better off becoming a Wall Street banker or an oil company executive. The pay is better, the clothes are better, the minions are Ivy League graduates, and you get to live in a city instead of hiding away in an evil lair somewhere off the storm-tossed coast of Tierra del Fuego.
Conan the Wannabe Evil Grammarian at June 18, 2010 8:26 AM
Close to 80% of divorces are filed by women
Who files the divorce tells us nothing about the divorce. My ex technically filed for our divorce -- after he cheated and I asked him to leave. So who broke that up? Him by cheating? Me by kicking him out? Him by filing? The reason we gave was "constructive abandonment," which is as close as NY came to a no-fault divorce. We both wanted out, so we made something up.
My current husband technically filed for his divorce, after his ex left him for another man. Again, who files and the reasons they give say nothing about the marriage except that it ended.
I don't do cites any more.
I don't take "debates" from people who don't cite questionable statements seriously anymore. I used to, but I realized it's not my job to make people's arguments for them.
MonicaP at June 18, 2010 8:28 AM
"...while your minions just line up a die."
That's right. Minions can't even organize a craps game right.
Bad spellers of the world, untie!
Conan the Grammarian at June 18, 2010 8:30 AM
you get to live in a city instead of hiding away in an evil lair somewhere off the storm-tossed coast of Tierra del Fuego.
Having an evil lair is the only reason to aspire to world domination in the first place. You can outfit it with FREAKIN' LASERS and everything.
MonicaP at June 18, 2010 8:35 AM
LOL, I was in the middle of writting an 'I am Sparticus" type post declaring my fealty to you bad spellers unity movement when I glanced up (for the fourth or fifth time) and finally realised what word you had acctually written.
lujlp at June 18, 2010 8:51 AM
Craig Ferguson had Stan Lee on his show a few nights ago. They apparently have an ongoing Twitter was between Ferguson's robot-skeleton army and Lee's horde of fans (don't remember what he called them). It was pretty freakin' funny, anyway.
My own world domination plan mainly invokes mental powers (which is why it's taking so long). No minions to feed, no fortresses to maintain, no inter-army squabbles to blast into oblivion.
But I'm so lonely. Like Kin Jong Il was in Team America. Wonewy. I need a good side-nudge. (I can't kick like I used to!)
Pricklypear at June 18, 2010 9:07 AM
Blast! That's ronery, not wonewy.
Pricklypear at June 18, 2010 9:08 AM
> There's something seriously wrong
> with you if you can read about
> the results of family court
> decisions and sexual assault
> citations in this blog - and then
> promptly forget them to beat on irlandes
This is not so. Family court decisions and sexual citations just aren't that difficult to avoid if you make it your life's work to avoid them, as most men do (certainly all the happily married ones.) Putting themselves under the whimsical authority of ninnies is not something manly men like to do, or need to do in order to see boundaries.
Here's my rule— Don't talk tits at work. Now, in private, I'm all about the nipples and cleavage and big flyin' boobies that clap together as if applauding the opera... And there's no other context –be it the gallery of the Supreme Court or the pews of St. Peter's Basilica– where I'm not ready to let loose with a good (or bad!) titty joke, or to hear one from another. Sex is good clean fun, and it's good clean fun for almost everyone who ever lived, and it's important to remember that.
But the women you meet at work aren't there for sex... They're often, as I am, just there for the fuckin' money. If your sexuality isn't something you can keep out of that context, at least without distracting them with infantile jokes, then maybe you deserve to have your wrists slapped like a little boy. Got it?
Y'know, if the priapic thunder of your man-musk is truly the compelling force that you imagine it to be –what with your perfect teeth and your shoulder-guns and your slate pecs and your six-pack abs– then women will be responding to you anyway, and you won't have to talk like a sneaky sixth-grader. That's OK by me! And if some women you encounter at work do respond to your charm, that's OK too... Go ahead and make your jokes, take 'em out for drinks after work, and fuck 'em from behind in a motel. No skin off my nose.
But dude, don't be wrong about it. And don't come cryin' to me when you are... The brotherhood doesn't extend that far. I want things from women at work too... Mostly I want them to help me build a successful enterprise that will make some goddamn money. I got plenty of other women in my life to snicker with.
> It does not care that these
> people are supposedly adults who
> can cope. One class is simply
> weak, and must be protected.
Yes, there's a downside of having all this farcical Human Resources machinery in place... But don't pretend it's impossible for a grown man to avoid. In every case, life has risks. The next woman you meet on the street might accuse you of rape and send you to prison... But if you step off the curb, you could get hit by a truck and die. Tough planet.
> the enemy is every single ball-
> breaking American female - over the
> freshly fecund age of fifteen
Meeeeeee-yow! I love it when they take notes.
> plenty of commenters here from both
> sides of the gender aisle who speak
> up thoughtfully every time Amy posts
> on specific outrages.
Exactly. We're on Planet Earth— Occasionally a perfect springtime picnic is ruined by rain. M'kay? Bad things sometimes happen.
> a male separatist movement with
> Mexican benefits.
✔
> If all the men who are as
> negative about American women
> would move to Mexico, we'd all
> be happier.
Monica is kind of kidding; I am kind of not. To imagine irlandes "counseling divorced men" is to picture a scene of pathetic regression, where an individual failure to grow turns into a social retardation. We were talking about the Middle East lately... We almost always are. There's a place where the most delicate, infantile feelings in the masculine heart are nourished and unchallenged. You want an "exit plan", babe? I know just where you wanna be. Another third world desert paradise... Be sure and write if you find work.
> We were supposed to be getting
> stronger, strong enough to hold
> our own with men.
...and...
> I would have preferred to hear she
> shut him up with a remark about
> him right back.
Exactly. My favorite lady feminists, Paglia and Flo King, make that exact point. The trick is to parry or promptly humiliate. I've seen it done, and the women who do it pull just as much animal respect out of the moment as any man could by swinging his dick.
But meanwhile, until all the sisters get with the program, let's not pretend that the stupid behaviors have to happen. They don't.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 18, 2010 9:44 AM
Not "freakin'," frickin'.
Come on, guys... Step it up.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 18, 2010 9:46 AM
There were two things over the years that I agreed with feminists on. First, the uncaring exposure of fertile women working in electronics assembly, to dangerous chemicals.
The second thing I agreed with them was that most men are incredibly stupid. It they weren't there would be no surviving feminists. Any nation which did one-tenth the damage to the US they have done, would be molten glass in 30 minutes.
During my public activism / counseling stage, I encountered a lot of stupid men. We called them d**b f**ks, hereafter abbreviated as DF.
Each and every DF actually believed he was somehow special and different from all other men on the planet. They well knew what was being done to other men, but believing they were special and different, assumed it would never happen to them. So, they also assumed it only happened to vile brutes who deserved it.
Once in a while, a man would come clear across the factory where I worked, just to tell me what a pathetic, stupid, misguided cretin I was, for defending those vicious brutes and standing up to those poor, dear, battered women. Interestingly, time would pass and eventually nearly 100% of these DF would call me up, screaming with agony and despair. Guess who just got his papers! Heh, heh.
And, if I was really that stupid, why did they think to call me when they did get their papers? Real Freudian stuff!
I realize the plural of anecdotes is not data, but there was a very high correlation. The only thing I could think of was the DF who were that incredibly stupid and lacked empathy for other men also were especially bad fathers and husbands in general. Since they believed it would never happen to them, they didn't pay much attention to their wives needs and feelings. It sure seemed to be a total surprise when they got their papers, in a society with a 40% divorce rate in first marriages.
My last year of counseling I began to enjoy these guys' misery, and finally realized though I was still supplying effective counseling, it just wasn't ethical to be helping some imbecile through the hardest time of his life, while enjoying his stupid, self-centered screams of pain.
I started asking men if they had never heard of any of this happening. Nope, never heard of any such thing. Of course, they were lying, no one, not even a DF, could fail to know what is being done to men in the US.
So, I'd push them on it and in the end they'd admit they had heard of it, yes, but just never thought it would happen to "me". Yeah, the Great and Wonderful Me.
Once, some DF called me up and took two hours of my time, free as usual. I went through all he needed to know as far as what he should do; what he should not do; decisions he had to make with an attorney; how to get one; etc. The usual.
When we were done,the DF said, "You know, this is your fault."
He wasn't the first DF I had ever talked to so I said, "Tell me more."
He said, "I don't know what you did, but it's men like you who made this sort of thing happen to the rest of us."
This DF actually thought any militant activist must have been a real brute. He had no idea if they had found a speeding ticket with my name on it, it's have been on the front page of a section of a local newspaper, above the fold.
Talking more, I learned he had committed adultery, but only a little bit. And, he had beat up his wife, but only a little bit. And, honestly believed if it weren't for men like me, he'd get custody of his kids.
This DF was extreme. What was more common was, when I urged men to cooperate and become politically active to stop these abuses, they would say, "I am not going to help anyone else. They all deserve it. They should all help me. I don't deserve this."
Some years ago, a man named, I think, Alvin Toffler, wrote a book, FUTURE SHOCK. He said change was happening faster and faster, and many people were having problems adapting to those changes. He was talking about this modern era, not the primitive jungle folk.
When the first feminists first started, many men suffered from future shock. I think they thought it was just a different form of PMS, and would go away soon.
Now, 45 years later, when the men have finally reacted, the other side is suffering from future shock. When I said any man in the US who didn't have an exit plan was an idiot, it was the first time most of you heard such a statement. So, it is easy to imagine I am some kind of "wackazoid" nut. And, if you call me enough names, not only will I go away, but so will the entire problem I describe.
Not so. Sure, I might go away as far as this blog comment section is concerned, but this blog while at times interesting does not represent the heartbeat of society. And, the number of men who agree with me climbs daily.
irlandes at June 18, 2010 9:49 AM
"if the priapic thunder of your man-musk"
"Not "freakin'," frickin'.
Come on, guys... Step it up."
Holy Naked Prancing Christ! Oh, dear, the soda-pop almost jumped right out my nose.
Pricklypear at June 18, 2010 10:02 AM
I got more on this, but I gota gotta work and hit on some broads. Come back later tonight, girlies, and I'll show you how a REAL man takes care of business.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 18, 2010 10:12 AM
(PS– Conan's right about minions)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 18, 2010 10:13 AM
the best thing about threads like this besides dueling curmudgeons is that it's funny to boot. I mean where else can we get the staypuft marshmellow man, and Kim Jong Il in the same thread?
"Ray, what did you do?"
The other side note about family courts? Lots of those sorts of caselaw were written back when women didn't have many employment options on their own after a divorce, for their protection. They are still applied today by a lot of male judges in a chivalric way, NOT because there is some kind of evil design by the female half of the species. Essentially, and often, men are doing this to themselves, and there are women who may be taking advantage. Anecdotally my ex-s lawyer stalled as much as possible to get a very specific male judge... While the female judge I often had would brook no tears, allowed no excuses, and the time when my ex blew off the court date, called her lawyer and told him to get my ex there, or she'd issue a warrant.
It just really isn't as cut and dried as we would wish it, at the level of individuals. But this is why the Cridster might say "Choose well..." Because choosing poorly only gives you options that are less bad, instead of good.
SwissArmyD at June 18, 2010 10:17 AM
You told us not to cross the beams. You said that would be bad.
Pricklypear at June 18, 2010 10:26 AM
> When I said any man in the US who didn't
> have an exit plan was an idiot
What exactly are you getting at, irlandes? Is there something you want us to understand?
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at June 18, 2010 11:06 AM
Come on, guys... Step it up.
I feel such shame. The burn.
MonicaP at June 18, 2010 11:11 AM
>>...this blog while at times interesting does not represent the heartbeat of society. And, the number of men who agree with me climbs daily.
Cites please, irlandes.
(Just kidding!!)
Jody Tresidder at June 18, 2010 11:42 AM
Someone tried to assign me to do homework for him, which I no longer will do. I will give some tips for the possible one or two people here who actually want to know more, as opposed to just calling me names.
###
First, Rutgers does an annual paper on marriage and divorce. They still have the academic agenda, but they do come up with some goodies. I think it was Rutgers which discovered several years ago that 22% of unmarried men said under no circumstance would they ever marry, and listed the most common reasons. The divorce racket was on the list of reasons, along with easily available sex. There is no reason to believe the number has not grown every year.
###
Next, on the divorce issue. My eldest daughter, once a nutty feminist who believed any woman who cooks for her husband is his slave, now is a SAHM who cooks for her husband. Several years ago, she got her bachelor's in Social Work.
I glanced through one of her final text books, and it had an interesting study in it. Social Work textbooks are not noted for being especially sympathetic to men, but it was an interesting study, and my guess is if you want to find it, you can.
The researchers talked to a number of married women. They asked if they were happy or unhappy, in their marriages. They noted those who said they were very unhappy and checked back several years later; five years comes to mind, but I well know my memory is not that perfect.
When they checked back, many of the unhappy women had divorced, and they for the most part were still very unhappy. (No shit, Ex-lax, tell me it isn't so. You mean divorce did not solve all their problems?)
The women who chose not to divorce for the most part now reported they were very HAPPY. (Update: I Googled and it took me exactly 39 seconds to find the study. So, I'd say anyone who has to ask me for a cite, doesn't really want one, which has been my general experience.)
HOW COULD THAT BE? THAT VIOLATES ALL CONVENTIONAL WISDOM.
Can anyone here explain this? Oh, wait a minute, almost no one has been married long enough to know. Sorry, I don't know what came over me there.
I do know and am going to explain. This will really ruffle your future-shocked drawers.
When people marry, they marry as individuals. Sometimes in the ceremony, words are used to indicate a dyad, but most people at that stage don't even understand what those words mean. They assume they are just romantic nonsense.
The ancients said things like, "Two in one flesh", but that is usually taken as some sort of allegorical statement.
It is very hard to sacrifice part of your individuality to another person, and with no-fault divorce available it becomes less likely. Especially for AW, it's all about me, which clearly does not make for blending into a dyad.
Becoming part of a dyad is not easy. In fact, it hurts more the closer you are to it. That's when most women bail, just before success, when it hurts the most. And, why women who stick it out report five years later they are very happy in their marriages.
###
If others want more information, scout out a busy MRA message board. There will be a horror story thread on there somewhere about the horrid things which happen to men, and in most cases an expat section. Plenty of links of every kind. DGM-2, Don't Get Married #2, was a very good one, with lots of links and statistics, but the Admin and all the moderators expatted, heh, heh. One of my better moves.
I don't waste much time on the negatives of AW. I mostly just wrote little articles about daily life here and how I am treated. I told about the time it scared me half to death when I discovered a 14 year old girl had fallen in love with me. And, the time a 20-something, very attractive woman, had a mutual friend ask if I wanted her as a mistress. I am faithful to my wife, so pretended I was an idiot and did not understand her Spanish, though I did.
And, how when I walk downtown, little girls come running out for forehead kisses, and their moms beam that an old NA likes their sweet little girls.
I also commented that one can tell the difference between AW and Mexican women, 10 meters away, by the pissed off look on the face of the AW. One Friday, Admin said he would be gone over the weekend. Monday, he told us he had to see for himself, and had flown to Guadalajara over the weekend to see. He said, "It's true. You CAN tell the AW by the pissed off look on their faces." He started making his exit plan right then.
So, Admin went to China, and is teaching English, amidst women so ultra-feminine he chose to wait until he adapted to the level of femininity before choosing a gf. He no longer needs meds, and his angina is gone. One moderator went to Italy, and I don't know where the others went.
Or, continue to suffer from future shock, if you wish. Yeah, we humans look pretty dumb when we have no idea what is happening around us because we are so wrapped up in our prejudices, but that is your right to look dumb if you wish. Please carry on.
irlandes at June 18, 2010 12:48 PM
I'm so bored I just reread this whole thing. Saw this comment from NumberSix:
"She'll punish the kids the first time they commit some random infraction they didn't know about."
Which reminded me of a friend back in Michigan. Had four sons before she was 20. Back when she only had two of 'em, when the older one did something she didn't want him doing, he got yelled at. When his younger brother would copy the older one, he got smacked. (I was going to say when he would emulate the older one. But for some reason it sounded kinky. So, y'know, I didn't.)
Anyway, she was fun before she got married. She told me that her husband wouldn't let her refill her birth control pills because she was wasting them. He thought she only needed to take them on nights they were going to "do it". Shudder.
Living there was what made me sure I would never marry. From what I saw there, all men drank, beat their wives, missed work the day after payday, and everybody got divorced. I also grew up hearing my whole town was owned by the Mafia, and I never had any trouble believing it. Back then, if anybody needed an escape plan, it wasn't the husbands.
Pricklypear at June 18, 2010 12:53 PM
> She'll punish the kids the first
> time they commit some random infraction
> they didn't know about.
Hitchens' menmoir has a big passage about this is regarding his years in British boarding schools, and a detailed consideration of the sadomasochism of it all.
And Larkin one of his favorite poets.
Crid at June 18, 2010 1:19 PM
"I'm so bored I just reread this whole thing."
Oh thank you, Prickly Pear! I was in need of a good laugh today! I loved that!
Kristen at June 18, 2010 1:42 PM
Hey, this one has it all! Humor, drama,pathos, typos, children, TV and movie references, manscaping, etc. I think we left out music, though.
Pricklypear at June 18, 2010 1:48 PM
That's a big Twinkie.
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at June 18, 2010 1:57 PM
That was your whole plan? Get her?
Pricklypear at June 18, 2010 2:18 PM
>>Hitchens' menmoir has a big passage about this regarding his years in British boarding schools, and a detailed consideration of the sadomasochism of it all.
FWIW, Crid, the teenage Hitchens was at The Leys School, Cambridge. A pricey enough place, but not exactly of the first rank.
Funny that.
I always notice that baby boomer Brits who went to the genuine snob heaven UK boarding schools -Eton & Winchester etc- invariably downplay the infamous S & M side in their biographies.
While blokes who went to second tier private schools can't talk about anything else!
irlandes,
This is what I really want to hear you explain:
What gives you the right to invite specifically bitter & angry American men to take advantage of the local women in Mexico?
What have Mexican women ever done to you to deserve your pimping?
And - what's in it for the ladies?
Jody Tresidder at June 18, 2010 2:28 PM
it's a tangent Jody, but why do you think that guys that expat to Mexico, assuming they marry and stay there, are taking ADVANTAGE of Mexican women?
I think that's just a market working. You go where there are mates that are to your liking. Presumably, the women marry because something about the guy is to her liking.
There are lotsa other points good and bad in the side that irlandes presents, his side isn't the only one. If you are really going to leave your home and move to another country... the things that you don't like and are leaving behind might dominate conversations.
I look at all coupling through the lens of "what's in it for her/him?" People work that value proposition to a nicety untill they find something they can accept.
Is irlandes' style any better/worse than a guy who stays in the US and shags anything that moves, but isn't interested in a commitment? How about a woman who is interested in children and being provided for, and then lining up the first guy that can do that, not caring whoeverheis? What happens when she decides that he's an idiot, and changes the locks on the door?
It's interesting that this stuff EVER works.
"Why worry? Each one of us is carrying an unlicensed nuclear accelerator on his back."
SwissArmyD at June 18, 2010 3:13 PM
I guess reading this blog is changing me. I read the statement
I was going to say when he would emulate the older one.
as
I was going to say when he would emasculate the older one.
The Former Banker at June 18, 2010 5:41 PM
>>it's a tangent Jody, but why do you think that guys that expat to Mexico, assuming they marry and stay there, are taking ADVANTAGE of Mexican women?
Swiss,
That's a fair tangent (I guess!).
I used the 'taking advantage' line because irlandes offers up Mexican women - en masse - as more culturally compliant than their sisters in the US.
He touts Mexican female docility as the national resource - ripe for the taking!
And, as he further reminds us, the age of consent in Mexico is much, much lower than in the US. (Tho' I gather this can get complicated).
That's why I asked irlandes - what do the Mexican women get in return for taking on all these bitter North American men?
I genuinely don't know what the answer is.
Sure, love is a marketplace. I get that.
But if you stand on a hill in Mexico - as irlandes does - waving your arms and shouting across the border: "Girls! Girls! Girls! Come and get your lovely, young, willing girls!" - I can't be blamed for thinking: "Pimp! Pimp! Pimp!..."
Jody Tresidder at June 18, 2010 6:02 PM
Oh noes, Jody! Now you got me thinking about Cheech Marin's role in from Dusk til Dawn, yelling about all the girls they had in the Titty Twister Bar. Damned if I'm going to quote him, though.
Pricklypear at June 18, 2010 6:08 PM
> what do the Mexican women get in
> return for taking on all these
> bitter North American men?
Our enduring gratitude?
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at June 18, 2010 6:19 PM
One more comment on this, had to get back home to look it up—
> I would have preferred to hear she
> shut him up with a remark about
> him right back.
—copied directly from a comment I made on this topic longtime back:
Several years ago, there was a lady General in the United States Army who complained about sexual harassment. Imagine what it would be like to be a soldier under her command, a young person (man or woman) carrying deadly force in the line of fire... A grunt in theater whose life depended on her steel judgment and warmaking impulse. Then imagine learning that your proud commander had fled to authority because a neighbor boy made 'bad touch.'
Pricklypear's analysis is spot-on.
Listen, (Raddy,) I don't love my fellow macho-men in the workplace enough to adjudicate these conflicts when they come up. Nor do I love the tender-hearted sisters enough to shelter their delicate sensibilities from a world that doesn't care. Doesn't matter who's right or wrong, the whole department suffers.
Popularly condensed, this is don't shit where you eat.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 18, 2010 8:56 PM
Warning: Completely Unrelated to Anything Else in This Thread
Like the ladies at GoFugYourself (where I got this link), I'm going to let the title of this speak for itself: I'm Comic Sans, Asshole.
NumberSix at June 18, 2010 9:57 PM
My parents left me that house! I was born there!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 18, 2010 10:30 PM
NumberSix,
Are you sure it's unrelated? They sure remind me of some of the posts I've read. In a way.
Thanks, Crid.
Pricklypear at June 18, 2010 10:35 PM
I learned the hard way. Had the rule in mind coming out of high school. Then married a woman from work after college. Then divorced and decided I was right the first time. Been clean and sober ever since (excepting one midnight kiss on Wilshire circa '02.) There are so many fish in the sea, the risk just not sensible.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 18, 2010 10:39 PM
I do believe I'll go to bed now. But first let's greet our costars: Art Carney! Sheila MacRae! The other one! Goodnight everybody, the Miami audiences are the greatest audiences in the world!
(Hey Crid, weren't you going to show us how a real man takes care of business? I guess I'd better go hit the link.)
Pricklypear at June 18, 2010 11:50 PM
(It was the thing about the Army general who dropped her credibility when a boy felt her up... I couldn't remember the details on the way out the door to work: Yonder.)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 19, 2010 12:02 AM
I realize the usual suspects are having fun making stuff up about me, because I don't go along with your uninformed, ignorant view of society. Do you have any idea just how stupid your childish insults are? I can't call you sophomoric, because you do not approach that level of maturity.
I am going to tell you exactly where I am coming from. Unlike several of you who make up almost every word you say, I am not going to make up a single word. (Note that another name for 'making stuff up' is lying. You are lying when you make up stuff like that. I am talking about Crid and Jody mostly, but not totally.)
Crid says I need a cite for anything I say that he didn't know, which by his own words is almost everything. Cites don't do any good for a man who is so lacking in clues he still thinks in 2010 that divorce is about bad men divorcing good women.
When I got out of the Army, feminism, with the help of the left-wing MSM, was making the news on a regular basis. Feminists were already saying nasty things directed at all men. Most men ignored it, thinking, "I am not one of those guys they are talking about so it doesn't affect me." Millions of stupid men still think that.
I understood the feminists did indeed mean all men including me, so I took a negative approach. I mostly asked women what they thought, but once in a while I entered the debate.
Eventually, I subscribed to MS. magazine, the N.O.W. magazine, to see what they had to say. Every month, they printed their current 'scheme', their word, not mine, to destroy all male influence. Every month, right after MS. hit the mail boxes, the MSM would be Johnny on the Job, with all sorts of coverage of the bogus issues in the magazine.
This went on for years, until my stomach would no longer tolerate the hatred for men in MS. and I decided I was not going to read it any more. The current child support laws; the current false rape industry; all the crap we have today, first came out in MS. magazine as a "scheme" for the future. I kept those magazines until I retired, and tossed them out.
Finally, in 1978, I started writing op-eds to the local newspaper on the things being done to men. The response, mostly stupid and childish, like some of you do here. No discussion of the issues. 100% ad hominem attacks like Jody and Crid, who apparently imagine themselves as some sort of wits. (I agree, they are some sort of wits, but the word that comes to mind is 'half'.)
In 1984, the local Father's Rights group asked me to help them, because in one summer of 35 members they had two commit suicide, one by pouring gasoline on himself because of illegal refusal of visitation by his ex-wife with his little daughter. They asked me because I was the only one who showed any actual competence on the issues, and any cojones to tackle the public and take the ad hominem abuse that was going to befall me.
At first I resisted, but in the fall, I became "Spokesman" for the group. I also set up a counseling program, and while it continued, though I left the local group and worked directly for the state office for some years, my daughter estimated I had counseled over 1,600 men and a few non-custodial women, all without charge.
We tried to find a professional to do the counseling. No takers, though there were plenty willing to counsel weak; helpless; fragile; inferior women, sarcasm definitely intended.
One person said, Men don't have problems, they only cause problems.
I was nervous at first, though I soon learned I could handle it. But, I also realized I had to get smart in a hurry. I had to know who was actually doing what, and if possible, why, and also what the courts were actually doing. Women are allowed to lie in court, and say almost anything; men are held to traditional male standards, and men need correct information.
I wasn't sure Westpub would let anyone but an attorney subscribe to the regional court reporter, but I signed it with my ",CPA" and it came with no questions.
I read the advance sheets weekly, not just for my state, but for every state included, and soon got a handle on what the courts were doing. I also kept those advance sheets until I retired, then tossed them out.
I went to the University law library. I read state agency regulations.
And, I read many court documents.
I also did something very important. I talked to divorced women, so I would not lose track of the viewpoint of the other gender, something few female social workers think to do, thus soon losing track of reality as many of you here have done.
I had believed as most ignorants here believe that divorce was mostly about bad men abandoning good, faithful women for younger women. A lot of idiots still believe that. Some right here on this blog.
In fact, most divorce involves another man. I had noticed years earlier that most women had lovers before the divorce, but assumed they had decided to divorce, and had made preparations ahead of time. I called it the "Lily Pad Syndrome", implying a frog spies a new lily pad before jumping.
I was wrong, it is the other man who prompts the divorce.
It works like this. In the pre-success stage or marriage, when it is hurting the worst, these women are complaining about their marriages in the work place. Sure, I well know all women say, "I never talk about our marriage in the work place." A lie. In the work place the number one topic of women is their 'relationships', including their sex lives.
There are men, disgusting men, who seek out these women, because they well understand these women are vulnerable and susceptible to an affair. When the woman complains about her husband, they say, "I can't imagine any man not treating a woman as wonderful and attractive as you are like a queen. If you were my woman, I'd kiss your feet."
The minute she falls in love with the gamester, the husband is toast.
And, soon after our studly gamester has broken up the marriage, and realizes she expects him to help raise her kids, he is gone as well, looking for another stupid, vulnerable woman. At which time our cheap slut announces all men are evil, with no acceptance of her own evil, and sets out to destroy her ex-husband who obviously caused all this mess...
At this point in time, she doesn't want to see him again. I am not sure if any of this, or how much, is Freudian because she knows she messed up big time and screwed him over when he didn't really deserve it. But, in most cases, she starts trying to drive him away from the kids she expects him to support. SHE DOESN'T WANT TO SEE HIM AGAIN, PERIOD. Corrections officials like this, because it makes for job security, but it's a lousy way to run a society.
Of course, the feminists, when a woman has succeeded in making visitation impossible, then announce men don't care for their kids. For ten years, I'm suicide counseling men who don't get to see their kids, and I have to listen to this stupid drivel.
I am not a feminist, so you are never going to hear me say the woman is always wrong. Humans, as I have said, are on a Bell Curve, and there are indeed a few bad men that women need to escape from. But, that is not the majority; as a wild guess I'd say 20% of divorce is caused by bad men, not sure even after many years involved with such things. In most cases, it is female adultery which breaks up the marriage.
My role in dealing with the bad men I encountered was a lost battle to try to teach them to be better men.
There was none of the sort of thing of defending bad women, by feminists and women in general, such evil women as Andrea Yates and Elizabeth Winkler and Lorena Bobbitt. (Actually, I appreciated the Bobbitt case, because for the first time millions of men realized just how evil feminism is, and how many 'ordinary' American women are caught up in that evil.)
As I said, I read everything I could get my hands on, including women's magazines, both lesbian and straight, also things like American Law Review, SCOTUS rulings were light entertainment for me when I could get them, so I would have a correct view of things. There is no room in counseling men for false ideology.
So, Crid believes I can't say anything he doesn't know, which is almost everything, without supplying cites for his Royal Majesty. How can one cite millions of words, hundreds of cases, meetings with state officials including the governor of our state; many thousands of hours of study and work, and more, to suit his Royal Majesty? This is a man so ignorant of reality he still thinks divorce is about bad men abandoning good women.
Jody is a clever laughingstock, but she is a laughingstock.
This started when I said any man in the US who doesn't have an exit plan is an idiot.
Let me restate it here in case anyone missed it, and also correct a technical error.
ANY MAN IN THE US WHO DOESN'T HAVE AN EXIT PLAN, OR ISN'T WORKING ON ONE, IS AN IDIOT.
When you went ballistic, I explained the exact reasons why. Not much discussion of the accurately stated reasons, I gave, just sub-sophomoric insults and ad hominem attacks.
I cannot speak for Amy, but based on things she has said, she at least has some idea my list of reasons is not totally bogus and insane as some of you think.
She knows what she wants from this blog, and why. But, in my opinion, your cheap, childish ad hominem insults cheapen her blog.
One more follow-up posting as soon as I get time.
irlandes at June 19, 2010 8:39 AM
There is a lot of criticism of Christians on this blog, from many of you as well as from Amy herself.
Do you all understand why so many Christians get so off the wall in their beliefs? I know a number of Christians, and my guess, based on actual contact with many of them, is most of them really don't know what the Bible actually says, only what they believe it says, or have been told it says.
How on earth could that be, considering most of them aren't without a Bible most of the time?
They do something, on purpose even, called cocooning. That is, they isolate themselves as much as possible from anyone who does not share their exact beliefs. If anyone wanders in who has a different viewpoint, he gets tossed out into the street.
As soon as any ideological group isolates itself, they wander off and soon lose any connection with reality, because they get no corrective feedback. Kind of like driving a car with the windshield covered.
One well known example is the Polygamy group in Texas, which paid no attention to Texas age of consent laws, nor state bigamy laws. They apparently assumed their isolation and brainwashing tactics would protect them forever from detection. Or, who knows, maybe they honestly thought they had divine exemption from State laws, though the Bible preaches in most cases obedience to the "Sword" meaning the government.
One can extend the same concept to this blog and the commenters. Y'all have your beliefs, and are incapable of correcting errors. Most of your errors, such as Crid's amazing belief that men are the ones divorcing women, are easily discovered as errors, for anyone who wants to check it out. It's not like the lawyers and judges don't know the truth. Nor is it like you can't actually start observing women who are filing for divorce. Yet, in 2010 he hasn't checked it out at all.
Like the Christian cocooners, anyone who wanders in here that knows the truth is almost instantly the brunt of every imaginable lie and insult.
Being the brunt of ad hominem lies and insults has been part of my life for a very long time. I could take it forever, but I have other things to do. I call it Operation Rescue, convincing men to Get The Hell Out. I was running about one man a month until the staff all expatted and shut down that board. Now the number I convince to leave, personally, is smaller, though the expats themselves are spreading the word very well. Every time I go into the Immigration office in the state capitol here, there are a number of NA looking men, with beautiful Mexican women in their company.
Several of you, while imagining you are sort of the center of the intellectual universe, are as scrod as the Christian extremists, because you are as cocooned as they are, with the same results.
Our society lets you cocoon, just as it lets Christian extremists cocoon, until they start breaking laws. But, it's not good for you to lose that much knowledge of what is really happening around you, to preserve your chosen ideology.
My counseling was very effective, mostly because I did stay in touch with divorced women. This kept me from becoming an extremist, and also enabled me to teach men what things they might do that they need not do, and which would unnecessarily piss off their ex-wives. This gave me a big advantage, because divorce issues settled without lawyers and judges involved are so much better for all. Any time you reduce hostility, the kids are also better off by far.
Enough fun kicking idiots around for one day, I have something important to do.
irlandes at June 19, 2010 9:51 AM
Now wait a damn minute, I am the center of the intelectual universe.
My minds gravitation pull swallows letters and occasionally entir words from the sentences I write
lujlp at June 19, 2010 10:24 AM
Perhaps if those husbands had said things like that to their wives on occasion, the wives wouldn't have been as vulnerable to an interloper's charms.
You might want to find a new name for your enterprise. I believe there's already an anti-abortion group with that monicker.
So, you're a black hole?
Conan the Grammarian at June 19, 2010 10:47 AM
> Crid's amazing belief that men are
> the ones divorcing women
I said that? Where?
> ANY MAN IN THE US WHO DOESN'T HAVE AN
> EXIT PLAN, OR ISN'T WORKING ON ONE,
> IS AN IDIOT.
The fourth time (at least) you've said it, now in full caps. What do you want?
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at June 19, 2010 1:25 PM
Well, Irlandes, thank you for making everything clear.
I looked up the stats on women filing for divorce and you're right. We file for most of them.
So just now I let my husband know he should be working on his exit plan. His response was to ponder on WHY women were seeking divorces, otherwise he wasn't too concerned. But he's an idiot, so there ya go.
"Women are allowed to lie in court, and say almost anything; men are held to traditional male standards, and men need correct information."
Wow. I guess you can't really be expected to have a cite for that one.
Pricklypear at June 19, 2010 1:46 PM
Crid @1:25 pm. "> Crid's amazing belief that men are
> the ones divorcing women
I said that? Where?"
You said "The "real cause" is that they divorced the mothers of their children.", June 17 @10:57.
This would clearly suggest that you believe men initiate most divorces.
Nick S at June 20, 2010 6:24 AM
> This would clearly suggest that you believe
> men initiate most divorces.
Not at all. And this is exactly why I want to know why Amy is attracting this weenie-man element to her blog... I'd hate to think I'm part of it.
Apparently, all them (all of you?) are in a seventh-grader's mentality where you think that divorce (and marriage) are something that someone DOES to you, or that you do to someone. The idea of shared responsibility never crosses your mind. And even when it's over, you're still looking for some competitive tally, some precious moral calculus that will prove to everyone you meet that YOU weren't the one with the problem....
Welp, I won't be the one to pat you on the head and say you're a lovable person, and that I love you for just being you. I don't CARE.
I don't CARE who 'initiates most divorces'. I don't CARE if the person who initiated the divorce was the one who misbehaved or just the one who finally needed relief. These are intimate questions. Our social policy it not about giving people, on a personal level, the feeling that Daddy Taxpayer still loves them very much.
If you're divorced, you failed to judge your partner correctly: It's YOUR divorce, even if you were weeping in her shadow as she packed her bags, masturbating and begging her not to leave you.
You have a divorce, and that's all I need to know about you in order to consider our policies. Whether she actually threw a rolling pin at your head as you were walking out the door is your own beeswax.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 20, 2010 6:53 AM
Irlandes,
Thanks for further clarifying your hobbyhorse about wounded men, US society, the rise of the all-powerful "cheap slut" and the Mexican solution.
There is nothing new here.
Men have been going native for ever.
In British colonial times, it was common for disaffected officers to take local wives, stay on after a posting and to go into their dotage in the noonday sun squawking about the stand they were taking against the hypocrisy of restrictive home society, where a man was no longer king of his own castle.
The novels/novellas of Somerset Maugham, the short stories of Kipling - they are littered with chaps just like you in permanent & defensive self-exile, with grandiose notions about their status among the natives & and a self-servingly bilious and jaundiced view of their old lives and the nincompoops who remained back in Blighty.
Just so you know, irlandes.
I've got your number.
Jody Tresidder at June 20, 2010 9:41 AM
But Jody! He said
> When I said any man in the US who didn't
> have an exit plan was an idiot, it was the first
> time most of you heard such a statement.
So there's that!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 20, 2010 10:21 AM
Viagra - how White Man finally became The Burden...
(With apologies to Kipling. And irlandes too. It's just a ref to all the online pharmacies trading from Mexico. Not implying irlandes owes his vaunted sexual super-vigor at the age of 68 to anything other than calisthenics).
Jody Tresidder at June 20, 2010 12:09 PM
irlandes is right about one thing...
he says "women do bad stuff sometimes". you say "you're a weenie man, sexually inadequate, threatened by strong women, your member is too small, etc etc etc
just like the least offensive feminist
shame, shame, shame on irlandes for having an obnoxious (to you) opinion
at least he's trying to back up his claims and he isn't in denial
crid: "If you're divorced, you failed to judge your partner correctly". are you for real? he's right - you really do appear to be clueless. although i'm willing to accept your claim (implied by your posturing) that you really are a bad-ass, take no prisoners, harley ridin' he-man, woman's-man that we'd all like to be like. thanks for the laughs - keep up the good work
theOtherJim at June 21, 2010 8:59 AM
>>irlandes is right about one thing...he says "women do bad stuff sometimes"...
Not so, theOtherJim.
In a nutshell, irlandes says most American women are stupid sluts, go downhill from the age of 15 onwards & he compares the experience of all the divorced men in the USA to the Jews under the Nazis.
I don't think anyone here would disagree that women do horrendously bad stuff.
In fact, a good many of Amy's posts highlight horrendous female behavior. It's a very familiar (and lively) topic here.
Jody Tresidder at June 21, 2010 9:18 AM
> "If you're divorced, you failed to judge your
> partner correctly". are you for real?
If you disagree, it would be neat for you to find the words to say why. If those words don't come to you, there may be a reason.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 21, 2010 10:57 AM
Crid, I'd like to agree with you on the point, "Its your divorce" and the preceding and following comments on the subject, but its not that simple.
The fact is that while the "you" in the divorce is indeed having it done, divorce is conducted according to the laws of the STATE. The state to whose laws you are subject.
If those laws are unjust, if they are vile, if they are cruel or abusive to a group of people, then it is not one individual that suffers, but every member of that party which passes through that system. Every person's death is their own, but that does not reduce the horror when there are many bodies fallen side by side.
The current legal climate for divorce is grossly unfair to men, predicated upon social systems meant to protect women from a society that no longer exists.
A woman that divorces her mate to pursue another relationship should not be entitled to support from him.
That was fine when she wasn't likely to be the one filing for divorce, and when divorced she would be quickly married and living on the resources of another house, lacking employment of her own. But it makes no sense today when a woman can easily get a job, education, child care, and even private agency support from a myriad of organizations.
Why should women be favored in child custody cases? Some of you are fathers, can you imagine harming your child? Why shouldn't the law support you on equal terms, if not more so, given that the greatest dangers to a child are either step parent or birth mother in the cases of abuses or deaths of children?
Having spent the better part of a decade overseas, I can't dispute irelandes point about the difference in behavior between American Women and foreign women, your contempt of his position notwithstanding, if you spend a month abroad, and immerse yourself in the cultures of said countries, you'll not fail to notice the difference very quickly.
Frankly I think he's a little unfair to Jody on this point. My multiple disagreements with her aside, fact is I think she simply has a very hard time understanding just how difficult a great many women have made life for an increasing number of men. A. Because she herself is not a man, ergo does not have the same concerns, and B. because she doesn't realize just how easy it is for a woman to ruin a man, since she hasn't tried to do it herself. She should be given that credit at the least.
But all that aside, irelandes has a damn good point.
Crid, we go back & forth on our agreements & disagreements, sometimes even in the same argument, but on this one I have to say I think you're way off. Were a single divorce "yours" in the useful flexible pronoun sense of the word, I'd be in agreement with you, and maybe this was once the case. But it no longer is. If you were to go through divorce today, arrayed opposing your interests would be great numbers of womens advocacy groups giving advice on how to get the most money out of you, lawyers who know how to seize your assets, judges taught by education and precedent to give blatant favoritism to the fairer sex in custody cases, state and federal legislation which makes a poor man a criminal for not paying what he does not have, or makes him a criminal for not earning what the court thinks he should earn for his level of education. You face off against centuries of precedent that provide care for women based upon outdated notions that have long since been thrust aside, all of this, before you have even been falsely accused, which even a cursory 2 minute search will show you is a standard legal strategy to gain advantage in divorce cases, to accuse a man of physical or sexual abuse, is a matter of routine now.
All this and more stands arrayed against "you" as a man facing a divorce you did not ask for and did not know she wanted. All this might be just fine still, even considering the overt hostility of so many sanctioned groups and publicly approved or funded organizations and institutions...but the problem which makes it worst of all, is the ironic element that would make your statement accurate.
"Your" divorce, is ONLY "yours". You have no organization backing you, you have no way to prevent the seizure or ruin of your resources, you will not likely be believed if you are falsely accused, simply because it is easy for you to do so, as a man with greater physical strength. You do not have organizations begging you to let them support your fight for your children, and if you do get visition, your interfering ex is not likely to face jail time, though she may show the most vile contempt for court orders. Your suffers will be yours and yours alone, and you will have no aid against an army opposed to you.
That is the reason irelandes argues so passionately about having an "exit strategy". Look at the response, one commentator here made not so vague suggestion that it was predatory for a man to enjoy the femininity and submission to husbands that is taken for granted in those cultures. To enjoy being a masculine husband, and to love a happy and feminine wife, is to "take advantage" I believe the words were. I don't know how your life is lived crid, excepting our trading of barbs and occasional debates, we know nothing of one another's lives. Perhaps you have been fortunate, and know of no man so badly ruined by the present legal climate.
If you do not, then you are indeed fortunate. I know of some. And it is ugly. His "exit" advocacy strikes me as extreme, but I do understand it, though I can't imagine taking it myself.
I'm to prone to fighting to go elsewhere, I would sooner fight to my last breath.
Robert at June 21, 2010 6:49 PM
> If those laws are unjust, if
> they are vile, if they are cruel
> or abusive to a group of people
Well for fuck's sake... If the "those laws" are all those things, vile and cruel and abusive, you had no business petitioning the state for a marriage license anyway. And let's be clear about this: You came to the state –you approached that representative body of us, your fellows– to ask that we regard you and this woman as a continuing exception in a world of individuals... You clearly, indisputably asked the rest of us to consider your and her interests as permanently conjoined. And we said "OK". None of us put a gun to your head and assigned her to you, not even randomly.
The language of these ceremonies suffers from fashions like anything else in modern America... Every now and then we read magazine articles that list comical wedding vows, and they're a good laugh for anyone with a perspective longer than a single summer. But certain themes are eternally familiar: "Let no man put asunder" is one of them.
But now... LIKE A CHILD... You're talking as if it never happened. You're saying there was never anything special in your feelings towards her, that you were always most concerned with protecting your own interests. You're insisting that the rest of us find a personal alliance in your righteousness while discounting hers... As if we had time to care.
We don't. There are personal reasons why it's ironic for me to be saying this, not least of which is that I didn't expect to live long enough to say it to other adults... But I am not your Dad, OK? I'm a fellow taxpayer. I don't like you enough to hear about how that conniving woman done you wrong, and I don't love you enough to pay a competent judge in family court to listen to it either.
You were always a grown man, even if you were a foolish one. (I'm not that impressed with the women in these tales, either. Ask some of the sisters on this blog if they've ever taken offense as you do today. Jody was correct to describe this forum as essentially even-handed.)
> Perhaps you have been fortunate,
> and know of no man so badly
> ruined by the present legal climate.
Well, I have a divorce, and while I enjoy it tremendously, there's nowhere near the scale of enmity expressed by the weenie-men here, for two reasons. First, there's no way I could have married a woman so savage and horrific as the monsters often described by men here as having once been the loves of their lives. And secondly but more importantly, there's no way I could discount my own enormous responsibility in forming the sour union to begin with. This wasn't some freaky fate like a bolt of lightning on a sunny afternoon: I went out and brought this error into my life, eagerly.
> I would sooner fight to my last
> breath.
As always (apparently), you fight only for your own interests. This is not a struggle for the decency of the greater Republic for which the rest of us should salute you.
But good luck out there... And be sure'n give my best to the ex next time you see her.)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 21, 2010 7:59 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/06/17/advice_goddess_9.html#comment-1725535">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]First, there's no way I could have married a woman so savage and horrific as the monsters often described by men here as having once been the loves of their lives. And secondly but more importantly, there's no way I could discount my own enormous responsibility in forming the sour union to begin with. This wasn't some freaky fate like a bolt of lightning on a sunny afternoon: I went out and brought this error into my life, eagerly.
Exactly, exactly, exactly.
This is the accountability that's missing from so many bleats by divorced men about how ALL women are "feminazis"...designed to draw your attention and theirs away from the fact that they closed their eyes, jumped in, and hoped it would all turn out okay with one particular woman.
Amy Alkon at June 21, 2010 8:35 PM
Leave a comment