Strange, and beautiful...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qk00gbDwGqM

The Zodiac Killer claims another victim:

https://twitter.com/Deadspin/status/823590015871684608

Can't be a real protest. Not nearly enough signs.

https://twitter.com/AndySwan/status/823546757216956416?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

About that Cruz/Zodiac Killer thing:

http://nypost.com/2017/01/25/ted-cruz-shows-sense-of-humor-owns-deadspin-in-twitter-war/

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9824/yazidi-sex-slave-women-march

Crid, that really is beautiful.

Deer proggies: you want more Trump? this is how you get more Trump.

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/255446/

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/824074906480611328

Wasps have trading partners?

Wasps have trading partners and compete for the 'best trade deals'—according to scientists from the University of Sussex.

In the study, the team from the University's School of Life Sciences, looked at how the economic rule of 'supply and demand' applies to populations of paper wasps—in which 'helper wasps' raise the offspring of dominant breeders in small social groups in return for belonging in the nest.

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-wasps-partners.html

Wasps have trading partners? ~ I R A Darth Aggie at January 25, 2017 7:23 AM

Isn't that how New England developed? WASPs trading.

Isn't that how New England developed?

I...uh...ok. Meanwhile, Dow reaches 20K, has anyone checked on Krugman?

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/255552/

A joke, Darth. Perhaps a poorly understood one.

WASPs. There was a time in US history, when that term did not need to explained.

Think The Official Preppy Handbook or The WASP Cookbook.

> Crid, that really is beautiful.

Thanks!

Appreciate you saying so!





What's beautiful?

A joke, Darth. Perhaps a poorly understood one.

Oh, I knew. I think I heard that term in high school ummm history or perhaps geography. The gif linked was my attempt to convey that I certainly walked into your joke face first.

Amy, where did you see Crid post anything above your comment?

But, for the sake of posting a link...

Sigh. RIP Mary Tyler Moore.

Letters to the NYT editor:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/opinion/how-the-media-handles-trumps-lies.html?_r=0

I'm surprised no one seems to have mentioned this before now:

"I don’t understand. If Democrats were clever enough to swing the popular vote in Hillary Clinton’s favor with fraud to the tune of three million illegal votes, why didn’t they arrange for a mere 80,000 more votes in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania so that they could win the Electoral College and the presidency, too?"

JONATHAN GREENBERG
Montclair, N.J.

This one's a bit more puzzling:

"Donald Trump’s statement that Hillary Clinton received millions of illegal votes was not a lie. It would have been a lie if he didn’t believe it and was attempting to mislead his audience. Clearly, he thinks it is true. So it’s not a lie; it’s a delusion."

J. DAVID VELLEMAN
New York

I mean, what makes him so sure Trump DOES think it's true? Why wouldn't he be lying just to keep his voters in a much-needed frenzy, since he's still pretty unpopular overall?

And in the meantime (re another letter), I'm amazed by anyone who STILL claims that Kellyanne Conway is a good, unrecognized, inspiring role model for future conservative women. Somehow, I suspect that average conservative parents don't quite feel that way; they might even prefer someone like the late Phyllis Schlafly. Or Condi.

"How the purity culture made me afraid of men"

By Libby Anne.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/03/how-the-purity-culture-made-me-afraid-of-men.html

First paragraphs:

"Growing up, I was taught that there was one thing guys my age would want from me: sex. Because that’s, you know, all guys ever want from girls. I was taught that guys only think about one thing: sex. I was extremely confused by this at first because the 'guys only want one thing from girls' and 'guys only ever think about one thing' rhetoric began before I even knew what sex was.

"Eventually, I ended up kind of scared of guys my age, because, after all, they were all sex-crazed maniacs who couldn’t help but undress me with their eyes during every conversation and might even want to date me just so they could have sex with me. They might pretend to be interested in me for myself, but I knew the truth – all they wanted was sex. Maybe it’s not surprising that I didn’t really have any guy friends in high school.

"I covered my body with excessively modest clothing in hopes that I would be seen as a person rather than simply an object to be leered at and lusted over. I couldn’t bear the thought of a guy’s eyes crawling over me, undressing me and dwelling on my every curve – and, after all, that’s what all guys were doing anyway. I honed my homemaking and academic skills in hopes that someday a man would want me for those things rather than for my body.

"As I grew older, I was also taught that one of the reasons it’s important to remain a virgin until marriage was that if I had sex with a beau before bringing him to the alter, he would have gotten everything he was after anyway and would leave me and never tie the knot. Because, you know, all he wanted – the whole point of him dating or courting me – was to have sex with me. Only by holding out until after the wedding could I convince a guy to marry me.

"This gave me a very bad self-image. All guys wanted from me was sex. The only way I could convince a guy to marry me was to dangle sex in front of him like a prize – marry me and you get this! And then, wham! He’d be stuck! It also gave me a very bad image of the men around me. Guys my age scared me. I didn’t feel like I could understand them. They were all sex maniacs who were only interested in my body. Only by playing the game right and holding out just long enough could I trap one of them into marriage. And then he’d be stuck.

"I knew I didn’t want that. I knew I didn’t want a guy marrying me just so he could have sex with me. I intentionally cared nothing about my appearances. I wore no makeup, took no care for my hair besides putting it up in rough braids or a pony tail, and wore the baggiest clothes I could find – often roomy skirts with oversized T-shirts. I put on extra weight. If I wasn’t attractive, I figured, then perhaps a guy would marry me for me instead of for my body. Perhaps a guy would want to date or court me for me, rather than because he wanted to have sex with me..."

(snip)

Last paragraphs:

"...Gradually, little by little, I began to see the guys around me as people rather than as one-dimensional dangerous sex-crazed maniacs. Gradually, little by little, I began to have real, honest to goodness guy friends. Gradually, little by little, I lost my suspicions and fears of half of the human race. And finally, today, I’m just as comfortable around men as around women. No more fear, no more second guessing, no more continual questioning of motives.

"It’s often pointed out how the purity culture reduces women to the state of their vaginas. It’s much less noticed that the purity culture reduces men to the drive of their penises."

Other articles by the same author:

The Real World Damage of the Purity Culture

From that one:

"...I literally grew up surrounded by arguments for purity and courtship that left me with the impression that any woman was compatible with any man, both in terms of marriage and in terms of sex. After all, courtship was all about weeding out those suitors who didn’t have the proper theological or political beliefs. Other things weren’t generally on the checklist. And the messages that surrounded sexual purity were that if you just stay 'pure' until marriage, your sex life will be out of this world. Sexual compatibility? I honestly thought that was a myth made up by liberals in order to justify their desire to have unrestricted premarital sex.

"The beliefs and ideas of the purity culture are not abstract or hypothetical. They have real world consequences and result in real world pain. And my heart breaks for those who fall victim to them."

The Purity Culture and Sexual Dysfunction

The Purity Culture and Sexual Incompatibility

The Purity Culture and Sex as a “Duty”

The “Problem” of Lust

The Purity Culture and “Lust”

Frozen Promises: Or, Life Is Not a Journey

The Perfect Relationship Secret: Virginity?

Courtship, Dating, and Regret

Speaking of third-world power grids:

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/01/why-venezuelas-socialist-meltdown-could-actually-happen-in-the-us

Hollywood vs. America. Again.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2017/01/25/director-joss-whedon-compares-ivanka-trump-dog/

Actions can have consequences, even for Hollyweirdos:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2017/01/25/texas-radio-station-bans-un-american-madonna-anti-trump-womens-march-speech/

Here we go again . . .

www.mrctv.org/blog/fox-sports-reporter-viciously-attacks-trumps-10-year-old-son-twitter

Should be:

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/fox-sports-reporter-viciously-attacks-trumps-10-year-old-son-twitter

> Growing up, I was taught that...

No complaints with your comment, or what you're sharing here. Zero complaints.

Sincere question: How come we so rarely hear men describing their disappointment in the workings of adult life using the "Growing up, I was taught XYZ" formulation?

I've heard it from men in a few contexts, mostly factory workers or salarymen who were brokenhearted when they failed to adjust their skills for emerging markets.

But you never hear men say things like that about romance or family or friendships or any of the myriad issues for which women call it into play.

How come?




I think I know why.

I've heard it from men in a few contexts, mostly factory workers or salarymen who were brokenhearted when they failed to adjust their skills for emerging markets.
_______________________________________

Speaking of which...

About two years ago, I showed a broke, 40-ish Republican blueblood a 1990s article from the Tightwad Gazette that expressed some sympathy for those factory workers who had given decades of their lives to one company only to find themselves suddenly unemployed, but the author also said "I have to wonder if I'm the only one who's thinking 'what was he doing with his spare time all those years?'"

The point being, of course, that since time is money, it only makes sense to put your spare time towards learning new, marketable skills via useful hobbies at the least, instead of wasting it by, say, watching sports on TV. Or on useless hobbies that cost even more money than that.

So guess what? My conservative friend only got angry at the author. Saving money in general was beneath him.

Lenona, you keep posting about how you see the social conservative bogeyman around every corner. But the primary driver of purity culture in the West today is post-modern feminism. All of the things that the author of that Patheos article was taught about men are things that are taught today by feminists.

Some feminist parents may regularly teach girls, in so many words, that boys are nothing but horrible predators, maybe. I have yet to meet any such parents or their offspring. That's NOT the same thing as simply trying to keep boys and girls from having too much unsupervised time together - girls often demand more sexual favors than boys want to give as well. It's also hardly a good idea not to PREPARE girls for how to fend off boys who don't take no for an answer or their pushy lines - Dr. Sol Gordon had a whole book on that: "Seduction Lines Heard 'Round the World and Answers You Can Give: A World Book of Lines."

Personally, while I don't know much about Anne Frank's mother, I do think the following exchange makes plenty of sense - note that it's pretty gender-neutral: "'Anne, let me give you some good advice, never speak about this subject to boys and don't reply if they begin about it.' I remember exactly what my answer was: I said, 'No, of course not! The very idea!' And there it remained."

Also, I don't see any feminists or liberals organizing "purity balls" on a regular basis - or comparing non-virgin girls to used chewing gum.

Lenona,

Care to provide evidence that conservatives save less than non-conservatives or liberals or any other group you care to mention? Otherwise I just take this as an example of the people you associate with. Maybe you would fear the bogeyman less if you associated with fewer of them.

Ben: My point was simply that Americans, on average, seem to consider it self-degrading to live within their means - but whether or not they practice that themselves, they're happy to preach that others should do it.

CD: Also, somehow I doubt that Debi Pearl's advice is the sort of thing any self-described feminist teaches girls about men:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/09/the-purity-culture-and-sex-as-a-duty.html

Libby Anne: "To give you an example of the messages I got about this growing up, let me offer some quotes from Debi Pearl’s Created To Be His Helpmeet:

"'Don’t talk to me about how uncomfortable or painful it is for you. Do you think your body is special and has special needs? Do you know who created you, and do you know he is the same God who expects you to freely give sex to your husband? Stop the excuses!' "

(Libby Anne)"...Growing up, I ended up with the impression that sex was something men need and women have to offer, something women 'give' to men. This idea wasn’t just there in the purity culture of purity books and purity rings, either. You see it in the cultural idea that men must pursue women, persuade, and finally bed them. The one is taking, the other giving. The one advancing, the other yielding. And perhaps because the basic idea is still present in our culture, the more extreme notions I was given growing up seemed natural and without need of questioning. My husband needed sex. I could give it to him. And that was my role as his wife. You can see how these ideas, whether in mainstream culture or in the culture of purity balls and purity vows, get all tangled up together.

"Sex shouldn’t about someone 'giving' and someone else 'taking.' Sex shouldn’t be about one person 'fulfilling' another person’s 'needs.' This is the problem when people set everything up hierarchically and treat men and women as though they are so different neither can ever really see eye to eye with the other..."

Finally, speaking of people attacking feminists for things that they are NOT doing, instead of the real culprits:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb49qBh33Os

Brit Josh O'Brien (born in 1997?) calls himself a men's advocate, BTW, and says he's not an MRA. Not sure what the difference is. He seems pretty smart.

BUT...when Francis Roy asked him the following, in the comments:

"Which Feminist groups are 'fighting tooth and nail to stop male pills from being developed?' I'd be very interested in seeing what evidence you might have on that. Can you please provide a list?"

all he really had to say was:

"google 'feminists block male birth control'."

And then later he cites the dubious Elsinar Coutinho video, which proves nothing beyond the chance that the late Betty Friedan was worried about men lying about being on the Pill, a fear that any father of a teenage can sympathize with.

You google those five words above, and you get...an article by Peter Lloyd, a British MRA (he mentions a female journalist I never heard of), a Reddit thread (ha!), a HoneyBadger (MRA) link, and an article from Bustle that includes the following:

"But what does a male-centered birth control mean for feminism? Taking control of your own sexuality and sexual health through birth control has been a huge part of feminism. And male birth control doesn't take away from any of this, if anything it's just another win for feminism. Here's why..."

Not once does the name of any well-known LIVING feminist turn up who's opposed to men being able to control their own fertility. As I've mentioned, if they were opposed, we'd already be hearing of their efforts to stop single men from getting vasectomies.

I mean, would it really hurt any MRA to suggest that well-known politicians like Rick Santorum (and the MILLIONS of people who voted for him in 2012) are the real threat to birth control across the board, INCLUDING male BC? (Or the UK equivalent, if there is such a thing?) Even U.S. politicians are perfectly capable of making it difficult for family-planning organizations around the world to serve their clients - even just with condoms, I dare say.

Ha, Lenona, it looks like I touched a nerve. You do realize that your own adherence to postmodern doctrinaire feminism is positively Victorian, don't you? You don't decry that men are stereotyped. You only decry that social conservatives (who are near-powerless in today's political world) do it. You're perfectly okay with feminists issuing the exact same criticisms; in fact, you make them yourself, and you complain bitterly when men fight back against any of these stereotypes. And don't ask for more cites, because I and others here have given you plenty, and you just ignore them.

You are a hypocrite.

It breaks my heart that you two kids can't get along.

Especially since L isn't a "doctrinaire" anything.

OKay, kiss & make up now.

I mean it. Go ahead.

Dave, is there something you wanted to say to Lenona?

I can think of a few things that one can count on quite a few conservatives (not just evangelicals) to say
, but that feminists DON'T say:

1. Teenage boys can't help themselves, not just when it comes to sexual misbehavior, but when it comes to things like vandalism or petty crime. "Boys will be boys." (So, girls who do the same things should be punished more harshly.)

2. At the same time, even boys like that are somehow mature enough to run around without a chaperone, even though small children who ran around breaking things would be ordered - by the law if not their own parents - to be kept under supervision.

3. Re #1, a girl raised in a purity culture is somehow supposed to want to marry an out-of-control creature some day and there's something wrong with her if she isn't attracted to someone like that.

4. Even married women are not supposed to enjoy sex, but if she doesn't and tries to refuse him, she's being "frigid" - it's not HIS job to make it unpainful or even HELP make it fun for her.

5. It's a girl's job to compromise her daily life severely, in general, for her safety (Susan B. Anthony spoke out against this, way back when, not just living feminists), so if she's alone on the street or unchaperoned with her boyfriend and gets viciously raped, as a 1994 writer put it: "she should learn from the mistake and get on with life. The courts should not be cluttered with such nonsense." (See #2.) This attitude seems to be common on any campus where no liberals are to be found - BJU, for one, where George Bush kicked off his campaign in 2000. (Not exactly a "near-powerless" school, it seems.)

Oh, yes - here's another favorite idea of conservatives that you won't hear feminists say: Men can't handle the existence of birth control or abortion; such things break whatever fragile belief men have in paternal responsibility, and therefore we'd be better off if such things were abolished. (As if American men didn't often abandon their wives and large families for a whole century before Roe vs. Wade, BECAUSE the Comstock Act, before 1936 or so, made it almost impossible to have small families. Not that it was easy to get effective contraceptives before 1873, of course.)

http://family.findlaw.com/reproductive-rights/birth-control-and-the-law-basics.html

"By the 1950s and 1960s, most states had legalized birth control, but many state laws still prohibited the dissemination of information about contraception, and some states still prohibited the possession of contraception...

"Finally, in 1971, Congress repealed the key elements of the Comstock Act."

And from the late Ellen Willis, in 1985:

"(Operation Rescue's Juli Loesch's) view of men reminds me of George 'It's a Jungle Out There' Gilder's: Basically men are moral cretins who have a 'tenuous hold' on parental responsibility and feel justified in walking out on a three-year-old child because it could have been an abortion. To imagine that they might hang around because they care about their children or partners, or that they're capable of empathy with a woman's need to control her fertility, is to mistake the nature of the beast."

Oh, and Judith Martin/Miss Manners doesn't mind calling herself a modern Victorian, though she's happy to talk about anything Victorian she DOESN'T want to see again - such as the lack of "air conditioning and feminism," as she once said.

What ideals does she express that you would disagree with? Details, please.

To my knowledge, I have never disagreed with anything she promotes - such as the Golden Rule, in particular. (Though one 2012 column of hers - on dating invitations - seemed to disagree with another one of hers, but it could have been a misprint.)