Agreed, certainly.

One caveat for 2016/17---

> Sure, intelligent, mover-and-shaker
> guys now expect women to be closer
> to them in intellect and education

Since WWII, America has gotten very skilled at sorting her children into separate streams by measure of intelligence, with the college-bound kids getting the best ride from kindergarten onward.

The others voted for Trump.

These pools rarely intersect, very rarely intermarry, and almost never even inter-screw.

"Inter-screw" -- I'm loving that.

And you're right.

I definitely agree with this. I've just stopped working as my second is due at the end of November. I wasn't as focused even when I went back to work part time with my first nor did I have the hours to give as I am the primary parent for my little one.

My work would love for me to return even in this diminished capacity but the truth is my focus and drive are elsewhere and it is frustrating to not perform at the level I want to at work or parenting. My hats off to parents who can, I just don't think I am good at that.

Interestingly, my husband is thrilled to have me at home. He began counting down to my last day well before it hit me.

Crid, I agree with your assessment, with the caveat that at some point, "the best and the brightest" transmorgrified into "the kids from the best families". The two things have now drifted apart. I can't put my finger on exactly when that happened, but I think the process started in the early 1970s.

Thanks for your comment, N. It's okay for women to be as you are, of course, and we should support it -- instead of assuming that fewer women in the executive suite is always or necessarily due to discrimination.

About the Trump part Crid is most definitely wrong Amy. But don't let reality get in the way of both of your NeverTrump delusions.

> with the caveat that at some point,
> "the best and the brightest"
> transmorgrified into "the kids
> from the best families"

Nah, t'was ever thus. I was about three years too young to feel the fear, but my brother had to worry about what to do if his lottery number came up in the draft for Viet Nam, as our family was nowhere socially. But in truth, he was always smart enough that someone in the community or social machinery would have garnered him an exception. (I'll always admire his actual response.)

But the love of candlepower worked in Barack Obama's favor, didn't it? Never a howling genius, he was sharp enough to exploit a Harvard education and keep on pulling strings.

Family connections are powerful as they always have been. But I think today, candlepower can put you in contention in a way that it didn't a generation or two ago.

> But don't let reality get in
> the way of both of your
> NeverTrump delusions.

Your snugglebuddy Snoopy said nearly exactly the same thing yesterday: Same twitter-curt sarcasm, same butthurt, same us-against-the-delusionals pretense. You guys are invariant.

And kinda pathetic. As noted earlier, a voter who chose Trump as a strike against the status quo may well have the decent breezes of fate at his back, but those who actually admire the man seem tragically needy.

Thanks, Amy. It's a good decision for our family and that's my priority. We are lucky to be in the position to do this and the trade offs are worth it.

As for the perceived discrimination, my experience of people upset at lack of upward mobility and willing to blame sexism/racism/etc, is that they are not willing to assess their own shortcomings. There may have been a few cases (although I cannot recall off the top of my head) that I thought sex/race may have played a role but the vast majority simply were not qualified or did not have the requisite people skills to succeed. It's human nature I suppose to assume you're being kept down by outside forces rather than your own deficiencies.

It's human nature I suppose to assume you're being kept down by outside forces rather than your own deficiencies.

Could it be the Dunning-Krugger effect, or corporate culture? I mean, uh, as of lately I noticed that people on large organizations seem to have been conditioned to lie and to not take responsibility for their mistakes, because otherwise that could get them fired.

"Nah, t'was ever thus. I was about three years too young to feel the fear, but my brother had to worry about what to do if his lottery number came up in the draft for Viet Nam..."

Point taken; that'll teach me to over-romanticize the post-war period. A friend had an older brother who threw himself a "they missed me by one number" party in, I think it was, 1971. I wasn't yet of draft age when Saigon fell. (I actually fall into an odd group of men who were born in the 1957-60 period who were never required to register for the draft. Lucky me, and I'm not saying that to be sarcastic.)

In relation to Obama, and the "candlepower" in general, I think of it as more being the upper-class equivalent of street smarts. It's all about knowing how to move, what to say, what kind of image to project, in order to influence people in that strata. Actual intellect might buy you admission to the balcony, but you have to have the other things to be invited to the stage. And really, the only to get those other things is to be born into that environment.

There you go moving the goal posts Crid. You said voted for Trump. Not admired.

Sixclaws-
I suppose a bit of both. Do we ever give real evaluations of employee performances? And despite knowing that our evaluations are inflated, how many assume there more truth to the assessment than there is. We've built our egos based on false reports of our excellence while acknowledging these reports as overinflated (for everyone else anyway).

As for the perceived discrimination, my experience of people upset at lack of upward mobility and willing to blame sexism/racism/etc, is that they are not willing to assess their own shortcomings. ~ N at October 12, 2017 7:27 AM

As an older straight white male, I do not have a socially-acceptable "other" to blame for my failures. As a result, I must examine my shortcomings and work to fix them.

I wonder how much of the socio-economic stagnation evident in non-white non-males in our society is a result of having an socially-acceptable outside "other" to blame and thus no motivation for self-examination amid accusations of patriarchy, racism, and homophobia.

I also wonder how much of the socio-economic and mental stagnation being seen in straight white males in our society today is a result of young white men having no socially-acceptable outside reason for their own failure and giving up, unwilling to endure (or unable to conduct) an honest self-examination.

Are we to honestly believe that the children of Will Smith or Kenneth Frazier are at a disadvantage when competing for jobs and Ivy League school slots against a white farmer's son from rural Iowa?

Sociology has done us no favors in dividing society into groups and applying a hierarchy of blame to them. It's time each of us looked internally to find the reasons for our failures, and not cast about for "others" we can blame.

> Not admired.

Dood. Dooooooood...

We know the glint in your eye, the spring in your step, the catch in your throat whenever his name is mentioned... There's something about the color of that man's combover (Lileks: "burnt umbrage") that moistens your panties, and you shouldn't ask the rest of us to live a lie to defend your pudency.

> (I actually fall into an odd
> group of men who were born in
> the 1957-60 period who were
> never required to register for
> the draft. Lucky me, and I'm not
> saying that to be sarcastic.)

Feb fifty-nine, babe. I arrived to this planet at the same hour as the world's most precious electrics.

Here, let me quote you:

...never required to register for the draft.

...never required to register for the draft.

Thats one reason I highly recommend the reverse route: have kids before career. I raised them till the youngest started school. I got to guide them, snuggle them, see all the firsts. Then i went back to school and started a career. And as of last week, I run the nursing side of my hospital. When Im at work, Im at work. No calls home, no scheduling drs appts, nothing. When Im home, Im home-no phone calls, no email checking. It works well for me.

> must examine my shortcoming s and
> work to fix them

☑

When you're a white guy with two dollars in his pocket, you can go decades without a conversation in which some clucking correction is offered for your admonishment. And you'll probably accept that correction and integrate it.

Momof4-
I agree that is a better route for many reasons. Unfortunately, I married quite late and had thought I would never marry. Sometimes life comes at you in unexpected ways. I can say that I married knowing just how fundamentally I would shift my life in order for the family to work - sad to say, but I am not sure I would have had near the same understanding in my 20's.

I plan on going to part-time work (instead of full time, with a long commute, which is what I do now) once my oldest starts middle school. Ideally I can find something to do from home. I don't worry about a second grader using drugs or running around with older boys or doing any number of stupid adolescent things. I REALLY worry about that with teenagers. Middle school and high school are also when schoolwork gets harder, and extracurricular activities start to matter more. Meanwhile, I'm saving for retirement, and helping my husband invest in his business when I can. I'll be in my early 50's when my youngest starts college, so I'll theoretically have another decade to work and save.

"The others voted for Trump."

And Amy's agreement, seemingly in full.

This kind of stuff just shows me that libertarians can be as snotty and elitist as limousine liberals.

As for the two-track system also mentioned, it just proves that we cannot leave society well enough alone, and the wealthy elitists will always find a way to re-assert European-style classism.

"As noted earlier, a voter who chose Trump as a strike against the status quo may well have the decent breezes of fate at his back, but those who actually admire the man seem tragically needy."

The status quo was run by elites, Democrats and GOP alike. The Flight 93 vote was necessary, as risky as such things are. The alternative was a criminal woman who would cheerfully determine the course of greater and greater portions of our lives, and probably not for the better.

Uhg.
Voters had two shitty choices. Hillary is probably one of the only people who could be beaten by that asshole, Trump. (Bernie Sanders probably would have lost, too, but for different reasons.)

What about all the Republicans that Trump beat?

I still don't get why that happened. I had the impression that anti-Obama voters, in 2016, would have voted for ANY Republican. So why him in particular?

It is interesting that feminists so hate the stay at home mom. Didn't they have mothers? And then they want women to become men, but they hate men. Stop, I'm confused. this all arises from a line of argument to get equal rights: it is not just that equal rights are just, it is that men and women are actually identical. The argument was neither necessary nor true, but used over and over. Of course women can do combat! They are the same as men! argh But then in the next sentence it is claimed that men are violent and controlling etc--so which is it? Exactly the same or entirely different?
When my wife stayed home, she constantly got shit from her working friends. Why? Perhaps jealousy?
Kids who are left alone too much get into trouble, are lonely, and don't feel loved. If you don't care about children enough to love them and take care of them, don't have any, please.

Amy doesn't know what you say she's in "agreement" with, mpetrie.

Trump is a petulant child at the helm of our country. Had the Democrats run -- instead of Hillary -- anyone short of Joseph Goebbels, I think there's a good chance Trump would be snarling at reality TV contestants right now instead of at the other bratty psycho (in North Korea).

Momof4: "Thats one reason I highly recommend the reverse route: have kids before career."

From talking to Suzanne Lucas (Evil HR Lady), I increasingly think this is a wise idea (and I generally find that Momof4 has wise and pragmatic ideas).

> libertarians can be as snotty
> and elitist as limousine liberals.

Aw, Honey, you don't have to flatter me... Knowing that the spear found its bloody target is flattery enough.

No, the weird part is how clearly these points can be made without anyone offering a competing theory for what's going on with these candidates, globally, as described by such a diversity of sources.

There are people watching the Trump administration with their dicks in their hand, either because they're oblivious or because they're taking pleasure from it. But convincing explanations are available to those who don't demand to be flattered by political outcomes.


(Did anyone read that Brooks piece on gun control following Vegas in the NYT over the weekend? You should look it up.)

When my wife stayed home, she constantly got shit from her working friends. Why? Perhaps jealousy?
____________________________________

Could be.

It's also perfectly possible that many employed women keep getting negative reactions from their families and friends and so they resent anyone who doesn't seem like an ally. (Not that that makes rude behavior on THEIR part polite, of course.)

They may also fear that too much of their tax dollars are or will be supporting SAHMs, somehow.

"So why him in particular?" ~Lenona

There were only two candidates who were even slightly serious about rolling back the regulatory state. Cruz and Trump. Rubio was half yes half no. The rest were pretty much pro Obamacare and all the rest of it. Some of them tried to talk a good line and hoped no one was paying attention over the last decade. But that hope was clearly in vain given how quickly they washed out. Out of the top two Cruz had a record for better or for worse. No one doubted he would try to do what he claimed. But Cruz is pretty abrasive. No two ways about it. As for Trump he essentially had no record. Unless you lived in New York no one knew anything about him other than what was on TV. Though he did show a willingness to fight back which appealed to many Republican primary voters. In the end Trump narrowly edged out Cruz. In a way it was very similar to the Hillary vs. Obama primary fight where people were more willing to take a risk on the unknown than on the asshole they knew all about.

I agree that is the best route MomOf4. But it requires you find someone early which often isn't an option. It wasn't until I was 30 I found a woman who I felt wasn't going to divorce me at the first convenient opportunity. And looking at the lives of most of my classmates I was correct. A whole lot of them didn't survive even one year.

Which is probably why roughly 50% of all children are born out of wedlock these days. No one is willing to marry those women anymore. Just not worth the trouble.

"I still don't get why that happened. I had the impression that anti-Obama voters, in 2016, would have voted for ANY Republican. So why him in particular?"

Because the Republican Party's brand is shot, and has been for decades. It was pretty transparent to a lot of Trump voters that he was using the GOP as a flag of convenience -- and that's one reason they voted for him, because he had no connections to GOP leadership. He was going to drain the swamp! American politics now faces a paradox. Putting aside Trump's personal peccadilloes for a moment, the reason he hasn't gotten a lot of his agenda through Congress is because he doesn't really have a party. The Congressional GOP doesn't regard Trump as theirs; they seem him as a sort of third party, one which they don't necessarily feel bound to any more than they were bound to Obama. The paradox is, a man with a party would inherently be part of the Washington system, and so could not position himself to "drain the swamp"; he would be too dependent on that swamp for political support. And yet, an independent President can't accomplish the task, because it can't be done without the help of insiders. And here we are.

As I see it, the only way out of this trap that doesn't involve lining people up against the wall is a Constitutional convention.

It's weird how you guys will, without shame, weep that there was no other choice but to vote for Trump and then seconds later affirm a lifelong adoration of his every heartbeat.

There were thousands of other choices. YOU WANTED TRUMP, and you ought to have the balls to say so.

You do not.

Let's be clear:

"A strike against the status quo"

≠

'Hillary was worse.'

Blah blah blah Crid. Grow up and learn how to make a coherent argument. And grow some balls while you are at it. You couldn't even push for your guy. He lost. Get over it.

I've been plenty clear that I am happy with what Trump has done. I've also been plenty clear I would have preferred Cruz. And any adoration has been all in your head.

Cousin Dave, I can only partially agree with what you said. The brand of both parties is pretty shot. With both primary voters and voters in general. In Obama v Hillary you had a known candidate and an unknown candidate. The unknown won. Same thing with Trump v Cruz v Rubio. The rest of the candidates were completely nonviable. And once again the unknown was preferable to a distasteful known. I do find it amazing just how out of touch both party leaderships are with even primary voters. The dems are almost completely run by neo-communists. The repubs are almost completely run by commerce party types. Neither group has any hope of getting someone elected to the presidency.

I'm not happy with everything that Trump is doing. For example, his affinity for the DACAs and those hideously high tariffs he's imposing on various imported goods (tariffs should be mostly modest and compensatory in nature, not punitive, IMO). I currently rate him as a B, due to exemplary actions regarding Harvey, Irma and Maria, as well as de-certifying Iran and trying to unravel 0-care, but he could skate to an A- if he dropped the protectionist zealotry and the protection of the DACAs.

Incidentally, the last President I would rate above a B is Ronald Reagan, and he was merely an A- at that, since he was actually fairly moderate on some things. The Presidents between Reagan and Trump all sucked in one way or another.

"Rolling back the regulatory state."

Donald Trump.

Maturity, coherence, balls. Competitive resentment.

I left the workforce when my eldest was 2. We wanted another child and not only did it make economic sense in the short-term (as childcare for two plus federal income tax on the second income was far more than my annual salary, let along social security & state income taxes - and I have a Master's degree), but we realized that our child was basically being raised by daycare. Don't get me wrong, we had an AMAZING daycare situation. But it didn't make sense to us.

I am now looking to re-enter the workforce. However, over the years between, we have shifted to a very he-does-work, I-do-home/school method. The idea of changing that to something more balanced is hard... my husband's work is predicated on NOT being available if a kid gets sick or somebody needs to be home to let in a plumber or whatever. That helped him move up the ladder to support our family and is necessary to his job... That makes my options limited. Somebody has to be available to do carpool, take the dog to the vet, and pick up a kid who gets sick. That level of flexibility is not readily available.

I bring this up because it is the "down side" that people don't often see. NOT that this is an argument against the decision to stay home for a while or to say that work needs to change. Rather, to point out how much people don't talk about the practical issues associated with staying home. That, more than anything else, shows how lopsided the "debate" has become. We do not even DISCUSS the ramifications of a woman leaving - either how it frees up earning potential for a husband or how it impacts the return to work if so desired later.

I think you've hit the nail on the head Mpetrie98. Over the last decade or two I've really let my standards for politicians go. I'm with you on the protectionism. But given my credible alternatives Trump looks like a fucken superstar. But that is what I get when I compare him to McCain or Romney. Compared to a normal decent person Trump barely makes a C.

The soft bigotry of low expectations?