Time for Father’s Day Again

[Bumped up from 2010] I have a better relationship with my father than my three siblings. Part of the reason is that unlike them, I wasn't around when the worst of the divorce and related drama was taking place. I was at college. Speaking of college, I'm the only one that got a college degree. One of my siblings is likely get one eventually – in mid life. I don't expect the other two to even go back to college at all. My father and I have done work for the same organization in the past, and I know I remind him somewhat of himself. But three important reasons why my relationship is better with my father is that I take some initiative, I don't treat him like an ATM, and I don’t badmouth his wife.

There will probably be a dinner – homemade or otherwise – in honor of my father-in-law, even if it doesn’t happen on Father's Day.

I'm a father myself now, as you know if you've read other entries in this blog. I’m also the sole income earner in our home. As such, I’d rather not get purchased gifts for Father's Day. I mean, it was my money to begin with after all, and if I need it, I'll buy it. No, homemade gifts are good, and so are services.

Truly, I can't think of getting anything better for Father's Day than a hug from my kids.

Technology is a Tool, Not An Evil

There are people who are in enduring, happy marriages who "met online". Granted, there aren't a lot, but that's because most people in general aren't in enduring, happy marriages. Yet the moment a female caller to the Dr. Laura Show says they met a guy online, the rest of the call is determined. That's because the hostess' bias against all things online kicks in (she has her reasons). She says she obtained bias confirmation (she doesn't put it in those words, but that's what it is) when she says "guys and articles" tell her guys go online for an easy lay.

Yes, many men do. But not all.


And men also go to bars and clubs and street festivals and a bunch of other places for easy lays.

But yes, some guys use dating and hookup services to, surprise, hookup. Some of the most effective tactics include going after all women whose pics attracted them and are in the area, regardless of whatever else her profile says. These guys aren't looking for general compatibility, just easy, no-strings-attached sex. This is one reason why women can be inundated with contacts from men. It's a numbers game. Guys throw as much against the wall as they can to get a little to stick.

But not all of the men online are looking for hookups. Especially with the more exclusive matchmaking services, the ones that take more time and money, there are men looking for a wife (because they think they can beat the odds or they are unaware of the odds or are masochists or losers who are desperate for a woman to take over for mommy).

My advice to women is that if they're really looking for a husband, they stick to the serious, more exclusive services (in addition to the old-fashioned ways of looking) and never assume that what the guy says about himself is actually true. This is just a way to establish contact. Like a guy you meet on the street, everything he says about himself could be a lie. Meet in a neutral, public place, and don't get sexual right away.

Just remember, though, ladies, if you do find a man who wants to get married: You will be sharing your life, home, and finances with a guy who is foolish enough to enter into contracts that have no guaranteed upside to him and horrendous risks and limitations.

I'm sure Dr. Laura gets calls from women in good marriages who met online, but that never comes up in the conversation because the calls are usually about things that are troubling them.



Dr. Laura has mentioned more than once that she'd been in talks to endorse and/or help facilitate an online matchmaking service, but she had so many requirements and restrictions that it would limit profitability so it wasn't a go.

The caller on yesterday's show did admit she got sexual right away with the guy she met online, so Dr. Laura again said "men used to have to pay" for that. Sigh.

Was Sacks Sacked?

As I previously blogged, attorney Adam Michael Sacks would do the Tuesday "bonus" hour of the Tom Leykis Show, and for me, it was must-listen. Recently, that arrangement ended, and as far as I know, all Leykis has publicly said about it is a terse written statement indicating the involvement had ended. No reason was given.

Since Leykis' Internet-based audio talk show began (after the terrestrial broadcast corporate radio version had been off of the air for a few years and Leykis rode out the rest of his contract), Sacks would not only do that hour on Tuesdays, alternating between  "criminal law" (mainly DUI and marijuana violations) and "family law" (mainly divorce, alimony, child support, and child custody), but he would be at listener parties  and events and his ads would run throughout the show. And by his ads, I mean ads for his law practice that featured copy read by Leykis, and ads for becoming an advertiser with The New Normal (Leykis' businesses) as spoken by Sacks. Sacks and Leykis even talked on the show about work Sacks had done for Leykis, such as with traffic tickets and with getting a restraining order against a radio show host Leykis and/or Sacks have described as an obsessed fan. Finally, Sacks would often appear during other times on the show by calling in to answer questions and give advice to another caller.

Of course, listeners have speculated as to why Sacks and Leykis have parted ways. Leykis has had his staff go back and eliminate the Sacks bonus hours from the archive files available as podcasts to paid subscribers. To paraphrase Leykis, he did that because those hours were essentially infomercials. However, there was some entertaining and informative content to many of those hours.


What could the reason be for ending the professional relationship? I have no more insight than any other frequent listener who occasionally visits the show's Facebook page. I figure there are several basic plausible reasons, and it may be a combination of two or more of them. So in no particular order, let's consider them. Again, these are POSSIBLE reasons, I'm not stating that they ARE the reason(s).

Emptying the Nest

Many commentators I admire are aghast that so many parents allow their adult children to continue to live with them or allow them to move back in with them (such as after college). This is seen as part of what is making them "snowflakes".

The idea is that since children become legal adults at age 18, they should be out on their own at that age (and if they are done with high school or should be), and it is only allowable for them to continue to live at home, if it is at all, if they are going to college full time and, perhaps, also working part time. Dr. Laura also makes it clear they have to be following house rules, especially when it comes to not fornicating or allowing a boyfriend or girlfriend to stay over. The adult children are to be kicked out and all material/financial support ceased if it is known that such a rule has been violated. (If the parents do have such a rule Dr. Laura will tell them they should.)

Some parents hear this and are surprised, because they think it would be good for their adult children to live at home to build up financial stability rather than having to share a dump with roommates and struggle.

Dr. Laura sees virtue in that struggle, and she cites her own experiences at that age.

There's a potential problem citing the past, however.

Why I Listen To and Retweet Tom Leykis

Tom Leykis ridicules my faith and any faith that includes theism or anything supernatural. He thinks people like me are not smart. He dismisses many of the moral convictions I hold. He promotes abortion (and has paid for multiple elective abortions himself), even telling guys how to effectively prompt a woman to have an elective abortion if she's knocked up and he was at least one of the guys having intercourse with her. (To be fair, he encourages guys to avoid conceiving in the first place through vasectomies and condom use, although not abstinence). He sometimes bashes political figures and media personalities I respect and admire. Some of his political soapboxing frustrates me. I'm aging out of his target demographic.

And yet, I'm a regular listener.

Why? Many reasons. Here they are, in no particular order:

Matt Walsh on Falling In Love

Matt Walsh gets a lot right a lot of the time. Overall, he makes a good point about romantic love in this column provocatively titled "I Didn't Fall In Love With My Wife". He says:

We’re bad at it because we don’t understand it, and we don’t understand it because we don’t understand love. You can’t forge a lasting marriage if all you know about love is what you learned from an Ed Sheeran song.

OK.

But here’s the reality: these were our choices, every step of the way, and that state which we’ve found ourselves falling in and out of is not real love. Real love is an act of will. A decision. A conscious activity. It is something you do and live. Love is chosen, and if it is protected and nurtured, it grows. Love is sacrifice. Love is effort.

Emphasis mine, to point out that marriage sellers themselves say these things over and over again.

He says it again:

Love is dying to the self.

If you don't want to die to yourself, don't marry! I know he says "love" but you can bet your donkey that Walsh would say that requires you marry your romantic interest.

Christian Research Institute President Hank Hanegraaff Goes Eastern Orthodox

It's time to revisit a topic I only write about once every few years. So if unless you're interested in the inside politics of Christian ministries, this entry probably won't interest you. However, I'm getting hits for some of the old entries dealing with the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and the President thereof, Hank Hanegraaff, because of some recent events.

Prom Season

Every year now, I note this ritual, which has become another day, along with "Sweet Sixteen" (or other birthdays for certain cultures, at 13, 15, etc.) and wedding days (the the related events) that are all about feeding the narcissism and sense of entitlement of attention-whores and attention-whores-in-training.

Refer back to my "Beware the Prom", and this look at a Dear Abby column, and this look at a different Dear Abby column and now this more recent entry on increasingly showy proposals for dates.

It a nutshell, here are my problems with the prom as it is these days:

1) Boys wasting money.

2) Another event where females are princess-ized, which is a problem as long as males are prevented, culturally/socially and often legally, from events that cater to them and are focused on them in a similar way. Go ahead and tell me... what event gives boys the equivalent of the prom, where the activities are all about things he wants to do, with the boys dressing the way they want to dress, the girls dressing the way the boys want them to dress, the girls paying for it and escorting the boys, and where the boys will go hang out with their friends during the event?

I Can't Even Get Enough Sleep

As I pried myself out of bed after yet another too-short sleep, with no end in sight, something I already knew really sank in.

If I was an unmarried, child-free guy, I could actually get enough sleep.

Instead of getting up when I do when I prepare for work, I could sleep in at least another two hours, because I would be living closer to where I work and I would have less to do for other people before I leave the house.

I wouldn't have this dog that does various things that delay my sleep, wake me up, and diminish the quality of my sleep.

After work, I'd have a shorter commute home, fewer chores and errands to do, and wouldn't have to tend to the kids.

I could do things without being interrupted by what my wife and kids want.

Right now, on days I work, I'm getting about five hours of sleep, on average. On the other days, I'm lucky if I get eight. "How about naps?" you ask? Dog won't have it. She'll start barking. Constantly. At nothing.

A Shifting Position?

As I frequently say, I'm a huge fan of Dr. Laura. I agree with her almost all of the time and I think she does a lot of good. She had to deal with cancer not that long ago and I hope/pray (despite what she might say about hoping and praying) she never has to deal with cancer again.

It is nearly impossible for cancer not to change someone, and I think breast cancer changed her. As she said on the air, she had breast cancer and had a single mastectomy and, thus far, opted not to have reconstructive surgery.

In the past, when women called to get her advice on plastic surgery, including breast surgery, she used to be very supportive of "restorative" surgery, to counter what disease, surgery, aging, or breastfeeding had done. We're talking women trying to get back to the way they used to be, not women who used to be B-cups going for DDs.

Lately, though, she has discouraged women from even trying to get back to the way they used to look through surgery.

Torturous Tweeting

One of our favorite anitporn (and, apparently, antimasturbation) Twitter accounts, NoFap, tweeted out this profundity:

If you use enough porn and get addicted, you'll never need to date, have relationships, or romantically connect with humans.

First of all, "porn addiction" either doesn't exist or is exceeding rare. That phrase is usually used to describe a guy enjoying porn who has a wife who disapproves. It is probably why "addiction" seems to be a huge problem in subcultures in which porn viewing is considered very sinful, but not so much in subcultures where porn viewing is seen as frivolity at worst.

Secondly, there are a lot of guys who love to avoid dating, relationships, or "romantic connections", probably so much so that even some who think porn is lame will claim to enjoy viewing it just to make it easy to get rid of women.

Finally, either NoFap believes women have nothing to offer men other than auditory and visual sexual stimulation, or they think a lot of men think that way. Either way, isn't it better that someone who thinks of women that way not date them, or at least not try to get into relationships with them?

Here's my page discussing these topics.

It's National Masochistic Self-Destructive Male Week!

Well, that's not what they're calling it. Leading up to one of the worst days of the year, marriage pushers have decided this (February 7 - 14) should be "National Marriage Week USA".

Ugh...

So of course, they're marriage marketers are trotting out the same misleading statistics and fairy tales.

A good example is Sheila Weber's piece I found at Fox News.

The misleading headline is "Better Sex, Better Health, More Money: What Men Really Get Out of Marriage".

More than ever, today’s young men question the value of marriage to increase their happiness and well-being.

Of course they do. Men eventually catch on. We see what is going on around us. We see what has happened to our fathers, our uncles, our brothers, our friends. We see what happens to them when they marry. We see what happens to them when they get divorced. We see when something is a bad deal. We see the brides, who literally the day after the wedding, chop off their hair and start gaining weight. More men are opting to live a better life than that.

The U.S. marriage rate has dropped dramatically (from 70 percent in to 50 percent in four decades) and marriage is getting replaced with new habits of long-term dating, late marriage and long-term cohabitation.

Better get used to it.

When My Sentence Ends

I've never been arrested, but sometimes I liken my marriage to serving a sentence due to my wife's mental illnesses, which she hid from me until after we had kids, and her deteriorating physical health/abilities (which were also hidden from me).

It's still many years until our youngest child is grown, and thus by Dr. Laura's rules I'd be free to leave the marriage, but lately a thought crossed my mind:

Do I have a moral obligation to tell my wife if I plan to leave, and if so, how far in advance?

Obviously, she'd be informed at the time if I physically moved out of the house and/or had her served with divorce papers. But I'm wondering if I'd have a moral obligation to tell her in advance of that.

I referred to staying married until the kids are 18/out of high school as Dr. Laura's rule, but I have adopted it as well because I agree. To be sure, Dr. Laura does advise people to remove themselves and their children from an abusive situation (either leaving or kicking out the abuser), but absent actual abuse, the best thing is to stay and raise the kids and be polite and civil (and if at all possible, affectionate) to the other spouse.


The way I see it these are the basic possibilities for the future, in no particular order:

Does He Really Care?

I believe it was Dr. Laura's opening comments on her Monday, January 23 2017 show in which she listed and described ways to know a man loves you. If you listen to her or read her stuff, or follow this blog, you know that for her, dating is for discerning if you're a match for marriage. If you're in your late twenties or older, you're finding your spouse and you marry about two years after you start dating. (But keep in mind, if a guy is in his 40s and has never been married, he's probably not going to marry or probably not marriage material, and nobody with minor children should be dating seriously enough that the minor children meet their parent's new lover.)

So with that in mind, here's  Dr. Laura's list of signs he loves you, even if he hasn't SAID the words. Some of it might be slightly paraphrased from what she said:

You're having a bad day and he tries to turn it around, bringing sweetness into your life.
He remembers the little things you say and do.
What you say makes a difference to him.
He wants to know about your day.
He talks about his day.
He says and does cute little "nothings" (which Dr. Laura says are somethings).
He puts you first in front of his friends.
He wants to know more about you.
He loves to hold your hand.
He enjoys taking care of you  and wants to know you're OK.
He offers you a helping hand when you need one.
He remembers the special occasions.
He likes to be close, such as watching a movie and cuddling.
He wants to meet and know your family and to like them.

He talks about his dreams for the future, hints or talks about "our" future
He makes time for you.
Your opinion matters.
He can't stay mad at you for long.
He tells you what he likes about you.
He apologizes when appropriate.
He's very protective of you.
He touches you in subtle and loving ways.
He gets giddy.
He says nice things about you to others.

March Madness

People have the right to protest, not riot, and not litter. And we all have a right to analyze their protests to see if what they're saying is true and what they want is a good thing. A lot of people have spread this essay by Dina Leygerman. Let's take a look at it. After that, I'll link to some coherent and reality-based stuff.

It has the headline, "You Are Not Equal. I’m Sorry."

A post is making rounds on social media, in response to the Women’s March on Saturday, January 21, 2017. It starts with “I am not a “disgrace to women” because I don’t support the women’s march. I do not feel I am a “second class citizen” because I am a woman….”

This is my response to that post.

Because, if you don't think you're a victim, by golly you're wrong!

It's Not Too Early To Think About Valentine's Day

Ladies, you can scroll down to where I address you. The first part of this entry is for men.

Guys, I'm not talking about planning an overpriced romantic production.

I'm talking about GETTING OUT.

Get out of that engagement or relationship before wasting time, money, and effort on Valentine's Day.

If you're married and happy, fine... go ahead and plan something. But if you're married and unhappy (and have no minor children!) and are thinking about getting out, now is the time to make your move (if your lawyer agrees). If you're shacking up, now is the time time to make your move. If you've got a girlfriend, now is the time to make your move. If you're seeing someone but she's not your girlfriend, become very scarce until February 15. You don't want to continue things or make them worse.

If you're not absolutely sure you want to be with this woman for the long term, don't waste your time, money, and energy, and don't waste her time. Get out before Valentine's Day.


You don't need a wife, but most of you will get married anyway, even though you can't explain why, in part because some married guys aren't being honest with you. If you're going to be proposing (see this before you do), do NOT propose on Valentine's Day, her birthday, or any other gift-giving occasion, or it makes it more likely she can keep the ring if things don't work out. You want that ring to be considered conditional. You should NOT be marrying if you have minor children (unless she's the mother of your children); your kids shouldn't even know you are seeing anyone.



*****

Hey ladies... do you have a man in your life? A husband, a steady, a romantic partner?

Does he care about the Super Bowl? If so, will/did you help make it a great day for him? If he doesn't care about the Super Bowl, is there some other annual day other than his birthday that you give him an especially good time?

If not, why do you expect him to make a big deal about Valentine's Day?

Valentine's Day is NOT for men. It just isn't. It is a day when men are expected to make a huge fuss about romancing a woman. There are the dinner reservations, entertainment, gifts, chocolates and candies, flowers, cards, etc. Now, sure, a man who is genuinely happy in his relationship wants to give the woman what she wants. However, a scheduled and expected (demanded) communal thing means more hassle, more expense, etc. Who needs that? If it is truly about celebrating your love, it can be done any day of the week, when there won't be crowds and jacked up costs.

If you have a man who makes a big deal about Valentine's Day, I hope you reciprocate on another day or you at least make it worth his effort.

Employed Parents

You remember the guy who did the worst Prager U video ever, based on my personal opinion and viewer reactions? It's the video that told men they should get married because they'd earn more money but neglected to mention that 1) if his wife divorced him, most of his money would go to her and lawyers, and 2) even she stay married to him, most of his money would be spent by her? Yeah.

Well a tweet by him caught my attention. It linked to a Bloomberg story carried by Yahoo claiming that having children is a bad career move for women. The text of the tweet was:

As if money is the only thing to live for

Yup. From the guy who wanted men to stop doing the things they enjoyed under the lure of "you'll make more money!"

Rebecca Greenfield reports:

Someone Might Have Beaten That Prager U Video Advocating Marriage

The Brad Wilcox video for Prager University that was thoroughly and effectively countered early in the year wasn't enough, apparently, because some other organization did a marriage-promoting video that is just about as bad, called "Why Bother With Marriage?"

"From many points of view, marriage is a costly hassle that makes no sense. Why, then, might there still be good reasons to get married?"

Obviously, you can go watch it yourself if you want a good laugh, but if not, here's their main point:

Being married makes is harder to leave each other.

I kid you not. That's their argument.

A lot of people would see that precisely as why they shouldn't bother getting married.

They say marriage places a high and costly barrier in the way of splitting up. To a breadwinning man, this is like saying, "You should glue weights to your scrotum, because it will hurt a lot when someone comes along and rips them away." What kind of selling point is that?!? Divorce can be legally obtained unilaterally for no reason. Yeah, it's a pain for a breadwinning husband to go through a divorce, but it is financially rewarding to his wife.

Isn't it obvious by how many divorces there are that marriage isn't stopping people from splitting up?!?

And the premise requires that marriage is otherwise beneficial. The video does make a feeble attempt to say that marriage is good because it provides structure and that relationships (which they neglect to stress can exist without legal marriage) help us mature, develop, and become whole. No, really. What kind of structure are they talking about? The video even says "we lock ourselves up willingly because we don't trust ourselves." Apparently only married people develop impulse control, too.

So, if we're really, really generous to them, they're making the point that relationships are good and that getting legally married makes it more likely we'll stay in a relationship even when we really want out of it.

Hmmm.

I don't think children are mentioned at all.

At this rate, the only hope people promoting marriage have is hoping that men are masochists and/or lack critical thinking skills.

Where Was Kermit the Frog?

Tom Leykis spent the first two hours of his three hour show yesterday telling listeners they need to financially support his show. I pictured one of those PBS pledge drives of my childhood, with Kermit the Frog telling us why we should send in money. Of course there's a huge difference.

Oh Well, Less Driving For Me

As I write this, it is the day before Thanksgiving, which is considered the biggest family holiday in the USA.

Even from before becoming an adult, before I married, I worked every Thanksgiving. Working an early shift or a late shift usually allowed me to spend time with my father, with my mother and siblings, and in some years, also with my girlfriend's family.



After marrying, I never worked another Thanksgiving. At first, we partook of our many options.

One year or two, my wife decided we would host and not go anywhere else. That went well enough with the people who did show up.

Spending the time with my father and his wife is now out of the question due to my wife's attitude towards them. It's a shame, not just for the lack of family togetherness, but because there's some seriously tasty gourmet cooking going on there.

My mother used to host a big group, but she's running low on energy now, so things have switched to a sister of mine hosting, and for a year or two my mother paid for everyone to eat at a high-end restaurant buffet. This year, that sister and her family are otherwise involved. My brother my go with his shack-up's relatives. I thought he was going to pick up food and take it to our mother's; my wife was expecting that based on what my mother said, and since my wife doesn't want to be around my brother's shack-up and her kids, we were not going to my mother's (I had been willing to order food and bring it.)

The other obvious place would be my wife's married sister's place. However, my wife doesn't want to be around her sister and brother-in-law because of disagreements over politics and discussions thereof in front of our children.

Do you see a pattern here?

So, it looks like we're going to stay home, and almost certainly not have a traditional turkey or ham. The sibling of my wife who lives with us is working, and after that shift, it will be me, my wife, our kids, my wife's sibling, and sibling's spouse.

I have invited my mother to join us if my brother and his group aren't going to her place. She insists she's going to happy either way.

Enough about me for now... If you're in the USA or you are an American, I hope you have a great Thanksgiving with no drama and no trauma.

See my previous entry on Dealing With Holidays