Pants on the Ground, Socks on the Floor

Dr. Laura once took a call from a wife who was complaining about her husband leaving his socks on the floor. Later, she heard from a widow who would give anything to find that her husband was alive and with her, leaving his socks on the floor. So this "news blurb" from The Onion caught my eye:

The Best Thing That Ever Happened to Area Man Yelling at Him About Socks

Is a Mature Man Hard to Find?

Okay, I'm a little late with this one, but if you haven't seen it yet, you should check out this recent column from Dennis Prager, "Is America Still Making Men?"

If you are unfamiliar with Prager, he's a longtime radio host and author with a style that is usually polite and gentle, but firm. But the usual critics will dismiss him the same way they dismiss Michael Savage. Their loss. Prager airs live the same time Rush Limbaugh does, and while Limbaugh focuses on partisan politics, satire, and getting a rise out of the Left, Prager focuses a little less on partisan politics but is still decidely conservative, often talking about the larger issues behind current events. Regular topics of Prager's include religion (he's Jewish), happiness, and the differences between the sexes. Gender issues is what he wrote about in this column, hence the title.

What is a man (as opposed to a boy)? The traditional understanding was that a man is he who takes responsibility for others -- for his family, his community and his country -- and, of course, for himself. A man stood for ideals and values higher than himself. He conducted himself with dignity. And he was strong.

Anakin Niceguy may have something to say about that. Of course, all boys, provided they don't die, grow up to be men. But they don't all grow up to be mature, well-adjusted men. And no, I don't confuse apathy and letting women walk all over you as being mature and well-adjusted.

When I was a boy in the 1950s, without anyone expressly defining it, I knew what a man was supposed to be.

Oops. Dennis mentioned the 1950s. Certain people automatically insist that someone who speaks fondly about any aspect of the 1950s supports wife beatings, racist lynchings, witch hunts, and must want to kill all the gays, too. Yes, I actually found a blog entry trying (and failing) to counter this very column by Prager that took that route.

I wonder how many boys are told to "be a man" today; and if they were, would they have a clue as to what that meant? It would appear that for millions of American boys, this has not been the reality for decades. Many families and society as a whole seem to have forgotten boys need to be made into men.

He goes on to list nine main reasons, and there's a lot of truth in what he says.

Check it out.

Do Not Touch

Some guys have sworn off looking for wife. I say, don't give up hope! Here is a good word from a woman who is newly back on the market - something she recently wrote on a social networking site:

I want to apologize to all my friends for my temporary insanity. I tried to go off my medicine that controls my anxiety, ocd, anger, and depression. I guess I didn't realize I was such a bitch!!!!

If that isn't enough, then perhaps you'll like being a pseudo-father to her kids. They have different fathers - maybe you can persuade her to add a new kid that has your DNA?

In all seriousness, at least she did apologize. Still wouldn't want to live like that.

Yeah, ladies, I know there are plenty of bad male specimens, too. Feel free to share what you've seen and experienced. I often thank God that my wife is not typical.

Easy-To-Spot Red Flags

Some people are afraid of "losing" time they have invested in pursuit of someone else. But in some cases, there are easy-to-spot red flags that can save you a lot of time, money, energy, and emotion.

Some red flags are easier to spot than others. Some red flags are really more like yellow flags - you should talk over with your love interest – perhaps there's a misperception, or a temporary one-time condition that will soon be alleviated. Other red flags mean you should avoid that person, or at least avoid committing to that person – but then some of you aren't looking for commitment in the first place, so some of the red flags are going to be different.

Here are some easy-to-spot red flags.

Red Flag: What's in the Mail? You can tell a lot - good and bad - by what mail she has sitting around out in the open. Past-due bills? Catalogues from high-end stores? Parking/traffic tickets? Court/legal documents? Stuff from political/religious/nonprofit groups that have priorities incompatible with yours? N.O.W.?

Red Flag: This is kind of a subset of the one above. She subscribes to or regularly purchases wedding/bridal magazines. If you're looking for a wife, you might mistake this for a good thing, because you think it means she is marriage-minded. However, all these magazines indicate is that she is wedding minded. There's a huge difference. These magazines feed the idea that the wedding is all about her – not the two of you joining together before God. While these magazines may offer some money-saving tips, they rely on advertising – advertising from businesses that depend on you spending as much on your wedding and related festivities as possible. There is an exception to this red flag: She has a job that is related to weddings/wedding planning.

Red Flag: She kisses the dog. The bad news with this one is that by the time you see her do this, you have likely swapped germs with her – and thus, Fido, too. You may have heard that the mouth of dogs are "cleaner" than the mouths of humans. Even if that was true, they carry some different germs – germs you don’t need. Dogs stick their noses in iffy places. They lick themselves. The other day, my own dog (the dog came with my wife) ate some human feces (long story). One of the chicks on this season of "The Bachelor" lets her dog lick her lips. No thanks.

Red Flag: She has more than two cats. Isn't this one self explanatory? If not, just trust me on this one.

Red Flag: She always orders the most expensive things on the menu, but never makes a credible move to pay or split the cost. She sees you as an ATM. Exception: She lives in father or brother's house and doesn't really earn her own income, seeing has how she's always working in the family store or taking care of her nieces, nephews, or younger siblings/cousins and doing household chores. Still, she should at least refrain from always ordering the most expensive item.

Red Flag: You walk out of a restaurant where you had free soft drink refills and she requests driving through the fast food lane across the parking lot because she wants to order a soft drink. One of my ex-girlfriends did this. Plus, I don’t think there was a meal she ordered that she didn't send back for one reason or another. She had "issues". I had "issues", too, as evidenced by the fact that I kept seeing her as long as I did.

Red Flag: She drives a car that is beyond her means. Either she got some poor sucker to buy it for her, or she is paying high monthly payments on it, which means YOU will be paying for it. Exception: She won it on a game show.

Red Flag: Bad or hyper gag reflex. This is only a problem if you like receiving oral sex.

Red Flag: Her female relatives, especially the ones who are married/older, are all dumpy/fat. You can tell by the pictures she has on display. This indicates that your wedding cake will kick off a weight-gain cycle. Exception: You like that idea.

Red Flag: She has no female friends - all her friends are male. Most of those guys want into her pants. The ones who really are gay will likely be cutting you down behind your back. Yes, women can be difficult. But if she can't develop a friendship with at least one female outside of her family, it isn't a good sign.

Red Flag: Her place is a mess. Look, she knew you (or somebody else) was going to be back at her place that evening. She straightened up her place as much as she could with the time she had. If her place is a mess, your place together will be a bigger mess – unless you are fine with picking up after her as well as yourself. I'm not talking about the place being lived in. I'm talking about the place being a mess, dirty, dusty, or unsanitary.

So – what other easy-to-spot red flags can you name? They don't have to be universal. They could just be red flags for you. Ladies - can you think of some you'd tell your brothers or sons?

Marriage Means More Money For Men?

It's being reported all over the news that men get an "economic boost" from marriage. See this story from Associated Press writer David Crary. Let's take a look.

The changes, summarized in a Pew Research Center report being released Tuesday, reflect the proliferation of working wives over the past 40 years - a period in which American women outpaced men in both education and earnings growth.

Ah. So if a man has a wife who is out there fighting in the corporate world, he'll be better off financially. What they don't tell you is that your wife will be too tired or too upset about something at the office to make love, strangers will be raising your children (and you'll be paying for them to do it), and you'll be paying more in taxes. But hey, you'll have more money! And if she earns more than you do, she'll likely have more resentment for you and less respect.

A larger share of today's men, compared with their 1970 counterparts, are married to women whose education and income exceed their own, and a larger share of women are married to men with less education and income.

Well, yes, but the majority of women still marry men who earn more than they do.

One barometer is median household income — which rose 60 percent between 1970 and 2007 for married men, married women and unmarried women, but only 16 percent for unmarried men, according to the Pew data.

Ah-ha! Clearly an example of sexism against unmarried men, right? Actually, unmarried men were already earning more before. So this is married men playing catch-up.

In 1970, according to the report, 28 percent of wives in this age range had husbands who were better educated than they were, outnumbering the 20 percent whose husbands had less education. By 2007, these patterns had reversed — 19 percent of wives had husbands with more education, compared with 28 percent whose husbands had less education.

Academia is more hostile to men now, and a man is expected to go out and support himself and his family, which often means dropping out of school. It is more socially acceptable for a woman to live with her parents, or go to school to find herself while her husband works.

Only 4 percent of husbands had wives who earned more than they did in 1970, compared with 22 percent in 2007.

If I were a wagerin' man, I'd bet that the wives who earned more were more likely to be unattractive/overweight than the wives who earned less/nothing. The higher the income of the husband, the more physically attractive the wife is likely to be. These are generalities to be sure, but you see this verified everywhere.

Here comes the tired old comparison – you knew it would be included:

According to 2009 Census Bureau figures, women with full-time jobs earned salaries equal to 77.9 percent of what men earned, compared with 52 percent in 1970.

Women, as a group, earn less than men, as a group. This is true. But men are more likely to die on the job. Men and women often do DIFFERENT JOBS. Men are naturally more aggressive and work more hours, so they may earn more in commission-based jobs, and are more likely to ask for larger raises more often. When you compare men and women who are doing the same kind, level, quality, and quantity of work, with the same amount of experience – there is little to no gap.

The Pew researchers noted that the economic downturn is reinforcing the gender reversal trends, with men losing jobs more often than women.

Yup. I won't expect NOW to fret about this.

The Pew report found that unmarried women in 2007 had higher household incomes than their 1970 counterparts at each level of education, while unmarried men without post-secondary education lost ground because their real earnings decreased and they didn't have a wife's wages to offset that decline.

Unmarried men with college degrees made income gains of 15 percent, but were outpaced by the 28 percent gains of unmarried women with degrees.

I'd like to know about married men who are the sole breadwinners, and how they are doing compared to 1970.

So the lesson of this report is that women are earning more than before, so when a man marries one of these women, they have a higher household income. Duh.

What these reports don't mention is that men who earn more than their wives will lose some of that in the event of divorce, more if there are children. For a husband who is the sole income earner, even if he is earning more than his unmarried counterpart, the fact is – half of that is his wife's, and more if she leaves and takes the kids.

I do believe that the average man is much better off if he marries the right woman than if he stays unmarried – a woman who is fiscally responsible and shrewd when it comes to shopping and spending; one who offers helpful feedback about professional matters and helps her husband with networking. If she cooks, and he'd otherwise eat out, it is even better. But a married man is likely paying for all sorts of things an unmarried man isn't.

Also, something the report touched on was a drop in the percentages of households that are married. People are waiting longer to marry, giving men a chance to establish themselves and earn more before marrying. So of course the guy who marries at 32 is earning more than the guy who married at 19 and had to forgo certain educational and professional opportunities. It is easier for an unmarried man to continue his education, network over lunch and after-hours social events, work longer hours and extra days, relocate, take a new position, etc.

From what I've read, studies show married men in general – so not just the ones marrying career women – do earn more than unmarried men. But as I already pointed out, that income is not his to do with it as he pleases. Also, perhaps it is the men who earn more or have the potential to earn more who get married. As was said over at The Opine Editorials:

As a married man, I'd like to believe that marriage does make someone [wealthier], as many studies report. But I do have to wonder if the correlation is entirely one-directional, or if [wealthier] people or people with [more earning potential] are more likely to get married in the first place? I mean, all other things being equal, who is attracted to and wants to marry someone who is [poor]? While we can get averages, we can't compare me, a married father at my age, to me at the same age having never been married or a father. We can't compare John Doe #1, unmarried and childless at his age, to John Doe #1, same age, married and with children

Ultimately, though, even if marriage could be proven to be a cause of men earning more, there are unmarried men who maintain they'd rather have a lower income than get married. They can do just fine with a lower income, and enjoy the freedom of being able to work less and spend their free time doing whatever they want to do.

Thank God For Martin Luther King, Jr.

When it comes to MLK, I don't hear a lot of the usual whiners complaining about how a Christian minister was getting too involved politics, and thus "violating the separation of church and state".

Looks Matter More in the City

Melissa Mahony reports on LiveScience.com on a study that seems to confirm what Tom Leykis said on his radio show, back when he had one. They lead off the story this way:

For women, looks may matter more if they live in the city than in rural areas, a new study finds.

There's more competition in the city.

Any attractive woman who is category 4 wants to attract the wealthiest/most powerful/most famous man she can get, and these types tend to move to a city. More bidders = driving the price up. But, like I said, there's also more competition. So being beautiful isn’t enough. You have to be more beautiful.

The most highly attractive women tend to not only move to a city, but they move to Los Angeles, Dallas, or Miami – climates where they can flaunt their bodies pretty much year-round, and where there are plenty of wealthy men.

The researchers suggest with higher population densities, cities offer more potential friends and sexual partners, allowing city folks to be choosier and so theoretically able to select the cream of the crop to associate with.

Exactly. Less attractive women do best in places like Alaska, where women are more scarce. As the article points out, if you're out in a rural area, your social circles and family tend to know your business, you're more likely to know everyone else who lives nearby, and often your selection of sex partners is limited by those realities - in addition to mere numbers. In the city, a person can more easily have a casual sexual encounter with a stranger, never to meet again, without any friends of family knowing about it. This is why guys in category 4 are advised by people like Leykis to get off the farm and into the city.

Though the study is based on women, the researchers suspect similar results would hold for men, with their physical appeal also impacting their personal lives more so in cities where a more "free market" of relationships exists.

Taller men have an advantage, but what matters more in attracting the hottest women is money, power, and fame. (Superhot women who don't care so much about these things are rare.) Women who don't want to admit they are in category 4, and other women, will claim what matters is "security and confidence" - which just happen to come with... money, power, and fame. Taller men, by the way, tend to make more money - all other things being equal. There are famous people who aren't confident. Hollywood is full of them, and you can tell, to, because their insecurities are part of what kills their relationships.

The study indicated these city women are happy. So if they left a rural area for the city, they either found what they were looking for they learned they really wanted something else, and found that instead.

Basically, a superhot country gal who wants a superrich hubby needs to get to a large city and cash in her chips by age 25. After 25, the pool of superrich men who would choose her starts to shrink, since there are younger women these guys can target.

Not A Normal Topic of Mine

In SoCal, the whole Jay Leno/Conan O’Brien/"The Tonight Show" (TTS) thing is being treated as a huge deal. Skip the next 3 paragraphs if you are familiar with the situation.

In case you are unfamiliar with the situation – almost six years ago, NBC promised Conan O'Brien, hosting the after-TSS, "Late Night", TTS in 2009. This was to keep him from bolting to another network to set up a competing show. ("Late Night" was the show David Letterman started up and hosted for many years before leaving for CBS.... after he lost out on getting TTS and regular guest host Jay Leno got it instead.) The problem was, Jay Leno is a notorious workaholic and didn't want to give up regular TV work.

So NBC gave him a 10pm show that was essentially a redressed TTS (monologue, sketch/bit, and interviews). This kept Leno from going to a competing network when his contract finally expired, which would have been a while after Conan took over TTS. It also was much cheaper for the network to do this show than buy five hours of drama shows a week.

Networks don't own all of their stations, and the other station owners were complaining about the drop in ratings for their local 11pm news broadcasts as a result of a talk show at 10pm rather than an hourlong drama. So now NBC has announced plans to move Leno back to 11:35 and move the TTS/Conan to midnight or five minutes later. Leno has agreed. Conan has said NO WAY.



It's a huge mess. Not only because of the lower ratings for the local news – the TV industry was worried by the loss of five hours of drama. Those shows keep a lot of people working.

But the thing is, even with those five hours taken up by Leno, NBC is STILL showing THE SAME EPISODES of dramas twice a week, like "Law & Order: SVU". Leno didn't kill five hours of drama. Advertisers tightening their belts did. Now I wonder what they'll fill in the time with… more repeats? New magazines?

Now that Conan has said "NO" things are going to get really interesting. There's a clause in his contract that gives him something like $40,000,000 if he is removed from TTS. I don't know if that includes the show being pushed back to midnight or later, or if he has veto power over changing the time of the show. Whatever – yeah, it sucks that he had to move his whole family from coast to coast (and it sucks for NBC that they had to build a whole new studio) – but he's going to be just fine. He'll leave for another network if he has to, where they will pay him $$$ and promote the heck out hime. If that happens, the NBC's failure will be complete, to paraphrase Darth Vader. They will have made all of those changes, blown all of that money, and messed with "The Tonight Show" only to have the very result they were hoping to avoid when they made their plans six years ago – a net loss all around.

Conan has been handling the situation with class and humor.

NBC should grovel at his feet and apologize and commit to keeping him in the same place, same time.

I like Jay Leno. They should give him half an hour earlier in the night, like at 8:30 or 9, or 9:30 and use the show to preview "The Tonight Show". Compensate for the reduction in time by giving Leno a weekend show, too, like on Sunday nights.

It is just going to be really strange if Conan leaves and Jay is given TSS again. The only way they should start that up is to open up with a skit in which Jay wakes up in bed next to a Suzanne Pleshette look-alike, or – even better - Bob Newhart.

Love the One You're With

I don't really know what happened between Kate Gosselin and her ex-husband Jon. I know that they made a lot of babies and then stuck them on TV in a regular "reality" show. I generally think inviting TV crews to follow your minor kids around or portray your marriage on an ongoing basis is a bad idea. The Duggars might be an exception.

From what was portrayed through their TV and has been portrayed in the gossip media – which often is a poor reflection of truth – Kate wasn't the warmest or most respectful wife, and Jon has been acting poorly for a while.

What I did notice is that now that she is divorced, Kate has acquired hair extensions so that she has "long hair" again.

Why do women do this? Why do they go back to long hair, dressing nicely, and hit the gym after divorce? The cynical answer is that they are "back on the market" and want to get the attention of the highest bidder they can. When they are married, they don't feel like they need to try because they already have a guy, and if he wants to leave, he'll probably get penalized for doing so. This isn't a ringing endorsement for marriage, ladies. Why can't women like this look nice for their husbands?

Maybe Jon was always a creep and she was deliberately trying to turn him off and knew they were heading for divorce and so didn't want to bother. But there are probably cases out there where making an effort to attract her husband would prevent a woman from going through a divorce in the first place.

Same goes for that type of guy who will do things for his second wife he wouldn't do for his first wife. By romancing and listening to his first wife, he may be able to keep the marriage fun and healthy, and thus keep his first wife.

No matter how she does herself up now, guys should avoid Kate Gosselin, at least until all of those eight kids are grown. It doesn't matter how nice her hair gets. And Jon should concentrate on his kids and not be bringing more drama and turmoil into their lives. And no, I'm under no delusion that my opinion matters to – or will even be read by – either of them.

Libel is Fun

And you can largely get away with it when your target is famous.

I could make a full-time hobby out of countering erroneous attacks on Dr. Laura that can be easily found in the blogosphere. I guess that goes to show just how pervasive she is. (Some of her critics are going to think I just called her a pervert.)

Why do I care at all? Because I enjoy her stuff, and by following her advice I have made my life better and my family's life has been better. I hate to see her libeled because so much of her message is important. As I've said before (see HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE for some examples), I do have some mostly minor quibbles with her, but for the most part, she is right and effective, so much so that she bugs the crap out of some people.

"Kate", wrote about The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands in this blog entry about books she read in 2009:

There were a lot of duh! forehead-slapping statements in it, like how one should treat their spouse nicely if they want niceness in return.

Yes, that concept should be obvious to people, but a lot of wives haven't been acting that way. Other women want to act that way as wives or when they become wives, and the book tells them how, since they aren't getting the message elsewhere.

So when I checked, there were a couple of comments of note:

"~~Silk" wrote:

Dr. Laura is a pompous ass.

I don't find her to be one. But I don't think either of us have met her in person, so how do either of us really know?

She's nasty to her callers, rigid, unsympathetic, and a total hypocrite.

Hypocrite? I have seen that applied to Dr. Laura so many times, yet I can't recall one instance in which is was applied correctly. Click through to The Playful Walrus and scroll down to see a write up on hypocrisy.

As far as being "rigid" – I wonder what this person means by that? Unless we're completely dysfunctional to the point of actual insanity, we're all rigid about some things. Where is she rigid when she should be more flexible? In telling women to protect their minor children? Where are the examples???

Then there's Dr. Laura's tone – she has precious few moments to get the point across to the callers. This is radio, not a private uninterrupted therapy session. If she'd let them, a lot of her callers would ramble on repeating themselves and talking in circles and making endless excuses for their own bad doings.

Not to mention stupid.

Stupid? How so? This is not explained. If she is stupid, she's managed to do quite well for herself on a consistent basis despite being stupid.

She's into her shtick for the money that controversy and nastiness brings.

Interesting guess.

She has made some major mistakes in her own life, and I could respect her if she admitted her mistakes and said she'd learned from them, but instead, she lies and claims it all never happened.

I have no idea what this person is talking about, even with the person's link to a nasty libel site (talk about the pot calling the kettle black!) She's repeatedly admitted mistakes, and has warned others not to make them. And she gets called a hypocrite (wrongly) as a result.

"Kate" then added:

I had heard about the nude photos.

I don't get why people bring that up, as if it means anything other than Dr. Laura made mistakes when she was a "feminista", from which she learned some important lessons. I hope these people are consistent and thus dismiss any comments about anything offered by anyone who has ever been photographed nude.

I just don't get how a female radio personality with a career of her own can bash women for choosing to work outside the home.

Kate, she doesn't bash women for choosing to work outside the home. She bashes women who neglect their husband and children. They aren't necessarily one in the same. She praises Stay-At-Home-Moms. Praising SAHMS need not mean bashing others. That's the false thinking too many people in society have bought into where, if one person gets a trophy, everyone has to get a trophy.

I figured the Marriage book would be more balanced than the Husbands book, but they were both pretty much focused on blaming women for not catering to their husbands.

Actually, Dr. Laura rightly points out that women have more power – for good or ill - when it comes to personal relationships and family dynamics. Men legally, financially, and socially cede a lot of power to their wives when they marry.

Meanwhile, over at this discussion forum, someone complained about getting a Dr. Laura book as a gift. Some of the responses have been interesting.

"Big Gay Sam" lied:

That woman gives me gas. Her take on gay people?

"Homosexuals are a mistake of nature."

That's not what she said.

"RachelJ" wrote:

I haven't read the book, but excerpts. Dr. Laura suggsts to avoid getting cheated on to be "your husband's best girlfriend" i.e. making sexy phone calls to him at work, get "dressed up" when he comes home, always wear lipstick, that kind of crap.

If this woman is married, I feel sorry for her husband. He made a poor choice if he was looking for a woman who would care about his desires.

Even the title suggests that men are as dumb as dogs and can be trained and easily manipulated and women are the grand manipulators.

Men are easily to please. That is the point.

I love it that while she's giving all this advice about staying home and taking care of your family (ONLY) that she is the ultimate working woman on the radio, writing books on book tour. How in the world is she "taking care of" her husband?

This tired charge is again repeated subsequently by "aslapintheface" – completely ignorant of the reality of how Dr. Laura structured her life and her book publicity. But I guess people want to hold on to their mean thoughts because it gives them, in their minds, and excuse not to deal with the truth of what Dr. Laura says.

We all know Dr. Laura's real "crimes" that upset most of her mouth-foaming critics:

1. Many years back, she referred to the homosexual orientation as a biological error.
She did not call homosexual PEOPLE mistakes or errors. She did not say they were CHOOSING to be homosexual. She was not disparaging anyone. She treats her callers who are homosexual with respect, and advises concerned family members to accept their homosexual relatives.

2. She notes that men and women are different, and says that children do best being raised within a marriage where a husband and wife model a loving relationship.

3. She notes that abortion kills an innocent human being.
She advises adoption. Actually, she advises avoiding intercourse when unprepared to be a parent, but adoption if one has failed in that.

4. She tells parents to put the needs of minor children before their own wants, including that they should raise their children themselves.

5. She notes that men have rights and feelings, too, and wives should behave accordingly, just a husband should care about his wife.

If you click on my Dr. Laura tag, you'll see I’ve written up a lot on stuff like this already.

Health Thyself

I'm sorry, but every time I see an ad for "Merrill Lynch Wealth Management" I have to laugh. Merrill Lynch is one of those companies that couldn't manage it own wealth, and so it ended up being bought up by Bank of America under the cloud of tax bailouts.

I laugh, but there are a lot of former employees who probably aren't laughing. Managers failed at their duties, and investors failed at their duty to known in what they were investing. And, of course, people were greedy in occupying houses they couldn't afford on the hope that the real estate market would keep skyrocketing.