Grandpa Lived in a Different Era

I’m so tired of people asking why husbands and fathers today aren't like their grandfathers or great-grandfathers in terms of leading their homes, tempering their wife when she's way out of line, and keeping their kids in line, etc. The embellished memories of how those men of yore kept everything hunky dory without losing their cool can be entertaining and even amusing to hear once or twice, but the constant extolling of this imagined past familial utopia is irritating.

There are very important things that aren't included in this praise of these "real" men.

Those men could literally beat their wives and children, rape their wives, and kick any of them out of the home without giving them a dime in walking money. If some punk was horning in on one of the girls in the family, the dad could run him off the property with a gun. And none of it was against the law or, even if it was technically against the law, nobody would arrest these men, let alone prosecute them or convict them. Now, not all men actually ran their homes like that, but the general cultural understanding that they could was enough to keep their families in line. Wives and children did run away, facing destitution in doing so, especially when relatives were unwilling to take them in. Many of their relatives would side with the husband/father. Yes, a woman might find that her own father would side with his son-in-law. Just about everyone else did, too... employers/customers, clergy and congregations, mental health providers, doctors, banks, newspaper editors... just about anyone. Wives were told to go back and obey and please their husbands, with maybe doing something on the sly behind his back (like squirreling away some savings if the husband would spend too much or wouldn't let his wife have enough money).

A married woman couldn’t get a credit card or engage in many other financial actions without her husband’s agreement. This is the real reason some women had secret stashes of cash the home. They couldn’t put it in a bank without their husband knowing.

Unlike now, a marriage license was an actual license to live together, have sex, and have children. There could be serious legal consequences if you did any of those things without a marriage license. That license gave a man access to his wife’s body, whether she felt like it at the moment or not. If she cheated on him, not only could be beat her, kick her out, and divorce her, but she could be criminally charged and she certainly wouldn’t get half of everything plus lifetime alimony.

Is that how things should be run? I'm not saying these were good things. But they "worked" in that they 1) kept children from being a disobedient presence in the family home, and 2) kept wives from emasculating their husbands or acting significantly in contradiction to what he wanted. If you can find an acceptable way to achieve those goals now, please share it with us. We’d love to know the secret. And sorry, telling men to “be like your grandfather” ain’t going to do it. You might as well tell someone to fly on a magic unicorn. Grandpa lived in a different era.

The men of today have different dynamics to deal with in the home. They also have different dynamics to deal with outside the home. Every workplace, every institution has been feminized, and most of them have been integrated with women. Most media and most businesses and other organizations seek to cater to feminine sensitivities and priorities when there is a conflict with masculine. Grampa didn’t have to compete with both other men and women in selling his labor. He didn’t have to worry that having a normal conversation with another guy at work could get him fired for “harassment” because someone overhead something they didn’t like.

Sorry, everything else has been changed. You can't expect men to behave as though nothing has changed.

One Flesh Or Not?

Dr. Laura will often tell wives calling in (and thus wives listening to her show) that it's not a big deal for a husband (and father of minor children) to enjoy adult media...

...as long as he's not doing it instead of being with her and the adult media doesn't feature children, small farm animals, men (gay porn), or barely legal adults.

This has to greatly upset the portion of her audience that has bought into the anti-porn panic/hysteria about how it turns brains into mush and turns men into serial killers, or women who consider to be a form of infidelity.

But what about the other end of this spectrum? Dr. Laura, like a lot of other relationship experts, says it's a problem if he's using such media instead of being with his willing wife. This appears to be a presumption that his body and sexuality belong to his wife.

Author of Men on Strike Interviewed at NRO

[This entry is an interesting time capsule from September 2013. I'm bumping it up because it is interesting to me to go back and see what my observations and thinking were, and what was in media, at the time.]

* * * * * * *

I've heard two interviews with Helen Smith about her book Men on Strike, one by Tom Leykis and one by Michael Medved, who have very different goals and perspectives than each other. Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review Online interviewed Smith and the interview is up.

Most men who are consciously on a marriage strike are also going to avoid having (more) children and they will try to influence other men boys to do the same.

Obviously, if this idea catches on and sticks, it means fewer thinking, responsible, productive men getting married and raising children. That's a problem for governments, churches, and all of the people who depend on such men, especially dependent or lazy women, or women desperate to have children who do not want to raise them without a man. So some people have a bit of a panic about this.

Of course, the marriage strike can be ended if there is a successful effort to mitigate the concerns of the strikers. But how likely is that to happen?

Yes, I'm a Christian and I believe the Bible. The most persuasive Biblical argument I've heard that men are required to marry, if possible, and have children, is that we are told to go forth and multiply to spread God's image (that's people) all over the world. However, hasn't that been done? Mission accomplished in that regard. Taking the Bible as a whole, there simply is no requirement that men today marry and have children. What many Christian leaders will say is that men can't control themselves and since fornication is so awful, they should marry. A lot of these same people would tell me I got married with the wrong attitude because I married because I wanted to have sex (and because I wanted to be a father who gave his children the best circumstances I could.)

Some marriage strikers are Christian. Some are atheists, or have some other worldview. Some swear off women entirely, others indulge in fornication. Some have never had a desire to marry. Some have a desire to marry and have children, but that desire is trumped by their concerns about the legal system and culture. Some want to avoid marriage so they can goof off, others want to avoid marriage because it slows down their work as very important scientists. It's a diverse group.

Anyway, here are some excerpts of the interview:

LOPEZ: Who are “White Knights” and “Uncle Tims” and why are they a problem?

SMITH: White Knights are typically conservative men who are chivalrous and always trying to protect women and have no problem with biased laws that punish men while protecting women. Uncle Tims are generally liberal guys looking to get sex or political favors by being male sellouts to their own gender. They are the Bill Clinton types who crack down on their own gender, using biased laws such as sexual harassment while sleeping with women and using them.

Terms like "mangina" and "beta" get thrown around in some circles.

LOPEZ: How has the Obama administration curbed due-process rights of men on campus?

SMITH: The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights sent out a “Dear Colleague” letter in 2011 telling colleges that take federal funds that they should use a lower preponderance-of-evidence standard in sexual-assault cases. Basically it is “50 percent plus one,” meaning that a campus tribunal can decide a young man is guilty with less certainty than is needed in a criminal trial. Read the case of Judith Grossman’s son in the Wall Street Journal to find out more about how young men are believed to be guilty without a fair trial or real evidence.

Outrageous.

Ladies, do you care about your brothers? Your sons?

* * * * * * *

[Now I am more stridently in support of the marriage strike.]

To What Should Males Aspire?

I heard Dennis Prager ask to what men would aspire if not marriage and raising a family. He's repeatedly said that guys are not real men if they aren't husbands and fathers. This is something heard from various corners of our culture, along with other assertion of what makes a guy a "real man". [This entry has been bumped up.]

Notice you never hear what makes a real woman. You never hear "What a real woman does, is..."

What is a guy if he isn't a real man? An artificial man? A transgender man? Of course, that's not what people are talking about. They are saying a "real man" as opposed to a man who is somehow lacking, or, as they might say, a "boy". There's nothing wrong with boys, at least not beyond the general thing of humans being fallen creatures. Again, you don't hear this with women. Women will refer to each other and themselves as girls and nothing negative is meant by it.

A real man is any adult human male who isn't fictional. For example, Prince Charming is fictional. Christian Grey is fictional. Jack Sparrow is fictional.

If there was such thing as a "real man" as opposed to an adult male who isn't a real man, that real man wouldn't give a piece of dung what other people say makes a real man. because when someone says, "What a real man does, is...",  what they're saying is "What I like men to do is..." Because real men urinate unless they have kidney problems, real man have weaknesses, and real men mess things up sometimes. But you'll never hear "What a real man does is urinate." But it's true.

Getting back to Prager's question...

What Is MGTOW?

MGTOW is Men Going Their Own Way.

It is a classification or description of a diverse spectrum of men who have consciously decided to avoid legally marrying, depending on a woman, or having a woman depend on them. 

Men take this approach out of self defense; for preservation and protection. They see legal marriage or relationships in general in today's culture as too risky for men, laden with obligations and sacrifices with little to nothing to be gained by them. MGTOW seek to disengage or minimize involvement in systems and situations in which they think men are at a disadvantage.

Just about anyone who would consider himself as MGTOW would also not cohabitate with a woman. Most would avoid exclusive relationships entirely. And many avoid any ongoing interdependent interaction with woman. (This isn't to say such men necessarily shun their mothers, sisters, etc. This is mostly about romantic/social relationships and often professional relationships.)

It is too simplistic to say it is a reaction to feminism. Many MGTOW fully support equality for women under the law, in as much as it is possible. MGTOW a reaction to what is seen as misandry in our common systems and culture, especially our family laws and courts. In fact, some MGTOW could claim also to be feminists is that they support women being equal under the law, strong, and independent.

MGTOW isn't an organization. There are online forums, bloggers, and vloggers who identify as MGTOW, but there isn't a formal movement. Individualism is common among MGTOW. Men who identify as MGTOW might date or not, might be promiscuous or virgins, might have a religion or not, might be politically affiliated or not, might espouse an overall political philosophy or not, might believe in conspiracy theories or not. Some have previously been married, some are fathers. Some have never been through the wringer of family courts, but you don't have to be hit by a bus yourself to know you don't want to stand in the street.

There are no identifying qualities of a MGTOW man, aside from his self-identification as such, other than a rejection of current marriage laws and dominant cultural expectations for romantic relationships.

Partisan Politics

I haven't been using this blog as an outlet for my political (USA politics) views lately. If you don't care about my political opinions, especially if you can't handle disagreement, skip right over this.

It's Too Late

Suzanne Venker, who has been one of the women who has expressed awareness of misandrist elements in our culture, posted an entry on her blog, which is "for a marriage-minded woman", that caught my attention. The title is "An Open Letter to American Men: Here's What Modern Women Want".

Now, before we get into the body of the blog entry, I wanted to address the title.

A growing percentage of men don't care what a modern woman wants.

The MGTOW movement and similar reactions to misandry have men swearing off marriage, shacking up, supposedly exclusive relationships, and, for many, dating at all.

This reminds me of a story Tom Leykis tells about when he was trying to get a woman to move out of his house. And yes, it was his house. She had no claim to it, by design. In his telling, he takes her to a therapist because she's ignoring his statements that he wants her to leave. In session, Leykis explains that it is over and he wants her out, and her reaction is, "What about all of the bad things he does?"

It's not a negotiation!

This is like when someone decides they do not want to buy any car on that car lot at all, and they leave, and the salesperson calls after him and says, "Here's what we're going to need from you."

We're not looking to buy the cow anymore, ladies. We might not even care to drink milk. Heaven forbid my wife leave or die any time soon, but if I were to find myself unmarried again, I would never, ever get into another supposedly exclusive relationship ever again, and thus I wouldn't care what modern women want. And I'm doing what I can so that other men won't care, either.

But let's take a look anyway, shall we?

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!

Can't Have a Wedding Without a Groom

Well, a few US states and a few countries say you can. But I'm talking about real marriage, not activist-invented piggy-backing.

"ROB IN TOMAKOMAI" wrote in to Dear Abby:

I am beyond tired of the number of women I read about in your column who refer to their wedding day as "my special day." News flash, ladies: You should be using the term "our special day"!

I agree, but most of these women writing in have been shacking up with the guy for years, and in many of those cases, he’s already had everything he wanted, and he’s agreed to get married and have more than just a bare-minimum wedding ceremony because she’s been nagging him for it, or his family or others around them want it, even if just to have a party. In those cases, it really is her special day, and he would rather it not even happen. Most of those guys will not actually say that, for fear of upsetting her. After all, the reason they are going along with it is because they didn't want to have her move out.

If you're so focused on your dress and hair and any faux pas -- real or imagined -- your guests may commit that you lose focus on the life you and your husband are beginning, perhaps you should buy a pet rather than get married.

One of the problems is when the "wedding machine" gets cranking after the engagement, and life for her is all about planning the wedding. She isn't devoting her attention to make sure she isn't making a mistake marrying this guy, and she has an incentive to ignore any red flags she does see – to avoid the hassle and embarrassment of calling off the wedding.

Any person who has stayed married for more than a few years knows the marriage ceremony is the easy part. The self-absorption that permeates today's wedding scene ranges from embarrassing to sickening.

Well said, Rob! A wedding is an important event, and it is understandable why a bride would fret about the details. But the reason a wedding is important is that it is the legal, social, spiritual, and often religious uniting of the couple; it is supposed to change many things about their lives. When that is forgotten in the planning of what becomes a theatrical event, a party, and a vacation, marriage is trivialized.

Dear Abby responded:

Weddings (and funerals) can bring out the worst in people because they are times when emotion sometimes trumps common sense.

And they are events that can bring together people who may share blood or (past) legal ties, but don't like each other.

The majority of American brides are gracious, polite, loving and hardworking. They are also prepared for the realities that come after the fairy tale wedding.

Eh... the statistics say otherwise. Actually, most people (regardless of sex) who are getting married for the first time don't truly know what they are getting themselves into, no matter how much they've read, talked, and thought about it. It is like becoming a parent. You can know on an intellectual level, but you don't really know until you're in the middle of it.

Please don't judge all American brides by the ones you read about in my column. The weddings that go smoothly I don't hear about.

Good point!

My MIL actually tells the story of walking down the aisle as a bride and noticing how nice it was to have all of her friends and family there, and was struck with the thought of, "Oh, he's here, too" when she saw her husband-to-be waiting for her at the altar.

A Case of Alimony Fraud

Any government program is going to have abuses, fraud, waste, etc. That is one reason why I support the idea that the best government is tightly limited government. Government-decided alimony is no exception.

FURIOUS IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST wrote in to Dear Abby:

My parents divorced 20 years ago. The court approved a mutual agreement that Dad would pay monthly alimony until Mom remarried or one of them died.

In states like California, this is standard if the marriage lasts ten years or more. It is ridiculous. There are very few cases in which this is warranted.

He has never missed a payment.

Sounds like a law-abiding man. You're not going to see his face on a billboard. You're not going to see his story on Lifetime.

I have recently discovered that Mom secretly married her live-in boyfriend 11 years ago, but has continued receiving the alimony without telling my father.

On the plus side, at least she didn't continue to shack up like some women do to take advantage of the insane alimony system. This is why the "until marriage" thing does not work in alimony.

Is she committing a crime for which she could be arrested? And is her husband guilty of any wrongdoing?

Well, see, there's the negative side. Your mother is a fraud. That's the nicest word I can use about her. Other men might use words that rhyme with itch and blunt, but not me. I'm not a lawyer; I have no idea if her husband can be held criminally responsible for aiding her fraud or "receipt of stolen property." She is likely a tax cheat as a result of this, and he could be as well.

I am extremely upset over this and want to do something to correct this injustice.

Good for you. Even more so if you are a female. I have no idea if you are.

It isn't fair.

Welcome to the battle of the sexes as far as the law goes.

Dear Abby responded:

Marriage certificates are public records, so get a copy of your mother's and mail it to your father. He needs to stop paying the alimony, and he can sue her in family court for any money she wasn't entitled to. His next move should be to consult an attorney and decide how he wants to handle this.

Exactly. Good advice.

I WONDER why feminists have not been vocal in attacking alimony policies - not all, just some - which presents women as unable to take care of themselves? It is a throwback to when women didn't have equal access to the workplace, property ownership, and the academy. If a feminist truly cares about equality and women not being treated as property, shouldn't she be against lifetime alimony in most cases? I get the importance and purpose of alimony in cases when the agreement was for a husband to earn in the income and for the wife to maintain the home and raise the children; she'll need time to establish herself in the working world. (This should all be required prenuptial stipulations, IMO) But for life?

Isn't there some way this situation can be made better? Perhaps through a "divorce insurance" policy? I could see having a policy where if the spouses stay married until one of them dies, the policy pays the survivor, provided the survivor didn't kill the deceased. If they divorce, the policy pays the "alimony". I'm no insurance expert, so feel free to tell me I'm smoking crack.

I really do think that this is one of those things couples should have to state in writing before getting married what the agreement is going to be. A husband-to-be should be able to voluntarily agree, before marrying, to lifetime alimony, but I think it is a bad thing to have as default in most cases. Especially in states with no-fault divorce.

I'd be curious to know the circumstances of the marriage and divorce.

Is Equality Important or Not?

Here's a woman complaining about a man wanting things to be strictly equal between them. UNFAIRLY EQUAL IN PHOENIX wrote in to Dear Abby in regards to her husband, who is the father of her dauther.

Leon is hung up on things being "equal." This can range from whose "turn" it is to do the dishes, change the diapers, put our daughter to bed -- to exactly how many days we spend with each set of parents. If we travel to see my parents, we must also travel to see his.

Isn't that what feminists said they wanted? Equality?

This "equal" obsession drives me nuts.

Yeah, I could see how it would. It often drives me nuts. But the law in community property states demands equality.

Yes, I believe men and women should be treated equally by the government as much as possible, and I try to personally treat men and women equally as human beings, but I do stick to certain traditions and it is ridiculous to pretend that there is no difference between men and women. Difference does not mean superior/inferior.

I'm fully in support of "fair," but if I'm busy making dinner, it seems to me that he could change the baby's diaper even if it's my "turn."

Or maybe you could schedule things differently. Or, contaminate dinner.

A marriage is a partnership, and I believe in picking up the slack when Leon is overwhelmed, sick or tired. Why can't he do the same for me?

If he is so obsessed with equality, than I'm sure that he picks up the slack for every time you pick up the slack, but that's it. So you are saying you are more often overwhelmed, sickened, or tired than Leon?

I wonder who earns more?

So, dear readers, what do you think about this situation?

It seems to me like an example of why potential spouses should separately write out how they expect things to be in their marriage – What would the ideal workday look like – what would happen during the course of that entire day? What would the ideal regular day off look like? What would vacation look like? What would certain holidays look like? Figure that out through every phase of the marriage... newlywed and childness, during pregnancy, with a baby, with a toddler, with an older child, with an empty nest, etc. Sure, there are unforeseen things that will have an impact on these things, but by knowing what someone's ideal expectations would be, you can compare notes to see how compatible the visions are, and what the other person's priorities are likely to be.

That is something my wife and I should have done. We only nailed down some generalities – I would be the breadwinner, she would stop working to have kids, etc. I wish we would have discussed what she was going to do with the kids when I was busy, what was going to happen when I was around, and so many other things.

Thankfully, my wife and I are not so bent on "equality".

Dear Abby responded:

Because, for whatever reason, your husband is obsessed with the idea that he's going to get the short end of the stick -- if you'll forgive the vernacular.

Maybe he is afraid she will get cheated. Maybe he's just looking out for his wife.

However, he isn't going to change until he realizes he has a problem.

So wanting gender equality in marriage is a problem? That's an interesting thing for Dear Abby say. When men suggeste certain women of having mental, social, or emotional problems for certain feminist beliefs, they were tarred and feathered.

Be Afraid

If you want a good example of how and why some men get to a point where they hate women, or distrust women, or decide not to look for a wife, or decide to insulate themselves from relying on a woman for anything, then check out this entry (and the comments) at MarkyMark's Thoughts. His blog gets a lot of traffic, and taking that into account along with the comments, it appears that this kind of experience and thinking is familiar to a lot of people. Your father, uncle, brother, or son may have had to or may yet face experiences just like the ones described. Notice that these men have the reactions they do because of what they have experienced themselves; whereas so many of the women on the other side of the coin are hostile towards or paranoid about men because their single/divorced/overbearing mothers, the media, and academia have told them to be.

For the men I'm talking abut, this isn't just a matter of "guilt by association" or prejudice along the lines of dismissing all African-Americans as criminals because you've seen a few African-American people in the news for being convicted of crimes, and you've never known an African-American on a personal level very well. Skin color does not induce criminal behavior. For some of these men, it is the women they do know personally who have sent them over the edge, with their sex (and associated ways of thinking and emoting) and socialization as a sex being an integral part of why the women behaved the way they did.

It seems that the differences between men and women are real, and it really does matter how boys are raised and how girls are raised, and it is important how men and women socialize separately and with each other. Treating men and women identically (which is not necessary in order to treat them equally) in every way makes both miserable or angry. Showing favoritism towards women while or after insisting on equality fosters bitterness. Some of the traditions we have abandoned were doing a lot of good, and haven't been replaced by suitable substitutes – perhaps because, in some cases, none exist. Walls were removed and now we're finding out in a very painful way why some of those walls were there in the first place.

In the blogosphere - one of the few places where men (and sympathetic women) can feely speak about their experiences with reasonable protection against retaliation along the levels of firing, lawsuits, divorce, false accusations of crime, assault, vandalism, etc., - you can find an awful lot of horror stories about how the culture has denigrated and penalized masculinity (and femininity as collateral damage), chivalry, men, husbands, fatherhood, and marriage, and what the consequences have been.

We can't survive as a healthy society if this is the norm for male-female interactions; when irresponsibility, incivility, and malignant narcissism are rewarded and their opposites punished. Not when it happens in gender relations, not when it happens as government policy in general. Many would say we already lost our societal health long ago.

I pray that good women and good men can somehow raise enough good women and good men in the next generation. I want each of my kids to have a realistic option of having a happy marriage, if that is what they want - and a healthy country.

Low Cost Dating

Kathy M. Kristof writes about personal finance in the Los Angeles Times. She had an article recently on low cost dates.

But a new study by [ING Direct USA] indicates that cheap dates might be dicey for guys. The reason: When asked what words they associate with a frugal blind date, women said a guy would be stingy and boring, while men thought a frugal girl would be smart and sexy.

Another example of how men and women are not interchangeable.

The tough news for guys is that this smart and sexy girl is probably going to expect her male counterpart to pick up the check, said Evan Marc Katz, a Los Angeles dating coach and author of "Why You're Still Single." That used to be because women earned considerably less than men, if they worked at all; now it's because women find a generous man nurturing.

"It's not about money per se," Katz said. "The appearance of generosity in a date is very important to women."

Right. There's always going to be some reason, isn't there? So much for equality.

Crudely speaking, in many cases, the real reason is that men want sex more than women do. Yes, there are some women, especially during certain times in their lives, that want sex more than some men. But in general, men as a group want sex more than women as a group. Exhibit A: Most the overwhelming majority of prostitution customers are male. Modern day dating (and in some cases, marriage) is often little more than prostitution. You'll find women who vehemently deny this, of course- usually the same women that will have sex with a guy they barely know if he spends money on them. (I had an instructor in college who shared a good laugh with me during his office hours when we noted which young women in class objected most strenuously to this notion.)

In the more idealistic sense, the claim by marriage-and-family-minded people who believe in traditional gender roles is that men pay for dates because they are demonstrating that they can provide for a wife. Really? Putting more debt on your credit card trying to impress a woman you barely know would indicate the opposite to me. If a woman wants to know a man can provide for a wife there are many other ways of doing that. For example, I recommend exchanging credit reports, income, and asset information before setting a wedding date.

The article goes on to give some suggestions for less expensive dates.

"If a man goes out on two dates a week, and 50% of the women don't want to see him again, he's spending a lot of money on strangers," Katz said. "There's no correlation between a good date and an expensive date. If she thinks there is, she's probably not the right person."

Right. Now, if you're with the person you’re going to marry, will there be expensive outings you'll both enjoy? Sure, because there are things both of you want to do, especially together. But a man who is dating casually with the eventual hope of getting married should save as much of his money as possible for the future. If he doesn't want to get married, then he’s going to be saving it for himself alone. A guy who is just dating for sex is better off letting the quasi-hookers move on, and instead dealing with the many women who decide whether or not they're going to have sex with a guy within five minutes of meeting him; they will do it regardless of how little he spends. In fact, they'll probabably get turned off if he spends a lot of money and tries to demonstrate that he actually cares about her.

I'm so glad I don’t have to deal with this any more. Any money I spend on a date is an investment in my marriage. I earn income, and half of it is legally my wife's. But the reality is, like most wives, she makes most of the spending decisions. She does a darn good job of stretching our dollars, too.

The Cow and Milk

At the end of her first hour today, Dr. Laura took a call from a couple who was shacking up, and had been so for ten years. To her credit (and if you check my Dr. Laura tag, you know I generally think she's great), she blamed them both, not just the man. But I wanted to go over something she said. She said that man was getting the milk without buying the cow.

I wrote about this before in this entry. But I wanted to briefly look at this again.

Among other things, this statement assumes that her company is more valuable than his. After all, it isn't just her living with him – he's also living with her without marriage. But Dr. Laura's statement, common to a lot of people, implies that she isn't getting anything out of the deal. He may be subsidizing, partially or entirely, her life. He likely is providing her with things like physical protection. He may be paying for her housing, food, clothes, entertainment, car, vacations, recreation, medical care, etc.

In some states, they are as good as married in terms of legal obligations, at least in the sense that if they parted ways, he’d be obligated to keep subsidizing her life.

Why doesn't anyone see this as him risking/giving away something, too? By only looking at this as denying her something, it appears to be a tacit admission that marriage doesn't benefit men, but does benefit women. Dr. Laura refers to marriage as him laying down his life for her, but where is the mention of what she will be sacrificing/obligating herself to by becoming a wife?

As I've said before, shacking up is a bad idea for many reasons and I advise against it. But when marriage-and-family-minded people speak out against shacking up, they should not give the impression that 1) shacking up is mainly wrong because it keeps men from being punished the way they should be; or that 2) men are of lesser value than women. If men are expected to provide compensation for sex (or even just time), then they become customers or bosses, not partners, and if that is the case, then the woman is morally obligated to give him whatever he wants (within certain limits) and he's not under the same moral obligation towards her. Is that how relationships should be?

Workin' 9 to 12?

TAKES MY JOB SERIOUSLY wrote in to Dear Abby:

I'm the supervisor of a small office. One of my biggest challenges is scheduling time off for the female employees. In my day, you didn't take a day off unless you were very sick or your child was sick. Now they seem to want time off for everything from school events, sporting events, getting their nails done, their faces waxed or tanning appointments. I am amazed at the decline in work ethic.

Some could argue that there has also been a decline in loyalty to employees. Which came first?

As I read about the unemployment in our country, I would think people would be grateful to have a well-paying job with benefits -- but the recession hasn't slowed any of our female employees down one bit. What has happened to the old-fashioned work ethic that founded this country?

The writer is female, by the way.

As far as school events – family should come before a job. However, it used to be that the parent "staying home" could attend those events, and the parent with the outside job could take time off for the really special events. As mothers have joined the professional workforce in greater numbers, they have expected the workplace culture to conform to them, rather than them conforming to the workplace culture. Plus, how many mothers have children, but not a husband? So they're the only parent that can attend these events.

But these life situations (being a mother in the workforce, not having a husband) are almost always entirely by the adult's choices, whether those choices were mostly made a long time ago or recently.

Keep this letter in mind the next time you read about a "wage gap" between men and women - especially about taking time off to tan.

Dear Abby responds:

If they choose to use the time the way you have described, it is their right to do so.

It sure is, if it is time they were assigned under company policy.

However, if they are taking more than the company offers, that could be a problem. While I understand your point, please try to be less judgmental.

She's running a business office, not a charity or social club. It's all well and good to take time off if you have it coming under company policy, but what about people who use up all of their time for playing around, then beg for leniency when they really do get sick?

Female CEOs Earn More Than Male CEOs

This ABC News report by Bianna Golodryga and Michael Murray has some good news for women.

A new report from Bloomberg News, the leading provider of business news worldwide, shows that women who head the nation's largest companies are earning substantially more than their male counterparts.

Good for them. Are there any feminist leaders upset by this inequality? Probably not. These women should be getting whatever they’ve negotiated - no more, no less. It is up to the companies.

What's more, in 2009 female CEOs got raises averaging nearly 30 percent, while male CEOs took pay cuts.

In addition to invoking the bogus general pay gap, though, the article continues...

Despite those huge salaries, there is a huge caveat: There are still very few women who have made it to the corner office when compared to the number of men in those positions of corporate power. Only 16 companies listed in the S&P 500 are run by women.

The percentage of women in those positions will increase over time- but it does take time. Most of the current CEOs for these companies launched their careers decades ago, when things were very different. I do not expect, though, that there will ever be a 50/50 split, due to the realities of human nature. Social engineering only goes so far. It is nice that women have real choices in life, but I expect that fewer women than men are going to make the choices that will take them to the top of the corporate ladder. Flip the issue though – women can make those choices and be socially supported. Men have much less of a real choice to be “stay at home” fathers.

"There's 16 women making money and that's great," says Marie Wilson of The White House Project, a women's advocacy group. "I'm concerned about the vast majority of women who are now the majority of the workforce & it's kind of like the 16 supercorporate women are doing well. And that's a good sign - but it's not good enough."

It will never ever be enough. If it was, she’d be out a of job.

The article then goes on to really push the bogus general pay gap nonsense. Can't focus on the good news, can they? Nope. Gotta try to convince women that they are getting screwed over in a way that men aren't.

In one ABC News behavior lab experiment, volunteers were told they would be paid between $5 and $12 for their time participating in a study. Everyone was offered the minimum, but the men and women differed wildly in their reactions to the payment. More than half the men asked for more money, but only a third of the women bargained for more.

Whose responsibility is it to ask for more?

See this previous entry and this previous entry on the bogus general pay gap notion.

Women Fail to Pull Their Corporate Share

Ladies, you have apparently been slacking off at the office, and as such, you have failed to reach executive positions in the top publicly traded companies in California in the numbers you "should" have.

Okay, so I'm kidding by twisting this story around in an effort to get your attention. Nathan Olivarez-Giles reports in the Los Angeles Times that top female execs in these companies are still "rare" according to a study.

Citing "a bleak picture of the progress of women in corporate leadership" over the last five years, the report said that women held just 10.6% of executive positions and board seats at the state's biggest companies this year, a slight decline over 2008.

And yet women outnumber men as students in higher education. So what is going on? Is it sexism, or are women holding themselves back (including spending too much time in higher education), or is it just taking time for women to filter up...or is it a combination of these things?

And what are the stats on women in smaller businesses, sole proprietorships, and public sector jobs? I wouldn't be surprised if women actually hold more shares of these companies than men, especially through retirement investments such as mutual funds, as women are more likely to outlive their husbands.

The survey of California's 400 largest publicly traded companies by UC Davis and a women's advocacy and networking organization found that the number of women in top leadership positions had barely budged since the study began in 2005.

What, so in four years you expected major changes?

The reasons for the stagnation are complex, said Wendy Beecham, chief executive of the Forum for Women Entrepreneurs and Executives, which helped UC Davis produce the study.

Part of the problem, she said, is that women don't always have role models or mentors to help them advance in corporate careers.

It can be worse than that. Women I know have told me they think it typical of women they work under to stab them in the back. If women are doing this more than men, they are holding each other back.

Also, she said, people tend to hire those who are like themselves.

That's what I mentioned with the filtering up. Although, smart business people like to hire someone who has skills they don't, to fill a need.

In general, smart businesspeople care most about what a person can do for the business, not their skin color, sex, or whatever, unless that is integral to the position.

The filtering up takes time, unfortunately.

Of the companies surveyed, 15, or 3.8%, have female chief executives, up from 13 in 2008, the report said. Women hold 9.8% of the 3,252 board seats at the firms.

Almost half, 46.3%, of the companies have no female directors, and 30% had no female directors or top executives.

I know I have ladies reading this blog. What do you think?

I think we'll eventually see more women in those executive positions, but I doubt it will ever be 50/50. The fact is, women carry, birth, and nurse babies – men don't; there are also other biological and socioligical factors at play. That doesn't mean there aren't (and won’t be a lot more) excellent female executives; it just means that when you are dealing with the world as a whole (or in this case, a large state), the fact that men and women are different does have an impact. Even with truly equal opportunity, not everyone is going to take opportunities in an identical way or use them in an identical way. Throw in barriers to equal opportunity, and the disparity is even more pronounced.

A Widower and Male Day Care Provider

Both of these guys recently had their letters printed in Dear Abby.

BETWEEN LOST AND FOUND wrote:

I lost my wife of 10 years after a long battle with cancer.

That is one of the worst things that can happen to someone. Ugh. The poor guy.

I am 50 and have a 10-year-old son. If it wasn't for raising my son, I don't think I'd even want to live anymore, but the good Lord gave me this job, and I want to make sure I do it well.

He's depressed. That is not unusual after what he's been through. Our lives have inherent worth regardless of whether or not we have a partner, though.

It is very lonely at times without a woman around.

Yes, that it is typical for a widower to feel that way. There are guys who live full lives without ever getting married, though. He needs to keep himself involved in things he enjoys than he can do with his kid, friends, or by himself. If he is just talking about sex and doesn't have a moral compulsion to abstain outside of marriage (which I officially endorse), then he can get snipped, make sure his sperm count is zero, and have casual encounters when his kid is at school, sports practice, or at a friend's house, so that his kid doesn't have to deal with the women. But try to avoid bringing these women back to where you live, sir, or they could be a problem for you and your son when things sour. Try to keep those casual encounters at their place.

When I do get out and meet women 40 to 50 years old and they hear I have a spoiled kid at home, they turn away.

They don't want to deal with the baggage. You son doesn't need them. He needs you. Nothing will ever replace his mother, but he needs your attention more because she isn't here.

I know at my age I should be a grandpa.

Says who? Maybe that is the way you thought your life would go, but it should have been evident when you didn't have a child until age 40 that you weren't going to be a grandfather at 50 - whether or not your wife survived.

Is there any chance for me to find another lasting love to spend the rest of my life with?

Yes. But give it time. Concentrate on your boy. He needs you. You'll make a better choice in a partner when you get some distance between the loss of your wife and when you find someone else. I think of Paul McCartney, who apparently had a wonderful marriage with Linda, and then she died, and then he expected to find something like he had with Linda again, married Heather Mills, and paid dearly for it. Lasting, happy marriages are not the norm these days, unfortunately, and if you had one happy marriage, consider yourself ahead of the odds.

Dear Abby responded:

Plenty of women would find you attractive, and not be turned off by the fact that you are raising a son. I'm talking about single women with children of their own to raise.

How about we not mess up everyone's lives more than they are already messed up? The Brady Bunch was light-hearted idealistic fiction. It rarely works out anywhere near that well. His son doesn't need the competition, the favoritism, and the drama.

PAUL FROM PENNSYLVANIA wrote:

As a child care provider for a local program in my hometown, I am often treated differently because I am a male.

That could be because of sexism. It could also be because men and women are different. There's probably a mixture of both.

If women can do anything men can -- including the same job -- shouldn't the opposite be true?

It's not really true. Men are generally physically larger and stronger and can run faster than women, and are generally unable to naturally carry a child inside of them and lactate to feed that child. Men even tend to have a different biological reaction to crying babies than women.

Do you think society will ever completely accept male teachers and child care workers?

Probably not. Teaching used to be a decidedly male profession – think seminaries. But times change. Secretaries used to be male, until typing became the norm and the hands of women proved better at typing. Some things change over the years, but some things don't.

Dear Abby responded:

Male teachers and child care workers can give fatherless children something that female teachers cannot -- a male role model with whom they can identify.

It is interesting that Dear Abby seems to think male role models are important, yet from what I've read in her columns, she doesn't think there is anything wrong with a two women deliberately bringing children into a fatherless situation. Maybe I've misread her. I'd love to be wrong about this.

While it may be good advice to encourage a single/widowed/divorced mother parenting a child with no father in the picture to seek male role models (her own father, her brother, teachers, coaches) to be a strong male presence mentoring the child, my advice to males is to avoid putting yourself in the position where you can be accused of abusing someone else's child. Men are not trusted, and the accusation alone is enough to ruin you for life. These men, especially if they have their own children to take care of, need to consider protecting themselves over the needs of someone else's child. It is sad, and if more guys took that advice there would be fewer mentors for kids, but that is the world we have created. Male teachers and coaches should never be alone with a student behind closed doors, for example – that way, it will be much more difficult to accuse them of abuse.

Sixteen Will Get You Twenty?

That's an old saying about the risks of going after "jailbait" when it comes to sex. But take a look at this:

A high school athletic trainer was placed on three years probation and ordered to perform 240 hours of community service today for having an unlawful sexual relationship with a high school student.

Harold Adam Johnson, 24, San Juan Capistrano, pleaded guilty earlier this month to six counts involving sexual contact with a minor.

He admitted he engaged in a consensual affair – including sex acts in his San Juan Capistrano home and in his car – with a student he met while working as an athletic trainer at Tustin High School in 2008.

Johnson worked at the school for about a year and worked with several athletes in different sports until he resigned in November 2008 while he was under investigation.

Superior Court Judge Gregory W. Jones accepted Johnson's guilty pleas and reduced all felony counts to misdemeanors over the objections of Deputy District Attorney Nikki Buracchio.

Buracchio contended that Johnson should sustain felony convictions, arguing that Johnson took advantage of his position of trust and engaged in a continuous course of unlawful conduct over a lengthy period of time.

Jones, however, said misdemeanor convictions were appropriate because the sexual contact was consensual, the student was 16 and 17 during the course of conduct and was a willing participant who had engaged in some deception to maintain the relationship.

The judge noted that Johnson is a college graduate on his way to a productive life and is not likely to re-offend.

Jones also said that the age of consent in most states for sexual activity is 16.

Wow. Outrageous. A slap on the wrist.

But guess what? I changed the story a little bit. I changed the perp's name and references to the perp's gender, and I removed references to the student's gender. The perp in this case was actually Hope Ashley Jacoby and the victim was a boy. Does that change anything? What if I told you that people tend to find Jacoby attractive? The paper won't even name the boy, which is strange considering the actions and words of hte judge.

I want to look at a few quotes from Larry Welborn's Orange County Register article.

She admitted she engaged in a consensual affair - including sex acts in her San Juan Capistrano home and in her car - with a male student she met while working as an athletic trainer at Tustin High School in 2008.

So can minors consent to sex with adults many years older, or not? Sure, they can consent to abortion without so much as parental notification, but haven't we always heard that minors can't consent to sex?

Jones, however, said misdemeanor convictions were appropriate because the sexual contact was consensual, the male student was 16 and 17 during the course of conduct and was a willing participant who had engaged in some deception to maintain the relationship.

I see. I would be very interested if this judge would apply the same statements if he deals with a similar case where the sexes are reversed.

The judge noted that Jacoby is a college graduate on her way to a productive life and is not likely to re-offend.

Huh? I wonder on what that is based? And plenty of college grads on their way to a productive life do things that warrant prison time.

Jones also said that the age of consent in most states for sexual activity is 16.

So what? California has medical marijuana laws, and other states don't. Different states have different laws. For example, if my wife were to divorce me after ten years, California law would give her alimony for life. I couldn't appeal to the laws of another state to avoid this. This was in California, and is subject to California laws.

Manny of the people commenting on the article on the website are livid, rightfully pointing out that there is a double standard. This woman abused her position of authority. While it is tempting for some to say "lucky boy!", the law must be applied equally, right? Sure, I just wrote about my consensual relationship with an older woman, but I was 19 when that started – it was all legal.

This kid was not old enough to deal with the possibilities of STDs, pregnancy, child support, and the emotional issues.

It looks to me like there was a vagina and/or beauty discount here as far as her punishment and what her record will be. Even if you think this was no big deal and shouldn't be a crime - do you also say that about guys who have sex with underage girls?

More Men Losing Jobs

Greg Burns wrote in the Los Angeles Times that men are suffering the brunt of layoffs.

To a much greater extent than in past recessions, men are bearing the brunt.

In December 2007, when the economy started tanking, unemployment ran nearly even at 4.4% for men and 4.3% for women. In February, that tally had shot up to 8.8% for men and 7.3% for women, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The 1.5-point spread is historic and likely to widen as the overall numbers keep soaring, said Mark Perry, an economist at the University of Michigan in Flint. "I don't see it turning yet."

I'm sure Obama will get right on this and other issues disproportionately hurting men by creating a Commission on Men and Boys. I'm so confident he will I'm going to hold my breath.

Here I go...

...

Okay, so I decided that wasn't a good idea.

A bona fide "man-cession" invites all sorts of social theories: Maybe women are cheaper to keep on the payroll because they tend to make less. Maybe women are better communicators, which helps shield them from the ax. Maybe women feel they have more to prove, so they get retained for trying harder.

Such sexism! Such stereotypes!

Since 1981, women have earned far more bachelor's degrees, collecting 135 for every 100 awarded to men, Perry said. At the master's level, the "degree gap" is an even wider 150 to 100.

So much for the patriarchy.

Counting farm labor and the self-employed, working men outnumber women by about 10 million. It's not 50-50, but it's moving that way.

Ah! And here was I just about to suggest women should take over paying for dates.

All that higher education and the economic devastation of traditional male strongholds won't make much difference in cracking a "really prevalent" glass ceiling, said Jenny Hoobler, an assistant professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago's College of Business Administration.

"As far as leadership, it doesn't translate," Hoobler said. "Women don't ascend to the top ranks."

Oooh, so that evil patriarchy does exist! What else could explain this? Certainly not the articles we've read on women taking more time off, women deciding to place family before their careers (which I applaud, if they want a family), or women sabotaging each other.

Seriously, the bottom line is that there are more men in the workforce, so more men are losing their jobs. Likewise, the "wage gap" that is touted as favoring men is almost entirely explainable without sexism.