when the status quo frustrates.

If this is the pool of men in the market for a cow, then giving away the milk doesn’t seem like a bad idea.

Wednesday, October 18th, 2006

Ever helpful MSN is back in the blaming game with an article called “Afraid to Commit: Young Men Want to Wait On Marriage,” based on a study by our old friend David Popenoe. From the collective data of 60 entire men, David Popenoe has once again concluded that we’re going to hell in a handbasket. This can, of course, be mostly blamed on women.

This being MSN, it had to prechew the results for us by formatting them in their patented Top Integer Number List style.

Reasons one and two: The cows have been giving away their milk for free.

Reason 1: Men can get sex without marriage more easily than in times past… Though men want to become friends with a woman before becoming seriously involved, casual sex, they said, is easy to come by.

Reason 2: Men can enjoy the benefits of having a wife by cohabiting rather than marrying.
Men think living together is a good way to test out a marriage prospect. They also view living together as less risky than marriage. At the same time, the men in the study like the convenience of having a regular sex partner. And several said they appreciate the domestic benefits of cohabitation, and the ability to share expenses, but thought marriage unnecessary at this point in life.

Reasons 3 is that those cows who are not giving it away for free are only selling it to get your debit card number and take you to the cleaners.

Reasons 4 through 10 are that men want to have their cake and eat it too and our permissive society isn’t pressuring them enough. Seriously, maybe they shouldn’t have put #5 and #6 quite so close together- it doesn’t reflect well on the guys in the survey.

Reason 5: Men fear that marriage will require too many changes and compromises. The men savor their freedom to enjoy hobbies, late nights out and freedom from extra financial burdens. They want to postpone absorbing extra responsibilities until they are on extra-solid footing in a number of areas.

Reason 6:Men are waiting for the perfect soul mate and she hasn’t yet appeared.
A soul mate, the men said, is a woman who accepts them just as they are and won’t try to change them. The men said they don’t want to settle for second-best. In some cases, the men even said they were living with a woman who was their version of a second-best partner. These men are continuing to hunt for the perfect soul mate.

Damn you, girls, for not being perfect enough to lure these fine young men into marriage!

What do men have to say about this? Well, the survey apparently recruited heavily from Men’s News Daily readers:

“You should have an article on why divorced men will not marry again. The responses would be very interesting. For example:

* They’ve already been taken to the cleaners at least once by a prior wife.
* If a woman has kids, she really has no use for a man. She’s got the house, the BMW, the kids, and his support and alimony.
* The women of today have taken the place of the man from yesteryear. They are today what they thought men were 40 years ago.
* They run the risk of meeting a female divorce attorney.

I’m not bitter, just realistic.”
_________
“It is no surprise that young men are unwilling to commit to marry when their partners are willing to live with them and provide sexual and domestic services. The old and crude adage is still true: ‘Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?’”
_________
“You forgot this reason: Getting raked over the coals for child support should divorce occur. The current system does not judge each circumstance on a case-by-case basis, and guys usually end up having their financial lives destroyed. In my opinion, men should refuse to marry until the insanity of the legal system is removed.”

Excuse me while I fail to wail and gnash my teeth in dispair over the plight of the young single man. When he grows up send him back and maybe I’ll marry him then.

A News Item Safely Reduced to the Term “Horseshit”

Wednesday, October 18th, 2006

“Evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics expects a genetic upper class and a dim-witted underclass to emerge” in 100,000 years’ time.

But in the nearer future, humans will evolve in 1,000 years into giants between 6ft and 7ft tall, he predicts, while life-spans will have extended to 120 years, Dr Curry claims.

Physical appearance, driven by indicators of health, youth and fertility, will improve, he says, while men will exhibit symmetrical facial features, look athletic, and have squarer jaws, deeper voices and bigger penises.

Women, on the other hand, will develop lighter, smooth, hairless skin, large clear eyes, pert breasts, glossy hair, and even features, he adds. Racial differences will be ironed out by interbreeding, producing a uniform race of coffee-coloured people.

Dear Madonna and Brangelina,

Tuesday, October 17th, 2006

Third World countries are not animal shelters.

With love,

McBoing

Veiling (discussions by white people who don’t know what they’re talking about) sucks

Tuesday, October 17th, 2006

Reading this thread at Feministe made several highly salient points magically appear in my head about the Veiling Debate that’s been going on:

1) Why am I the only white person in the world it seems who knows that muslim women are not actually commanded by their religion to veil in front of children – which means she’s veiling to avoid the male gaze of her colleagues not the children – according to the Quran? I’m pretty sure I read a english translation of the Quran at some point unless I secretly learned arabic without me realising, so I’m kinda shocked to see so many people who are so utterly unclear about that point, I’d assume it’d be like having at least a passing knowledge of the bible – sort of fundamental to commenting about islam and most of the geo-political hoo-haa surrounding the various islamophobic pogroms really.

2) Last I checked it was illegal for a woman to wander around without a top on in most american states, where are the legions of anti-mandatory-chest-covering protestors? It’s the same principle and I really could have done with out the mandatory bra + shirt combo I had no choice about wearing back in the summer – covered breasts do also seem to send crazies (like ann althouse or John “The Pedobear” Derbyshire) into a complete tizzy so it would save everyone a lot of trouble really because so many people freak out at covered chests and just can’t stop staring for some reason.

Oh, and it’s fucked up to ingringe on people’s personal liberty to wear whatever the hell they like or not just because some crazy white asshole finds something offensive – like that’s anyone’s problem but their own.

3) If a class of 6 – 12 year olds needs to see the teachers lips to understand her (which I’m sure has nothing to do with a presumption by anyone about her ability to speak english – because I’m sure everyone knows that like all most (innit!) british muslims she speaks english better and more eloquently than pretty much any and all canadians ever will), then I assume she has the training to deal with a special ed class and when she say “the kids can understand me fine” (as she has done) we can pretty much take her word on it – and if she’s teaching deaf kids she should need to be able to sign anyway and that she wears a niqab is an incidental side note that isn’t really relevent.

But having said all that, I really do have to agree with all the rest of the knee jerk white reationaries that it’s about time Britain and America both started to deal with the scandal that is muslims wearing hoods on their head. (more…)

The Ultimate Epistemological Question

Tuesday, October 17th, 2006

Will Brangelina last?

From unformed plastic to mighty douchebag: the begining and the end of the path of the angry divorced guy

Monday, October 16th, 2006

A couple of weeks ago, my school’s paper treated me to a delightful September suprise: a series of opinion articles about feminism. Notable campus feminists “Jon the English Major” and “Matt the Magazine Journalism Major” graced us with their opinions on feminism (conclusion, it could use a make-over; have we considered taking Jon’s girlfriend as sort of a model for the perfect feminist?) It was too adorable for words, especially the imaginary conversation Jon’s girlfriend had with the evil “matriarchists” who were trying to tempt her away from Jon for sex with random men. But Jon’s girlfriend was having none of that – she’s a Sensible Feminist. She treats the radical lesbian fornicators to a prim little speech and is rewarded with an engagement to Jon and they lived happily ever after until they had kids and all of the sudden she finds that Jon wasn’t as much a feminist as he said when they were dating.

But that’s for later.

It could have been worse for Jon’s girl. Men’s News Daily brings us the tragic story of Shaun’s girlfriend, The Girl Who Didn’t Resist Feminism’s Siren Song and Therefore Lost a Boyfriend.

I began to see just how serious the matter really was when I began dating a Knox student in my Junior year. She was a freshman and really was a nice girl; I counted myself very fortunate to have met her. That she had some feminist tendencies did not bother me, because she was a moderate compared to everyone else in her suite.

Over time, the influence of her radical friends had its impact on her…[insert standard "Vagina Monologues showed me the evils of feminism" boilerplate testimony #6]…

I eventually broke up with her.

That’s right, girls. Sure, it seems so harmless…a one woman play here, going to see a performance artist or to the show for a feminist photographer, maybe even a trip to the Big City to see that Vagina Monologue play everyone keeps talking about. Then the next thing you know you’ve tried out a few arguments from your Intro to Women’s Studies textbook of excerpts from essays by notable feminists on your boyfriend and he up and leaves you. Well, you can kind of see his point, can’t you? And of course now that you’ve been tainted by the tainting taint of feminism, no real man will ever want you again and you have no choice but to purchase a vibrator get practicing for the next Student NOW meeting/lesbian feminist orgy. And not the sexy kind of lesbian orgy, either. This will be the kind that involves actual lesbians. Well, that’s what you get for trying out new ideas in college. What did you think would happen?

Anyway, back to Shaun. Standard bitch – blah blah blah, was totally progressive blah blah bitch went too far blah blah forced by their unreasonaing hatred to adopt reactionary views at a tragically young age blah blah blah Y’all coulda had this but now you’ll have NOTHNG blah blah I’m taking my ball and going home. Why do we care about Shaun? Well, we don’t, but David R. Usher does.
(more…)

I think Hugo’s looking for a chest-off

Monday, October 16th, 2006

I’m so heading down to the gym so I can pwn him.

Grr.

The Lamont fade

Sunday, October 15th, 2006

I won’t say I’m sad he hasn’t dominated every headline of some of the biggest blogs on the ‘net, but it really does appear Ned Lamont has failed to distinguish himself since the Democratic primary.

Maybe it’s the fault of poor media coverage; I suppose the zesty thrill of an early season upset was more appealing to the newshounds before the Democrats looked ready to take the House of Representatives and Tom Foley was exposed as a predator.

Could it be the fault of the bloggers? It certainly hasn’t been the firestorm it once was. Given that it will be harder for Lamont to win the general election than it was the primary, I admit I am surprised by the downturn in attention.

Perhaps it’s actually Lamont’s fault. He needed to do or say something daring to bring back the focus that would inevitably fade, but he seems to be going through the standard motions, almost like he’s the incumbent. Surely he and/or his people had to realize that they were going to need to find creative new solutions to reclaim the spotlight that would fade after the inevitable post-primary lull. Why didn’t they take any risks?

Lamont looks like anything but the favorite next month, which means Holy Joe should keep his Senate seat, only this time without the Democrat label next to his name. Like many of you, I am glad he won’t be able to act like he speaks for our party. I never want to see a Democrat willingly receive the spittle of this president again. But I will mourn the structural loss of a Senate seat, especially if we come up just short of taking both houses, which would’ve really shaken things up in DC.

It’ll be a bittersweet situation, unless Lamont can somehow pull off a shocker (no, not that kind of shocker). We can be relieved and a little disappointed all at once. Fortunately, even if Reid buckles and hands Joey most of his seniority perks back, this race should have a powerful effect on those who are considering breaking from the party while still dressing in its “D.”

If he loses, Lamont will have to look in the mirror and wonder if he pulled out all the stops he could’ve to regain his momentum. Fortunately for him, it’ll be a mirror in a great big mansion built on top of a pile of money. So he’s got that going for him.

Democrican? Republocrat? Either way, he’s definitely the underdog!

Sunday, October 15th, 2006

Today, the Christian Science Monitor ran a lovely puff piece on Michael Steele’s GOP Senate campaign in Maryland. In it, they use the word “underdog” in the title and later in the text of the article, because we all know how much Americans love to root for the underdog. Of course, they *kinda* forgot to mention the hubbub over this Republican putting up signs with “Democrat” under his name, which might explain why he’s polling within striking distance.

Devious as that seems, it’s definitely a smart and effective strategy — to a certain point. Methinks when voters actually see the “R” next to Steele’s name in the booth, they’ll probably be less likely to assert their support for him. Heck, some of them might be angry he decided to switch sides.

This is what Civil Discourse looks like

Sunday, October 15th, 2006

Like the guy at the end asks “are you on our side or theres?”

Which I find is never a bad question to ask yourself. (via)

30,000 in perspective

Saturday, October 14th, 2006

1*
If you admitted you killed 1 person in Texas, and it turned out you falsified your claims that this person was out to get you and had weapons they intended to use against you, Governor George W Bush would happily have had you executed.
2
3
4
5
6
7*
Charles Manson was convicted for 7 murders. He probably committed more, but not 29,993 more.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22*
Ted Bundy committed 22 murders of which we are certain.
23
24
25
(more…)

Saturday Random Flickr Pics, the “In honor of Habeas Corpus” dub

Saturday, October 14th, 2006

Everytime I do some perfectly innocent search through flickr (in this case the word used was “DUH”) I get the unconnected weirdness.

(more…)