Today’s statistical foray is into the field of 'Survivorship'. One key way that we measure the relative treatment and condition of the different races is by their relative survivorship over time – how quickly they die off as opposed to the average, and as compared to other races. Black men, for instance, are about 1/3rd less likely to make it to age 80 than white men, and that indicates to us that black men are doing about 33% less well in our society than white men.
And the same logic reasonably applies to the differential in survival rates between men and women – a black male is 50% less likely than a white woman to make it to age 80, and about 35% less likely than a black woman to achieve that age.
And it isn’t about race as much as it is about sex. Life expectancy at birth for black women has uniformly exceeded that of both white men and black men since at least the 1970s. More than your race, your sex determines when you will die.
And the problem doesn’t start at the end of life, or even at age 80. Somehow disparities in being able to care for and raise males start in the very beginning of life. Already at age one, per the survival tables, we have 240 less males per 100,000 than we do white women. Apparently there is something it about white girl babies that their odds of living are just higher. Like, maybe we take care of them better. Oh you may say “That’s just boy babies – they die more.” But if they do, shouldn’t we do something about it? And can you imagine saying something like that about girl babies? 240 out of 100,000 may not seem like a lot, but extrapolate that out to our current population of about 300,000,000, and you find that almost 400,000 of today’s potential males are missing because they died in their first year – males that perhaps could have still been around if we could take care of them as good as we do white girl-babies.
And by the time we get to the 20 year-olds, that number has almost doubled – with about 720,000 missing young men, men who might be around if we socialized and cared for our males the way we do women. But there’s more. Now we are getting into the work, marriage and divorce years. Men are getting married and then divorced, most often not by choice, and find themselves destitute, emasculated, enslaved and financially destroyed, and are also taking jobs that put their lives and health at risk - and the numbers start shooting up. By the time US men hit 45, more than 2.7 milion of them are missing. Dead. 2.7 million men in their mid 40s are dead who would be alive today if we could just do as good a job keeping them alive as we do women.
And it keeps on going up. Without going into detailed age distributions, it can be estimated that over 10 million men have died who might still be around today at age 80 – if only we could have taken as good care of them as we do women.
But instead we hear about ‘breast cancer’ and ‘ovarian cancer’ and ‘women’s heart disease’ and all manner of women’s ailments, and even more tellingly, our media is full of stories about women feeling ‘unfulfilled’ and ‘unhappy’ with their roles in life, and taking weeks and months off to renew themselves.
Few and far between are the organizations raising awareness for men’s concerns – suicide, men’s heart disease, prostate cancer, testicular cancer, penile cancer, male breast cancer, workplace hazards and the like. Where are the stories in the media about men taking months off to renew themselves after half a life of wage slavery? There aren’t many, and you won’t find Oprah, Oxygen or HGTV financing a men’s month off to get rejuvenated either. You gotta earn the money and go do it yourself.
So in case you haven’t figured it out yet, it’s a woman’s world.
Welcome to the Gynocracy
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.
(Data used for calculations in this article is from the CDC’s December 2007 National Vital Statistics Report, Vol 56, No 5 United States Life Tables, 2004 by Elizabeth Arias, PHD, and also from the historical statistical abstracts of census data maintained by the US Census Bureau)
Showing posts with label Culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Culture. Show all posts
Friday, October 09, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
W is for Why D'Ja Spoze...
There have been a number of articles on the much heavier impact of the current economic disaster on men than women. The Rights of Man directs us to a UK report that shows the impact on married/cohabiting men is twice that of women.
And why d'ja spoze that is? Why do you suppose that men are more than twice as likely to find themselves unemployed than women?
Is there any chance that it is because many of the jobs women fill are entitlement jobs, government jobs, you-can't-be-fired-from-this-one jobs, and she-has-something-on-the-boss jobs? Make-work jobs and no-show jobs? Service jobs that require just a bit less, but must be done come heck-or-high-water?
D'Ja Spoze?
But as we contemplate the reality of numbers like those in the graph here, there are others who say things like:
"In the early '70s, breaking out of the domestic cocoon, leaving their mothers' circumscribed lives behind, young women felt exhilarated and bold. But the more women have achieved, the more they seem aggrieved." Maureen Dowd in the New York Times, Sept. 19, 2009.*
and
"Many women are being charged more in health care coverage, but as we all know, women are earning less. We all know that women earn 78 cents on the dollar to every men -- to a man [sic]." Michelle Obama, First Lady (Hat tip for graph and quotes - American Thinker)
If it is so terrible to be a woman, than why d'ja spose the real numbers all seem to indicate something else? Why is it that 2/3rds of all male suicides are divorced or separated, and why is it that that number is almost exactly equal to the difference between the male and female suicide rate?
Why D'Ja Spoze?
The First Lady should know better, but perhaps in the echo chamber she lives in, she can't hear anything but the vaporings of NOW.
On the other hand Dowd is truly tone-deaf. She works in the news industry and should know that men are dying in the streets - but here she is wringing her hands about her ennui. Disgusting.
Update: Novaseeker dissects Dowd and her ennui gap here.
Brilliant line from Novaseeker: There are more widows, Maureen, in large part because men die younger than women do, and die much more often at work than women do. It's hardly a romantic advantage later in life if you are dead.
From my comment on Novaseeker's post:
Dowd is blindingly awful. How disgusting that she blathers on about her lack of happiness, her ennui, when 3x the number of men are dying of suicide as women, when men are dying earlier and in larger numbers from poor health care, when men's deaths make up 90+ percent of hazardous job deaths.
[...]
When we see black people dying in this way we attribute it to racism. I say that when men die earlier and in greater numbers, it is a result of genderism that fails to care for their needs, that drives them into dangerous jobs, and kills them off early. All while women like Dowd whine about their ennui. (spit)
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.
* I won't link the NYT or Dowd because they live in such a world of propaganda, and I don't want to send traffic their way. Probably I shouldn't link Whitehouse.Gov for the same reasons. But you can find the Dowd link at American Thinker here if you want to go wallow in it. I think you have to register to read her swill. But Novaseeker has a lot of it.
p.s. Welcome Novaseeker to the blogroll.
And why d'ja spoze that is? Why do you suppose that men are more than twice as likely to find themselves unemployed than women?
Is there any chance that it is because many of the jobs women fill are entitlement jobs, government jobs, you-can't-be-fired-from-this-one jobs, and she-has-something-on-the-boss jobs? Make-work jobs and no-show jobs? Service jobs that require just a bit less, but must be done come heck-or-high-water?
D'Ja Spoze?
But as we contemplate the reality of numbers like those in the graph here, there are others who say things like:
"In the early '70s, breaking out of the domestic cocoon, leaving their mothers' circumscribed lives behind, young women felt exhilarated and bold. But the more women have achieved, the more they seem aggrieved." Maureen Dowd in the New York Times, Sept. 19, 2009.*
and
"Many women are being charged more in health care coverage, but as we all know, women are earning less. We all know that women earn 78 cents on the dollar to every men -- to a man [sic]." Michelle Obama, First Lady (Hat tip for graph and quotes - American Thinker)
If it is so terrible to be a woman, than why d'ja spose the real numbers all seem to indicate something else? Why is it that 2/3rds of all male suicides are divorced or separated, and why is it that that number is almost exactly equal to the difference between the male and female suicide rate?
Why D'Ja Spoze?
The First Lady should know better, but perhaps in the echo chamber she lives in, she can't hear anything but the vaporings of NOW.
On the other hand Dowd is truly tone-deaf. She works in the news industry and should know that men are dying in the streets - but here she is wringing her hands about her ennui. Disgusting.
Update: Novaseeker dissects Dowd and her ennui gap here.
Brilliant line from Novaseeker: There are more widows, Maureen, in large part because men die younger than women do, and die much more often at work than women do. It's hardly a romantic advantage later in life if you are dead.
From my comment on Novaseeker's post:
Dowd is blindingly awful. How disgusting that she blathers on about her lack of happiness, her ennui, when 3x the number of men are dying of suicide as women, when men are dying earlier and in larger numbers from poor health care, when men's deaths make up 90+ percent of hazardous job deaths.
[...]
When we see black people dying in this way we attribute it to racism. I say that when men die earlier and in greater numbers, it is a result of genderism that fails to care for their needs, that drives them into dangerous jobs, and kills them off early. All while women like Dowd whine about their ennui. (spit)
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.
* I won't link the NYT or Dowd because they live in such a world of propaganda, and I don't want to send traffic their way. Probably I shouldn't link Whitehouse.Gov for the same reasons. But you can find the Dowd link at American Thinker here if you want to go wallow in it. I think you have to register to read her swill. But Novaseeker has a lot of it.
p.s. Welcome Novaseeker to the blogroll.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
F is for Feminized Field-Day
For some reason was thinking about 'Field-Day' the other day.
Now, I assume everyone knows what this is, and maybe they don't: 'Field Day' is a day of sports activity held at the end of the school year for school children - usually K-6, back in the days before they invented Middle School. (Why DID they do that anyway? Just so they could have more administrative slots?)
Anyway at Field Day, you did all of the different sports you were interested in - anyone could compete, and there were 'first, second and third/blue, red and yellow' ribbons for the winners from each grade.
There was a 100m dash, and longer runs, and relay races, and the broad jump, and the 'hop, skip and jump', and silly things like 3-legged races and wheelbarrow races. It was loads of fun.
Anyway, I now have my own kids, and attend and sometimes volunteer at the modern 'Feminized' Field Day. It is unrecognizable. First of all, it isn't held at a field. Not that no fields are available, it just wasn't that sort of thing. See now, at least for where my kids went to school, 'Field Day' is about social education.
It is about 'stop smoking', or 'drug avoidance' or 'save the earth' or 'gang awareness' or something. And there is some limited physical activity, but all just taking kids through the motions of avoiding the ciggies and dodging the pusher.
But nothing competetive. No. You go through the motions, and then line up for the next activity. Not that the kids minded hugely, it was a break from the routine, and they got to be a little physical, and get some of their energy out playing silly games.
The first time I helped at one of these things, I was like, 'OK, what do the winners get...' and I got stared at. EVERYONE is a winner. We don't give out prizes. OOHHHH.
Because competition is bad. Winning is bad. No we should prepare our children to live in a non-competetive world where the few who work take care of the rest of us.
OK, Let me know how that works out.
- Oh, wait. We're living it now, - with an economy destroyed by housing entitlements and government control of industry and banking - and soon, if we're lucky, healthcare.
...I can hardly wait.
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.
Now, I assume everyone knows what this is, and maybe they don't: 'Field Day' is a day of sports activity held at the end of the school year for school children - usually K-6, back in the days before they invented Middle School. (Why DID they do that anyway? Just so they could have more administrative slots?)
Anyway at Field Day, you did all of the different sports you were interested in - anyone could compete, and there were 'first, second and third/blue, red and yellow' ribbons for the winners from each grade.
There was a 100m dash, and longer runs, and relay races, and the broad jump, and the 'hop, skip and jump', and silly things like 3-legged races and wheelbarrow races. It was loads of fun.
Anyway, I now have my own kids, and attend and sometimes volunteer at the modern 'Feminized' Field Day. It is unrecognizable. First of all, it isn't held at a field. Not that no fields are available, it just wasn't that sort of thing. See now, at least for where my kids went to school, 'Field Day' is about social education.
It is about 'stop smoking', or 'drug avoidance' or 'save the earth' or 'gang awareness' or something. And there is some limited physical activity, but all just taking kids through the motions of avoiding the ciggies and dodging the pusher.
But nothing competetive. No. You go through the motions, and then line up for the next activity. Not that the kids minded hugely, it was a break from the routine, and they got to be a little physical, and get some of their energy out playing silly games.
The first time I helped at one of these things, I was like, 'OK, what do the winners get...' and I got stared at. EVERYONE is a winner. We don't give out prizes. OOHHHH.
Because competition is bad. Winning is bad. No we should prepare our children to live in a non-competetive world where the few who work take care of the rest of us.
OK, Let me know how that works out.
- Oh, wait. We're living it now, - with an economy destroyed by housing entitlements and government control of industry and banking - and soon, if we're lucky, healthcare.
...I can hardly wait.
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
G is for Game
Heard of 'Game'? Know what a PUA is? Know who Roissy is?
See, I'm a bit older than some, and was happy to catch my second wind (i.e. become separated from my ex) when I was flush with income and working in a big city, in circles with a lot of lovely women, -oh, and mostly I love to just chat with folks. So I didn't need 'Game', I had natural (or un-natural) 'Game'. (If you have money, and a gift for a bit of gab, what else do you need?)
But for those of you who just tuned in, and to whom these words are odd, let me bring you as up to speed as I can.
Apparently, in 2005, a book called 'The Game' by Neil Strauss was published that told a purportedly non-fictional/autobiographical tale of a man's indoctrination and ascent in a society of 'Pick Up Artists' (PUAs) - becoming an expert - who was eventually christened 'Style' (His mentor had the moniker 'Mystery'). Here's the wiki writeup, go read it, I'll wait.
Funny thing is, the whole thing reeks to me of the '70s and leisure suits, but it probably seems that way to me because I actually remember the '70s and leisure suits - and is a sign that this kind of thing has been going on for a long time now, and this is just the latest incarnation - perhaps a slightly more technical one, which relates to our increasingly complex way of living.
So basically, what Game tries to be, if I haven't missed the key points, is to treat relationships between men and women like a game, and to adjust one's actions and inputs so as to achieve certain goals - in this case, getting the woman in question into your bed - but perhaps also to engineer your relationship in such a way as to achieve maximum ongoing satisfaction.
Anyway, I am noticing more and more about 'Game' in the MRA (Men's Rights Activism) world, (like here at Oz Conservative, and here at In Mala Fide) and I think it is an expression of some people who are following to a degree the MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) paradigm. PUAs/Gamers are looking to achieve sexual satisfaction, without having to live into the standard roles that society sets for men: Alpha Male, or Wage Slave.
For a summary of Game, perhaps here is a good place to look.
Oh and Roissy? I read him as a gamer, but kind of famous, and with a game plan that can extend to longer term relationships, although his view of women is, naturally, not the most positive in the universe. (Yeah, I know; 'pot, meet kettle' - but can you blame us?) Look here for a proposed Roissy Manifesto.
What does gaming look like? Well here is a brief vid of Love Systems on Tyra Banks providing a few pointers to an awkward young fellow. Not real gaming, but you start to get an idea.
Now, there are those who criticize 'Gaming' the system from a couple points of view:
1) Isn't it unethical to pretend to be someone you are not/act in unusual ways to get somewhere with a woman - isn't it misleading?
2) Isn't this bad for the men involved, and our culture?
Now I can hear both of these criticisms, and I relate. On #1, it seems to me, a real man would be himself, no? On the other hand, when faced with a blatantly unfair 'game' where the other participants are not being anywhere near themselves (lipstick? blush? perfume? hair removal?) and are liable/likely to revert to a much scarier form once they 'have' you, perhaps 'Game' is very defensible. Especially when the culture/system we are playing into punishes long term relationships by USUALLY taking half of your assets, and potentially half of your income, and your progeny.
Wait, I saw a good comment on this lately... ...here it is, on View from the Right:
This isn't even a necessary part of 'Game', just how it can be, and often is used.
And this goal, the 'short term relationship' as the commenter above posited, is driven by the strong natural drive for sex, the danger of relationships, and also by the (sometimes accurate, sometimes not) perception of the women we meet as shallow, grasping and not worth our time - not worth the time of a long-term relationship - especially in view of the cost.
But even placing the blame for the effects of 'Gaming' for short term relationships where it belongs, what are the likely effects?
I think some form of 'Game' is natural in the relationship space, and has gone on forever. The real change is in men's realization of how deadly serious the 'Game' has become - it has changed our goals, and it is changing our culture.
And what do I think of the 'Game' providers/consultants who charge thousands to help men buff their 'game'? Sounds like a lot of money, but is it really any different that an 'image consultant' or a 'career coach'? If you have the bucks, and you think it will help, give it a shot. I'd start by reading the source materials, and saving my money. :)
Your comments and thoughts are welcome - please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
Update: Good grief: THL (a contributor to this blog) has already been big in the Roissy world, and I didn't know it. I have to set up a blog reader or something. OY! I noticed that he had gone Galt (a little background, also here), but he has also gone Truther! It's a messed up world! I don't share his trutherism views, but I want to know how to go Galt in my own life. Really. It's kind of like an economic MGTOW.
See, I'm a bit older than some, and was happy to catch my second wind (i.e. become separated from my ex) when I was flush with income and working in a big city, in circles with a lot of lovely women, -oh, and mostly I love to just chat with folks. So I didn't need 'Game', I had natural (or un-natural) 'Game'. (If you have money, and a gift for a bit of gab, what else do you need?)
But for those of you who just tuned in, and to whom these words are odd, let me bring you as up to speed as I can.
Apparently, in 2005, a book called 'The Game' by Neil Strauss was published that told a purportedly non-fictional/autobiographical tale of a man's indoctrination and ascent in a society of 'Pick Up Artists' (PUAs) - becoming an expert - who was eventually christened 'Style' (His mentor had the moniker 'Mystery'). Here's the wiki writeup, go read it, I'll wait.
Funny thing is, the whole thing reeks to me of the '70s and leisure suits, but it probably seems that way to me because I actually remember the '70s and leisure suits - and is a sign that this kind of thing has been going on for a long time now, and this is just the latest incarnation - perhaps a slightly more technical one, which relates to our increasingly complex way of living.
So basically, what Game tries to be, if I haven't missed the key points, is to treat relationships between men and women like a game, and to adjust one's actions and inputs so as to achieve certain goals - in this case, getting the woman in question into your bed - but perhaps also to engineer your relationship in such a way as to achieve maximum ongoing satisfaction.
Anyway, I am noticing more and more about 'Game' in the MRA (Men's Rights Activism) world, (like here at Oz Conservative, and here at In Mala Fide) and I think it is an expression of some people who are following to a degree the MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) paradigm. PUAs/Gamers are looking to achieve sexual satisfaction, without having to live into the standard roles that society sets for men: Alpha Male, or Wage Slave.
For a summary of Game, perhaps here is a good place to look.
Oh and Roissy? I read him as a gamer, but kind of famous, and with a game plan that can extend to longer term relationships, although his view of women is, naturally, not the most positive in the universe. (Yeah, I know; 'pot, meet kettle' - but can you blame us?) Look here for a proposed Roissy Manifesto.
What does gaming look like? Well here is a brief vid of Love Systems on Tyra Banks providing a few pointers to an awkward young fellow. Not real gaming, but you start to get an idea.
Now, there are those who criticize 'Gaming' the system from a couple points of view:
1) Isn't it unethical to pretend to be someone you are not/act in unusual ways to get somewhere with a woman - isn't it misleading?
2) Isn't this bad for the men involved, and our culture?
Now I can hear both of these criticisms, and I relate. On #1, it seems to me, a real man would be himself, no? On the other hand, when faced with a blatantly unfair 'game' where the other participants are not being anywhere near themselves (lipstick? blush? perfume? hair removal?) and are liable/likely to revert to a much scarier form once they 'have' you, perhaps 'Game' is very defensible. Especially when the culture/system we are playing into punishes long term relationships by USUALLY taking half of your assets, and potentially half of your income, and your progeny.
Wait, I saw a good comment on this lately... ...here it is, on View from the Right:
While I don't subscribe to Roissyism, I understand the viewpoint.Which brings me to point #2 - what is the net effect of 'Game' on society? Isn't it bad? I suspect it is probably bad, but I think it is unavoidable. To the degree that long term relationships with women are dangerous, men are going to persue short-term relationships instead.
The only thing the modern American (Western) girl has to offer me is sex. Which I'm not willing to pay more for than a tequila shot and a lie to the face. After the fact, what does she have to offer?
Is she going to be my life partner? No. Is she going to be my helpmate? No. Is she going to be the mother to my children? No.
Then she isn't worth 50 percent. She certainly isn't deserving of presumptive paternity (20 percent for 18 years for some bastard that isn't even mine).
We live in a culture that encourages divorce, out of some misguided need to liberate women from the "oppression" of marriage. And we have a legal system that rewards women for divorce.
Why do you think the divorce rate is so high? Why do you think that over 70 percent of divorces are filed by women, after only a few years? Why do you think it is that 1/3 of the paternity tests performed prove that the husband is not the father of the child? It couldn't possibly be that the culture and legal system make it profitable for women to divorce their husbands and commit infidelity, could it?
She gets a title, a house, a bank account, income, insurance, and guaranteed child support (regardless of who the biological father is). He gets a roommate and obligatory sex, on occasion.
Is there any other legal contract whereby one party can arbitrarily change her mind, for no reason and without penalty, and walk away with half of everything? No.
Is there any other legal contract whereby one party is required to pay child support for a third person who is not party to the contract, because the second party ran around behind his back? No.
Change the culture and change the law, if you want marriage to mean anything.
Change the culture so that women are held responsible for the consequences of their decisions and actions. Change the law so that the biological father is responsible for child support.
Unless you do that, marriage is a loser's contract for a man. Until such time, the best strategy is simply to buy her a tequila shot, lie to her face, have sex with her once, then dump her in the morning before she wakes up. Replace her with another bar slut the next night.
This isn't even a necessary part of 'Game', just how it can be, and often is used.
And this goal, the 'short term relationship' as the commenter above posited, is driven by the strong natural drive for sex, the danger of relationships, and also by the (sometimes accurate, sometimes not) perception of the women we meet as shallow, grasping and not worth our time - not worth the time of a long-term relationship - especially in view of the cost.
But even placing the blame for the effects of 'Gaming' for short term relationships where it belongs, what are the likely effects?
- Men become outwardly more adapted to charming and bedding women quickly.
- Probably more women will have children without any apparent father.
- Men will probably more often live lives that are freer of encumbrances, at least until they actually fall in love.
- Marriages will become more rare.
- Men will wait for someone who is worth committing to, rather than seeing ''sex" as being the same as "marriage".
- Perhaps, just perhaps, women will find ways to sweeten the pot - making marriage worthwhile to suitors. Dowries are seen as a primitive concept, but in a world where women can steal 'legitimately' half of a man's posessions, and enslave him for life, if a woman came to the marriage with a significant pool of assets herself that was turned over to the man, then marriage might be more attractive.
I think some form of 'Game' is natural in the relationship space, and has gone on forever. The real change is in men's realization of how deadly serious the 'Game' has become - it has changed our goals, and it is changing our culture.
And what do I think of the 'Game' providers/consultants who charge thousands to help men buff their 'game'? Sounds like a lot of money, but is it really any different that an 'image consultant' or a 'career coach'? If you have the bucks, and you think it will help, give it a shot. I'd start by reading the source materials, and saving my money. :)
Your comments and thoughts are welcome - please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
Update: Good grief: THL (a contributor to this blog) has already been big in the Roissy world, and I didn't know it. I have to set up a blog reader or something. OY! I noticed that he had gone Galt (a little background, also here), but he has also gone Truther! It's a messed up world! I don't share his trutherism views, but I want to know how to go Galt in my own life. Really. It's kind of like an economic MGTOW.
Monday, April 27, 2009
W is for “Who is Afraid of Victoria Floethe”
Ok, it is old news, but news that has been bothering me. Here we have lovely 28-year-old Victoria Floethe (Pic here) flirting and quite openly sleeping her way up the social/work ladder, most remarkably with Michael Wolff (55 years old).
The loss and destruction Victoria has left in her wake is impressive, but all she did was have affairs with married men rather openly. Imagine if she had been intent on using her wiles to obtain a permanent position as the ‘un-fireable’ female employee, or in becoming the recipient of the payout in a significant sexual harassment lawsuit? Millions of dollars in marital assets are already being sliced and diced as a result of this young sexual butterfly, but think of what she could have cost the firms that they worked for and their investors. And the thing is, this has been and continues to be a route to promotion for young women, not so much available to their male counterparts.
Many men admit to being sexually harassed in the workplace. I have encountered a good number of agressive women in the workplace, some of whom went so far as to expose their more attractive private bits to me (and, I later found out, also to my co-workers). Imagine if I were to do such a thing to a woman. I would, regardless of my age or intent, be creating an uncomfortable sexual atmosphere, and most likely, if the feelings were not mutual, would find myself charged as a sex offender, and certainly would lose my job.
For men, the office is a very dangerous place to find liaisons. For women, not so much. They are free to be as sexual as they want, and leverage it to whatever degree they can, with the assistance of lawyers if the benefits of the liason do not turn out to be lucrative enough. Meanwhile, most men are very shy about ever being alone with a woman at work, and are even careful to avoid women at work for fear of the many penalties they may pay.
I will not judge Victoria, although I do not think that her behavior was the best. What I do judge is the culture that makes male sexuality something to be supressed at all costs – making the office another place where men must live in fear at all times, while women reign supreme.
-M
Oh, never answered my own question. Who is Afraid of Victoria Floethe? We all are, all MEN that is.
The loss and destruction Victoria has left in her wake is impressive, but all she did was have affairs with married men rather openly. Imagine if she had been intent on using her wiles to obtain a permanent position as the ‘un-fireable’ female employee, or in becoming the recipient of the payout in a significant sexual harassment lawsuit? Millions of dollars in marital assets are already being sliced and diced as a result of this young sexual butterfly, but think of what she could have cost the firms that they worked for and their investors. And the thing is, this has been and continues to be a route to promotion for young women, not so much available to their male counterparts.
Many men admit to being sexually harassed in the workplace. I have encountered a good number of agressive women in the workplace, some of whom went so far as to expose their more attractive private bits to me (and, I later found out, also to my co-workers). Imagine if I were to do such a thing to a woman. I would, regardless of my age or intent, be creating an uncomfortable sexual atmosphere, and most likely, if the feelings were not mutual, would find myself charged as a sex offender, and certainly would lose my job.
For men, the office is a very dangerous place to find liaisons. For women, not so much. They are free to be as sexual as they want, and leverage it to whatever degree they can, with the assistance of lawyers if the benefits of the liason do not turn out to be lucrative enough. Meanwhile, most men are very shy about ever being alone with a woman at work, and are even careful to avoid women at work for fear of the many penalties they may pay.
I will not judge Victoria, although I do not think that her behavior was the best. What I do judge is the culture that makes male sexuality something to be supressed at all costs – making the office another place where men must live in fear at all times, while women reign supreme.
-M
Oh, never answered my own question. Who is Afraid of Victoria Floethe? We all are, all MEN that is.
Monday, August 06, 2007
E is for Effect, as in ‘Cause And’
Traditionally Men work longer hours than women, at hard dangerous jobs, with less leave, in order to:
* win improved lifestyle
* win improved choice in mates
* win ability to have offspring
* win improved outcomes for offspring
* win comfortable retirement
* win ability to leave legacy to offspring
But today’s misandrist legal/social systems take away:
* Lifestyle – if you even date a woman, she can claim you said you would support her, and she gets a significant portion of your income for an indefinite amount of time.
* Mates – lacking assets or disposable income post legal action, men have reduced choice in mates.
* Offspring – legal action awards children to ex-wives/partners leaving men without children, and as children are used as weapons against men, with reduced desire to have more children, not to mention with reduced financial resources to rear children. They simply cannot afford them.
* Offspring Positive Outcomes – It has been very well documented that children from broken families do less well, especially in homes lacking a father. Funds transferred to the woman via the legal system are often spent for her comfort, and not for the care of the children.
* Comfortable Retirement – Retirement assets are subject to marital division, and can also be raided to create the funds demanded for the woman by the legal system. And as the man’s income is likely severely impacted by divorce/palimony, it is much harder post-legal action, for him to save for retirement. He is lucky if he can just get by.
* Legacy – As the man’s assets are pillaged in divorce, along with his retirement savings, and his future income, it is very unlikely that he will be able to leave any sort of legacy to the children who likely have been forcibly separated from him.
So, the benefits of the male work ethic of the 19th and 20th century have been eroded so as to make them almost nonexistent, especially when you tack on a significant tax rate.
I think that the impacts of this are many-sided, and far reaching, including:
Male-Female Relations:
* As the man has become not just disposable, but a cash-cow to women, men will be less interested in relationships, and so women must try harder to lure men with increasingly sexualized behavior, dress and body modifications (such as breast enlargement).
* Some women will use money as an incentive to men to enter into relationships with them – advertising that they don’t need the man’s money and he can feel safe. And how to advertise? Expensive clothing and jewelry.
* Meanwhile as relationships with women are hazardous, men are more likely to engage in anonymous or pseudonymous one-night-stands or brief affairs, where women are brought, not home, but to a hotel.
* Women having become ‘the enemy’, men are much less likely to include women in their social groups or outings, instead seeking company that they can relax, and be safe and stress-free with.
All these reactions to the elevation of women above men in the legal system tend to increase the objectification of women, and increase division between the sexes. A women’s movement that started out claiming it wanted equality and moved to superiority is now driving men and women back into behaviors that they claimed to abhor.
Economic:
* Men are much, much less likely to seek high-power jobs, or take on ambitious projects, knowing that they can get trapped in a very high-stress job, with all the income going to an ex-spouse or partner.
* Men are more likely to leave for countries that will not enslave them. (And as we know, many do and have.)
* Men are more likely to opt-out of the above-ground economy, working under the table or for cash jobs that are hard to attach to.
* Men may begin hiding their friends, and their friend’s assets from abusive spouses and girlfriends, and from the police that are sent to enforce unfair judgments.
* Young men raised in households without fathers are even less likely to pick up a strong male work-ethic, and instead are likely to live on the margins of society.
The economic reactions to the elevation of women above men in the legal system injure our economy, with workers choosing underemployment, black-market employment, or leaving the country entirely to take their labor elsewhere.
Both of these sets of reactions seem potentially to be things that can feed back upon themselves, with women needing to become more and more ‘sexy’ to get noticed, and men who do work to their full advantage within the legal/economic system being disadvantaged, compared to those working on the black market, or scraping by 'on the dole' rather than having it all taken away anyway.
And is this a picture of our culture today? Increasing sexualization of women, with men becoming more and more shiftless, as the economics of marriage and even mid-term relationships make it impossible to hang onto your freedom, your income, and your assets? With highly motivated men living double lives - one life for the aquisition of money and power, and another life of anonymity, to protect what is gathered? Is this the country we want?
It certainly looks like where we may be going.
* win improved lifestyle
* win improved choice in mates
* win ability to have offspring
* win improved outcomes for offspring
* win comfortable retirement
* win ability to leave legacy to offspring
But today’s misandrist legal/social systems take away:
* Lifestyle – if you even date a woman, she can claim you said you would support her, and she gets a significant portion of your income for an indefinite amount of time.
* Mates – lacking assets or disposable income post legal action, men have reduced choice in mates.
* Offspring – legal action awards children to ex-wives/partners leaving men without children, and as children are used as weapons against men, with reduced desire to have more children, not to mention with reduced financial resources to rear children. They simply cannot afford them.
* Offspring Positive Outcomes – It has been very well documented that children from broken families do less well, especially in homes lacking a father. Funds transferred to the woman via the legal system are often spent for her comfort, and not for the care of the children.
* Comfortable Retirement – Retirement assets are subject to marital division, and can also be raided to create the funds demanded for the woman by the legal system. And as the man’s income is likely severely impacted by divorce/palimony, it is much harder post-legal action, for him to save for retirement. He is lucky if he can just get by.
* Legacy – As the man’s assets are pillaged in divorce, along with his retirement savings, and his future income, it is very unlikely that he will be able to leave any sort of legacy to the children who likely have been forcibly separated from him.
So, the benefits of the male work ethic of the 19th and 20th century have been eroded so as to make them almost nonexistent, especially when you tack on a significant tax rate.
I think that the impacts of this are many-sided, and far reaching, including:
Male-Female Relations:
* As the man has become not just disposable, but a cash-cow to women, men will be less interested in relationships, and so women must try harder to lure men with increasingly sexualized behavior, dress and body modifications (such as breast enlargement).
* Some women will use money as an incentive to men to enter into relationships with them – advertising that they don’t need the man’s money and he can feel safe. And how to advertise? Expensive clothing and jewelry.
* Meanwhile as relationships with women are hazardous, men are more likely to engage in anonymous or pseudonymous one-night-stands or brief affairs, where women are brought, not home, but to a hotel.
* Women having become ‘the enemy’, men are much less likely to include women in their social groups or outings, instead seeking company that they can relax, and be safe and stress-free with.
All these reactions to the elevation of women above men in the legal system tend to increase the objectification of women, and increase division between the sexes. A women’s movement that started out claiming it wanted equality and moved to superiority is now driving men and women back into behaviors that they claimed to abhor.
Economic:
* Men are much, much less likely to seek high-power jobs, or take on ambitious projects, knowing that they can get trapped in a very high-stress job, with all the income going to an ex-spouse or partner.
* Men are more likely to leave for countries that will not enslave them. (And as we know, many do and have.)
* Men are more likely to opt-out of the above-ground economy, working under the table or for cash jobs that are hard to attach to.
* Men may begin hiding their friends, and their friend’s assets from abusive spouses and girlfriends, and from the police that are sent to enforce unfair judgments.
* Young men raised in households without fathers are even less likely to pick up a strong male work-ethic, and instead are likely to live on the margins of society.
The economic reactions to the elevation of women above men in the legal system injure our economy, with workers choosing underemployment, black-market employment, or leaving the country entirely to take their labor elsewhere.
Both of these sets of reactions seem potentially to be things that can feed back upon themselves, with women needing to become more and more ‘sexy’ to get noticed, and men who do work to their full advantage within the legal/economic system being disadvantaged, compared to those working on the black market, or scraping by 'on the dole' rather than having it all taken away anyway.
And is this a picture of our culture today? Increasing sexualization of women, with men becoming more and more shiftless, as the economics of marriage and even mid-term relationships make it impossible to hang onto your freedom, your income, and your assets? With highly motivated men living double lives - one life for the aquisition of money and power, and another life of anonymity, to protect what is gathered? Is this the country we want?
It certainly looks like where we may be going.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)