The Gadget of my Dreams?
I was poking around on Amazon.com this morning and found the gadget of my dreams--okay, I was actually going there to buy some books--but a recommendation popped up for the Garmin Forerunner 305 Wrist-Mounted GPS Navigator and Personal Training Device with Heart Rate Monitor
and I had to take a look. Why? Because I have both a bad heart and a lousy sense of direction and I had to see what kind of technology was available that would address both of these shortcomings. Here is what I found out:
So for runners and for me--a walker--it apparently tracks one's heart rate and other exercise stats and also marks one's location and provides a simple map that displays your current direction and path. That sounds pretty amazing if it really works. I would love to have one of these devices for traveling or when I am not familiar with an area I want to walk in.
Before I spend a couple of hundred dollars on such a device, has anyone out there used this thing or something like it, or do you have any other suggestions for GPS gadgets?
Update: What I really need is a GPS system for my car--does anyone know a good one they can recommend that is easy to use?
and I had to take a look. Why? Because I have both a bad heart and a lousy sense of direction and I had to see what kind of technology was available that would address both of these shortcomings. Here is what I found out: Just when you thought Garmin had cornered the market on powerful, affordable, and effective wrist-mounted GPS devices, here comes the Forerunner 305. The release of this device is a major achievement from a design and technology perspective. This isn't just marketing-speak; the Forerunner 305 is the most accurate, most reliable wrist-mounted performance and GPS tracking tool we've ever tested. Yes, it's that good.
So for runners and for me--a walker--it apparently tracks one's heart rate and other exercise stats and also marks one's location and provides a simple map that displays your current direction and path. That sounds pretty amazing if it really works. I would love to have one of these devices for traveling or when I am not familiar with an area I want to walk in.
Before I spend a couple of hundred dollars on such a device, has anyone out there used this thing or something like it, or do you have any other suggestions for GPS gadgets?
Update: What I really need is a GPS system for my car--does anyone know a good one they can recommend that is easy to use?
Pajamas Media on XM
Pajamas Media (who host the Glenn and Helen Show podcast) will have an hour long show on XM Satellite Radio:
If you have XM, catch the show on Thurdays at 6 PM Eastern/3 PM Pacific and hear what we have to say.
Pajamas Media is proud to announce PJM Political - our new weekly presidential campaign talk show - premiering Thursday, September 27 at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific on XM Satellite Radio�s P.O.T.U.S. �08 Channel 130. (P.O.T.U.S. �08 - President of the United States - is XM�s new non-subscription channel dedicated to the campaign. Those without XM will be able to get the show as a podcast on PJM or at Blog Talk Radio.)
Participating in the debut one-hour show: Michael Barone, Austin Bay, Bill Bradley, David Corn, Ed Driscoll, Jonah Goldberg, Jack Goldsmith, Jeff Goldstein, Stephen Green, James Lileks, Richard Miniter, John Podhoretz, Glenn Reynolds, Helen Smith and Roger L. Simon.
If you have XM, catch the show on Thurdays at 6 PM Eastern/3 PM Pacific and hear what we have to say.
DADvocate has some interesting thoughts on the recent "Happiness" study showing women to be less happy than men.
Dutiful Sons
I recently wrote a post about the book Microtrends: The Small Forces Behind Tomorrow's Big Changes.
The book is chockfull of data on various trends in the US that are kind of under the radar, trends that no one really notices but that are very important. One of these trends is dutiful sons who are caregivers to their parents.
Now, most of the time when we hear about caregivers to parents, we are told that women are shouldering the burden of this work. In fact, there is a recent study showing that women are unhappy and one of the reasons is that they are not engaging in pleasurable activities. An example given is that when women are with their parents they are unhappy because they see it like a job (paying bills for parents, etc.) whereas men are just out to have a good time. Yeah, whatever...
The implication is that men just see their families, especially parents as a "good time" (although frankly, maybe this is a better attitude) while women care for their aging parents in droves that should qualify them for sainthood. But quietly and without complaining, men around the US are taking care of their parents and in record numbers, yet no one cares.
Even Mark Penn, the author of Microtrends has to explain that women are tops in this area before turning to the caretaking men. "Clearly, the bulk of the caregiving burden in America falls to women," he laments. However, the next paragraph belies the implication that men do not shoulder much of the responsibiity of their parents' care:
The book gives various reasons that sons are caring for parents, and it makes several interesting points. Male caregivers more often help other men--35 percent compared to only 28 percent of caregiving women who do. Male caregivers tend not to suspend or cut back on work, and they are much more likely (60 to 41 percent) to be working full-time, and the men often choose their situation, moreso than women. Almost two-thirds say they had a choice in the matter, compared to fewer than 3 in 5 women.
The book points out that maybe men have gotten a bad rap when it comes to taking care of their parents--gee, do ya think? Women often go on about how lazy men are or how they won't help out but if almost 40% of parental caretakers are men and many of them have full-time jobs, that seems like a lot of work to me. Plus, men are taking care of other men, I wonder why? Are women less willing to help fathers as they are mothers? Or do sons prefer to help fathers or do they do it because no one else will?
I can think of several men that I know who have sole caretaking duties for their parents, I am sure most of us can. So the next time you hear that men just look out for themselves and engage only in pleasurable activities that suit themselves, remember to check out the facts, they are often different than they appear.
The book is chockfull of data on various trends in the US that are kind of under the radar, trends that no one really notices but that are very important. One of these trends is dutiful sons who are caregivers to their parents. Now, most of the time when we hear about caregivers to parents, we are told that women are shouldering the burden of this work. In fact, there is a recent study showing that women are unhappy and one of the reasons is that they are not engaging in pleasurable activities. An example given is that when women are with their parents they are unhappy because they see it like a job (paying bills for parents, etc.) whereas men are just out to have a good time. Yeah, whatever...
The implication is that men just see their families, especially parents as a "good time" (although frankly, maybe this is a better attitude) while women care for their aging parents in droves that should qualify them for sainthood. But quietly and without complaining, men around the US are taking care of their parents and in record numbers, yet no one cares.
Even Mark Penn, the author of Microtrends has to explain that women are tops in this area before turning to the caretaking men. "Clearly, the bulk of the caregiving burden in America falls to women," he laments. However, the next paragraph belies the implication that men do not shoulder much of the responsibiity of their parents' care:
According to a 2004 study by the National Alliance for Caregiving and the AARP, nearly 40 percent of the 44 million people in America who provide unpaid care to infirm adults are men. That's about 17 million sons, sons-in-law, nephews, brothers and husbands caring for loved ones in their "spare" time. Throughout the 1990's, the fastest-growing group of relations providing care to chronically diabled adults was sons.
The book gives various reasons that sons are caring for parents, and it makes several interesting points. Male caregivers more often help other men--35 percent compared to only 28 percent of caregiving women who do. Male caregivers tend not to suspend or cut back on work, and they are much more likely (60 to 41 percent) to be working full-time, and the men often choose their situation, moreso than women. Almost two-thirds say they had a choice in the matter, compared to fewer than 3 in 5 women.
The book points out that maybe men have gotten a bad rap when it comes to taking care of their parents--gee, do ya think? Women often go on about how lazy men are or how they won't help out but if almost 40% of parental caretakers are men and many of them have full-time jobs, that seems like a lot of work to me. Plus, men are taking care of other men, I wonder why? Are women less willing to help fathers as they are mothers? Or do sons prefer to help fathers or do they do it because no one else will?
I can think of several men that I know who have sole caretaking duties for their parents, I am sure most of us can. So the next time you hear that men just look out for themselves and engage only in pleasurable activities that suit themselves, remember to check out the facts, they are often different than they appear.
Kill Your Husband--Get a House and Car
So Mary Winkler, the woman who shot her husband, Matthew in the back has been granted supervised visits with her children by a judge:
Not only will this murderess get supervised visits with the kids, but now her enabling community has provided her with some goodies, just to show their support!
What, the car wasn't good enough for her and she had to trade it in for a sports utility vehicle? Well, why not? Nothing's too good for Mary! It's hard to know who is sicker, Mary or her community.
HUNTINGDON, Tenn. - Carroll County Chancellor Ron Harmon ruled Wednesday night that a woman who fatally shot her minister husband could have supervised visitation of their three daughters.
Although Mary Winkler was denied custody, she will be allowed to visit the girls ages 10, 8 and 2 under supervised conditions. She can also talk to them on the phone every other day.
Winkler is on probation after serving about seven months in jail for shooting Matthew Winkler.
Not only will this murderess get supervised visits with the kids, but now her enabling community has provided her with some goodies, just to show their support!
Mary Winkler's supporters such as Kathy Thompson are helping her make a new home for herself.
"She's asked for forgiveness," Thompson said. "It's our duty. The Bible tells us, if we don't forgive others God won't forgive us. So we're just trying to pick up pieces and go on."
Winkler said the community has reached out to her, giving her everything from a five -bedroom home to live in for $150 to a car she's traded in for a sports utility vehicle.
What, the car wasn't good enough for her and she had to trade it in for a sports utility vehicle? Well, why not? Nothing's too good for Mary! It's hard to know who is sicker, Mary or her community.
"Producing even-handed research in this atmosphere is going to be an uphill battle."
Ironshrink responds to a question asking what he thinks about the recent study Neurocognitive Correlates of Liberalism and Conservatism:
Read the whole thing.
I�ve never gone for conspiracy theories. Globalization paranoia and 9/11 cover-ups bore me. But I�m beginning to wonder if there is a conspiracy brewing amongst my colleagues. It seems that some of them have declared war on conservatives..
Read the whole thing.
It's good to see that at least some of the students and faculty at Columbia have enough sense to protest against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking at their university:
Since Columbia is so enamored with criminals and murderers, perhaps they should invite OJ Simpson to be a guess speaker on domestic violence. I'm sure Columbia could learn a lot from what he has to say.
�I don�t mind giving a platform to people with different views, but when someone has consistently made a mockery of free speech in the way that Ahmadinejad has, it�s difficult for me to rationalize giving him a platform here at a great institution like Columbia,� said one student. �I�ve come out to protest that."
�I think the man is immoral. I think he�s a criminal,� said a community member. �It�s outrageous for Columbia to give him a forum. A man who is sponsoring terrorism and killing our soldiers in Iraq; I think it�s insane.�
Since Columbia is so enamored with criminals and murderers, perhaps they should invite OJ Simpson to be a guess speaker on domestic violence. I'm sure Columbia could learn a lot from what he has to say.
Sunday Reading
The Carnival of the Insanities is up at Dr. Sanity's place. Also, the Moderate Voice has a good round-up of links from various viewpoints around the blogosphere.
Sex and the Blind Date: A Case Of Intolerance of Ambiguity
Do you ever read some of the social science studies and wonder, "how the heck would these "findings" hold up in real life---you know outside of the researcher's narrow world of college students and college campuses?" I was wondering about this issue as I caught part of the show Blind Date
yesterday. If you have never watched this show, it has host Roger Lodge narrating a couple's date as they meet, go out and then discuss their impressions of the person they were fixed up with. Clips of the date are shown and snarky "Therapist Joe" has pop-up commentary throughout the date as to what the people are supposedly thinking and/or feeling as they go through the (usually) awkward moments of gettting to know each other.
On the show I saw, a pretty 25-year-old woman--didn't catch her name--is going out with 22-year old "rocker" Uzi (I only remembered his name because it was so unusual) who is covered in tattoos and has long hair. The young woman is very much into goth, music and superficiality. She hangs on Uzi's every word, not because she is interested in him as a person, but because she likes musicians. When Uzi asks what kind of man she is looking for, she states, "someone who has long hair, plays in a band, and wears cool combat boots, like you." Uzi quickly picks up on the woman's lack of interest in a "real" relationship and concludes that the woman is just trying to get him into the sack which leaves him feeling that she is not listening to him as a person but rather, sees him as a representation of what she is looking for--a cool rocker guy who she can play groupie with. Uzi is not interested.
Okay, so now you have the set-up for a real-life ambiguous situation--Uzi looks the part of a wild rocker who likes to party and screw but he is not into groupies and is looking for someone who is interested in a traditional relationship such as marriage and family--in other words, there is a contradiction between the way he looks and what he thinks and feels about sex, relationships and love. Studies coming out of psychology imply that liberals have a "flexibility" in their thinking and a tolerance for ambiguity while conservatives are rigid in their thinking and intolerant of ambiguity. What the heck is meant in these studies by "tolerance of ambiguity?" Well, according to Wikipedia (take it with a grain of salt, it's Wikipedia but this definition looks sound):
Intolerance of Ambiguity is described as
So here is Uzi, a contradiction in terms who looks one way and thinks and acts another-so one would now expect Therapist Joe--who from reading his commentary and the tilt of the show, one would expect to be a liberal--to be able to resolve the contradiction and show some flexibility of thought, right? Wrong. You would think that someone tolerant would say, "good for him that he dislikes superficiality or that he wants someone to like him for himself, etc." Therapist Joe's way of handling Uzi's contradiction? Make fun of him for being a (gasp!) Republican! Uzi has never said he was a Republican or conservative, yet Therapist Joe pops up snarky comments about Uzi's lack of interest in having sex with the goth chick by stating that he "must be a Republican" and then showing Uzi driving down the road with a characterature of a Donald Rumsfeld look-a-like with a scary leer taking his place at the wheel.
Talk about intolerance of ambiguity, lack of openness and a lack of flexibility in thought, Therapist Joe has it in spades. For all he knows, Uzi is apolitical and is just a sweet guy. Perhaps Therapist Joe is psychologically threatened that Uzi is looking for a committment and a person who actually likes him--he should just be looking for cheap sex, shouldn't he--afterall, he looks the part of a liberal rocker? Therapist Joe quickly resolves the conflict by pointing out that Uzi must be a conservative or he is just looking for an excuse to bash Republicans in general. Either way, I hardly see evidence of tolerance of ambiguity here.
Look, I know the elections are coming up in a year and the liberal media wants to get started early bashing Republicans in any way they can, but this seemed to be a bit of a stretch. What will we see next, people being stereotyped on Jeopardy as rigid homophobic Republicans if they answer "who is the current President?" to the question, "Bush." Start watching for this type of "tolerance" for others' points of view in the liberal media as the election gets closer; my guess is that as their psychological discomfort grows and the threat of the Democrats losing becomes a possibility, much of the "tolerant" MSM will throw tolerance of ambiguity right out the window. Their worldview will be as rigid as the one that they portray conservatives to be: inflexible, intolerant, closed to new experiences and fearful that the whole country might not believe as they do. As goes Blind Date, so goes This Week? I think you can count on it.
yesterday. If you have never watched this show, it has host Roger Lodge narrating a couple's date as they meet, go out and then discuss their impressions of the person they were fixed up with. Clips of the date are shown and snarky "Therapist Joe" has pop-up commentary throughout the date as to what the people are supposedly thinking and/or feeling as they go through the (usually) awkward moments of gettting to know each other.On the show I saw, a pretty 25-year-old woman--didn't catch her name--is going out with 22-year old "rocker" Uzi (I only remembered his name because it was so unusual) who is covered in tattoos and has long hair. The young woman is very much into goth, music and superficiality. She hangs on Uzi's every word, not because she is interested in him as a person, but because she likes musicians. When Uzi asks what kind of man she is looking for, she states, "someone who has long hair, plays in a band, and wears cool combat boots, like you." Uzi quickly picks up on the woman's lack of interest in a "real" relationship and concludes that the woman is just trying to get him into the sack which leaves him feeling that she is not listening to him as a person but rather, sees him as a representation of what she is looking for--a cool rocker guy who she can play groupie with. Uzi is not interested.
Okay, so now you have the set-up for a real-life ambiguous situation--Uzi looks the part of a wild rocker who likes to party and screw but he is not into groupies and is looking for someone who is interested in a traditional relationship such as marriage and family--in other words, there is a contradiction between the way he looks and what he thinks and feels about sex, relationships and love. Studies coming out of psychology imply that liberals have a "flexibility" in their thinking and a tolerance for ambiguity while conservatives are rigid in their thinking and intolerant of ambiguity. What the heck is meant in these studies by "tolerance of ambiguity?" Well, according to Wikipedia (take it with a grain of salt, it's Wikipedia but this definition looks sound):
Ambiguity tolerance is the ability to perceive ambiguities (contradictory issues which may be difficult to understand) in social and cultural behaviors as well as information with equivocal (several) meanings in a neutral and open way.
Intolerance of Ambiguity is described as
a tendency to perceive or interpret information marked by vague, incomplete, fragmented, multiple, probable, unstructured, uncertain, inconsistent, contrary, contradictory, or unclear meanings as actual or potential sources of psychological discomfort or threat.
So here is Uzi, a contradiction in terms who looks one way and thinks and acts another-so one would now expect Therapist Joe--who from reading his commentary and the tilt of the show, one would expect to be a liberal--to be able to resolve the contradiction and show some flexibility of thought, right? Wrong. You would think that someone tolerant would say, "good for him that he dislikes superficiality or that he wants someone to like him for himself, etc." Therapist Joe's way of handling Uzi's contradiction? Make fun of him for being a (gasp!) Republican! Uzi has never said he was a Republican or conservative, yet Therapist Joe pops up snarky comments about Uzi's lack of interest in having sex with the goth chick by stating that he "must be a Republican" and then showing Uzi driving down the road with a characterature of a Donald Rumsfeld look-a-like with a scary leer taking his place at the wheel.
Talk about intolerance of ambiguity, lack of openness and a lack of flexibility in thought, Therapist Joe has it in spades. For all he knows, Uzi is apolitical and is just a sweet guy. Perhaps Therapist Joe is psychologically threatened that Uzi is looking for a committment and a person who actually likes him--he should just be looking for cheap sex, shouldn't he--afterall, he looks the part of a liberal rocker? Therapist Joe quickly resolves the conflict by pointing out that Uzi must be a conservative or he is just looking for an excuse to bash Republicans in general. Either way, I hardly see evidence of tolerance of ambiguity here.
Look, I know the elections are coming up in a year and the liberal media wants to get started early bashing Republicans in any way they can, but this seemed to be a bit of a stretch. What will we see next, people being stereotyped on Jeopardy as rigid homophobic Republicans if they answer "who is the current President?" to the question, "Bush." Start watching for this type of "tolerance" for others' points of view in the liberal media as the election gets closer; my guess is that as their psychological discomfort grows and the threat of the Democrats losing becomes a possibility, much of the "tolerant" MSM will throw tolerance of ambiguity right out the window. Their worldview will be as rigid as the one that they portray conservatives to be: inflexible, intolerant, closed to new experiences and fearful that the whole country might not believe as they do. As goes Blind Date, so goes This Week? I think you can count on it.
The Graying of Kindergarten
I read Microtrends: The Small Forces Behind Tomorrow's Big Changes yesterday and while I disagree with much of what author Marc Penn (chief advisor to Hillary Clinton's campaign) has to say--like the Republican Party is losing membership, its identity and is ripe for a breakup--haven't Democrats been saying that for the last 20 years? (yawn)--there is some good data that is worth contemplating. The book is divided into a number of chapters that identify microtrends in "religion, leisure, politics and family life that are changing the way we live." The trend that caught my eye was in a chapter entitled, "Smart Child Left Behind: Kindergarten Hold-Backs in America."
Penn points out that the big trend in education today is "holding kids back." And the odd thing is, the smarter the child is, the more likely they are to be held back.
Schools have also gotten in on the act and do what Penn refers to as pink--shirting:
My question is, is holding a smart boy out of school for a year really good for boys? People say that boys mature slower than girls so maybe it's a good thing but I'm not so sure. As Penn points out, "most studies of red-shirted students have concluded that they do no better than their younger classmates in the long term, and that any short-term gains disappear by third grade."
Think about it, a smart boy is sitting in class, a year older and wiser than his peers and graduates at 19 year old. His life and adulthood is put on hold another year and he is in high school at an age where he can vote, marry and join the military. Perhaps in the short run, it might be helpful but it could also be contributing to why so many boys--especically smart ones--don't like school. The curriculum is already dumbed down and now you are a year behind. After this experience, it's no wonder that many smart young men have decided to skip college.
yesterday and while I disagree with much of what author Marc Penn (chief advisor to Hillary Clinton's campaign) has to say--like the Republican Party is losing membership, its identity and is ripe for a breakup--haven't Democrats been saying that for the last 20 years? (yawn)--there is some good data that is worth contemplating. The book is divided into a number of chapters that identify microtrends in "religion, leisure, politics and family life that are changing the way we live." The trend that caught my eye was in a chapter entitled, "Smart Child Left Behind: Kindergarten Hold-Backs in America." Penn points out that the big trend in education today is "holding kids back." And the odd thing is, the smarter the child is, the more likely they are to be held back.
It's called "red-shirting," after the practice of keeping college athletes out a year while they grow bigger. A U.S. Department of Education report issued in 2005 suggested that nearly 10 percent of American students in kindergartern were actually eligible to have enrolled the year before.
Who's doing this? The typical red-shirt child is a boy, with white, well-educated parents. So well educated that they know how good it feels to be at the top of their class--and they want that for their children, even if their children are currently smaller, less advanced, less developed, or less capable than their peers. So--ever the problem-solvers--they sign them up for peers who are one year younger.
Schools have also gotten in on the act and do what Penn refers to as pink--shirting:
In the past twenty-five years--in reaction to bold new standards in the 1980's that aimed to make American's elementary schools more rigorous--nearly every state in the union rolled back it's kindergarten cut-off date from December to about September, effectively edging the younger 5-year-olds right into next year's class...
The Chicago Tribune has called it "the graying of kindergarten."
Whereas virtually nobody used to be 6 in kindergarten, now a serious chunk of children are, including nearly 1 in 5 boys.
My question is, is holding a smart boy out of school for a year really good for boys? People say that boys mature slower than girls so maybe it's a good thing but I'm not so sure. As Penn points out, "most studies of red-shirted students have concluded that they do no better than their younger classmates in the long term, and that any short-term gains disappear by third grade."
Think about it, a smart boy is sitting in class, a year older and wiser than his peers and graduates at 19 year old. His life and adulthood is put on hold another year and he is in high school at an age where he can vote, marry and join the military. Perhaps in the short run, it might be helpful but it could also be contributing to why so many boys--especically smart ones--don't like school. The curriculum is already dumbed down and now you are a year behind. After this experience, it's no wonder that many smart young men have decided to skip college.
Ask Dr. Helen
My latest "Ask Dr. Helen" column is up at PJM:
Read the column and let me know if you think we'd really have world peace if moms ruled the world.
Actress Sally Field made headlines with her Emmy Awards acceptance speech by claiming that there wouldn�t be any more wars �if mothers ruled the world.� PJM advice columnist Dr. Helen Smith offers her opinion on the likelihood of world peace if moms were in charge.
Read the column and let me know if you think we'd really have world peace if moms ruled the world.
Homeschooling Carnival: Autism
The Homeschooling Carnival is up and focuses on Autism:
If you have a child with Autism, this week's carnival is definitely worth looking at for some helpful suggestions and ideas.
In choosing a theme for this weeks carnival, I had originally planned on doing something with fall or apples or Johnny Appleseed. But after keeping my grandchildren for the weekend, I decided to go with the theme of Autism. This could be a very long post.
If you have a child with Autism, this week's carnival is definitely worth looking at for some helpful suggestions and ideas.
Podcast with Laura Ingraham
Radio host Laura Ingraham joins us today to talk about her new book, Power to the People.
Ms. Ingraham discusses why people stereotype big families, why getting involved in local politics is important and her thoughts on the 2008 elections. And don't miss the heated discussion about whether or not porn is destroying the culture. You can listen to the show directly -- no downloading needed -- by going here and taking advantage of the gray Flash player. Or you can download the file directly by clicking right here and listen at your leisure. As always, there's a free subscription available via iTunes -- you can't beat free!
This podcast is brought to you by Volvo Automobiles. Music is by Doktor Frank's band, the Mr. T Experience.
The Starter Husband
An article on MSN entitled "The Starter Husband" caught my eye this morning, mostly because the caption addressed to women seemed so ridiculously misandric: "You'd never buy a car without test-driving it first right? So why settle into a lifelong marriage before trying one on for size?"
The article, as one can gather from the title, is about women who marry in their 20's for practice and see nothing wrong with taking a guy out for a test-drive and dumping him off at the curb once the sheen wears off--here are some highlights from the article:
I thought pioneers were supposed to be brave people who ventured out to discover new things and make the world a better place, not cowards who are too afraid to say "no" to a marriage that they don't want just to "have a gorgeous party, and make my parents really, really happy" as one woman put it.
A man is not a car and anyone who compares a human being to an object this way has more issues than I care to discuss in a blog post. I realize these self-centered articles and books such as The Starter Marriage and the Future of Matrimony
are fun to write and really make women feel "empowered" to act in the same manner as the sexist men of yesteryear who spoke of women like chattels. But in reality, women who use men for starter husbands are the opposite of empowered--they are the archetype of the weak female: afraid to say no, afraid of independence and afraid to be unmarried in their 20's. Yeah, the "you go girl" movement has really done a lot for these women--and reinventing marriage in this way is not empowerment of a new sort, it is just a new twist on an old theme, leaving a lover with a broken heart.
The article, as one can gather from the title, is about women who marry in their 20's for practice and see nothing wrong with taking a guy out for a test-drive and dumping him off at the curb once the sheen wears off--here are some highlights from the article:
Andi takes a throaty slug of her second raspberry martini, picks at her fish taco, then sits back in her chair. "I think marriage is the new dating and having kids is the new marriage," she proclaims loudly, as yet another woman dining with her partner turns to stare. "It's true. I wouldn't have married him if I didn't think I could get out of it...."
Of course, our generation can afford to chuck the Cinderella story when the glass slipper doesn't fit. While our grandmothers were forced to remain shackled to unhappy unions for monetary reasons, most women today have the financial wherewithal to cry uncle and bolt whenever we get uncomfortable.
For some, a starter husband is like a starter home � a semi-commitment where you're willing to do some of the surface work, like painting the walls, but not the heavy lifting, like gutting the whole foundation; he's just not a long-term investment. Others compare a starter husband to a first job, where you learn some skills and polish your resume before going after the position you really want....
It's easy to write these women off as callous or self-absorbed. And yet on some level, they just might be pioneers [my emphasis]: Why stay put in an empty shell of a marriage � an arrangement on paper only � instead of calling it what it is? "This generation is reinventing marriage," says Paul.
I thought pioneers were supposed to be brave people who ventured out to discover new things and make the world a better place, not cowards who are too afraid to say "no" to a marriage that they don't want just to "have a gorgeous party, and make my parents really, really happy" as one woman put it.
A man is not a car and anyone who compares a human being to an object this way has more issues than I care to discuss in a blog post. I realize these self-centered articles and books such as The Starter Marriage and the Future of Matrimony
are fun to write and really make women feel "empowered" to act in the same manner as the sexist men of yesteryear who spoke of women like chattels. But in reality, women who use men for starter husbands are the opposite of empowered--they are the archetype of the weak female: afraid to say no, afraid of independence and afraid to be unmarried in their 20's. Yeah, the "you go girl" movement has really done a lot for these women--and reinventing marriage in this way is not empowerment of a new sort, it is just a new twist on an old theme, leaving a lover with a broken heart.
Mammary Breaks
I had to laugh when I read a a post by LaShawn Barber about a woman who wanted extra time during a medical licensing exam so that she could breast feed her daughter (Hat Tip: Maggie's Farm). She is now suing the board to get the extra time:
I laughed as I read this because when my daughter was less then three weeks old, I had to take my Psychology licensing exam in Nashville, two and a half hours from Knoxville. I had to leave a three week old for a day-and-a half with breast milk in a bottle for relatives to give her while I took a breast pump with me to get rid of the excess milk while on the trip.
I asked the board if I could take the next scheduled test six months later but they said, "no," and I would not be able to practice with the temporary license they had issued me in the interim. I had to go. It was a mess. I leaked milk all over my shirt and down onto the floor during the exam, but I was determined to finish and figured if they wanted me there just after giving birth, dripping milk was the least of my (and their) problems. But I did it, got no special treatment and ended up doing very well, despite my discomfort. By the time I got out of the exam, I got to the car and pumped milk as I drove two and a half hours back to Knoxville. There is still a truck driver out there somewhere who got a real thrill (or fright) that day. But hey, that's the breaks.
I never once thought of suing the board, but then, I actually believe in personal responsibility, unlike the woman mentioned in the article above who wants to have children but also wants everyone else to accomodate her in the work world.
A new mother who wants extra breaks so she can pump milk during a nine-hour medical licensing exam has asked a US judge to settle her dispute with the board that administers the test.
Sophie Currier, 33, requested additional break time during the test, saying that if she does not nurse her four-month-old daughter, Lea, or pump breast milk every two to three hours, she risks medical complications.
The exam allows a total of just 45 minutes in breaks, and the National Board of Medical Examiners has refused to give Currier the extra time she says she needs.
"If we are variable in the time that's allotted to trainees, we alter the performance of the examination," board spokesperson Dr Ruth Hoppe said.
I laughed as I read this because when my daughter was less then three weeks old, I had to take my Psychology licensing exam in Nashville, two and a half hours from Knoxville. I had to leave a three week old for a day-and-a half with breast milk in a bottle for relatives to give her while I took a breast pump with me to get rid of the excess milk while on the trip.
I asked the board if I could take the next scheduled test six months later but they said, "no," and I would not be able to practice with the temporary license they had issued me in the interim. I had to go. It was a mess. I leaked milk all over my shirt and down onto the floor during the exam, but I was determined to finish and figured if they wanted me there just after giving birth, dripping milk was the least of my (and their) problems. But I did it, got no special treatment and ended up doing very well, despite my discomfort. By the time I got out of the exam, I got to the car and pumped milk as I drove two and a half hours back to Knoxville. There is still a truck driver out there somewhere who got a real thrill (or fright) that day. But hey, that's the breaks.
I never once thought of suing the board, but then, I actually believe in personal responsibility, unlike the woman mentioned in the article above who wants to have children but also wants everyone else to accomodate her in the work world.
Rigging a Study to Make Conservatives Look Stupid...
Slate has more analysis of the liberal brain/conservative brain study (Hat tip: Right Wing News):
The author makes some good points--read the whole thing.
The conservative case against this study is easy to make. Sure, we're fonder of old ways than you are. That's in our definition. Some of our people are obtuse; so are some of yours. If you studied the rest of us in real life, you'd find that while we second-guess the status quo less than you do, we second-guess putative reforms more than you do, so in terms of complexity, ambiguity, and critical thinking, it's probably a wash. Also, our standard of "information" is a bit tougher than the blips and fads you fall for. Sometimes, these inclinations lead us astray. But over the long run, they've served us and society pretty well. It's just that you notice all the times we were wrong and ignore all the times we were right.
In fact, that's exactly what you've done in this study: You've manufactured a tiny world of letters, half-seconds, and button-pushing, so you can catch us in clear errors and keep out the part of life where our tendencies correct yours. And now you feel great about yourselves. Congratulations. You haven't told us much about our way of thinking. But you've told us a lot about yours.
The author makes some good points--read the whole thing.
"So the only reason why these kids are getting knocked up is due to laziness!"
So says the Angry Pharmacist, in response to a 14-year-old girl and her parents coming into his pharmacy for her prenatal vitamins. If you are easily offended, do not go to this blog--but his rants are something to behold.
"People are messing around with the data to find anything that seems significant, to show they have found something that is new and unusual"
There is an interesting article in the WSJ today on the sloppy analysis of most science findings (Hat tip: Sissy Willis):
Scientists messing around with data or who have an agenda? Say it isn't so.
We all make mistakes and, if you believe medical scholar John Ioannidis, scientists make more than their fair share. By his calculations, most published research findings are wrong....
These flawed findings, for the most part, stem not from fraud or formal misconduct, but from more mundane misbehavior: miscalculation, poor study design or self-serving data analysis. "There is an increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims," Dr. Ioannidis said. "A new claim about a research finding is more likely to be false than true."
The hotter the field of research the more likely its published findings should be viewed skeptically, he determined.
Statistically speaking, science suffers from an excess of significance. Overeager researchers often tinker too much with the statistical variables of their analysis to coax any meaningful insight from their data sets. "People are messing around with the data to find anything that seems significant, to show they have found something that is new and unusual," Dr. Ioannidis said.
In the U. S., research is a $55-billion-a-year enterprise that stakes its credibility on the reliability of evidence and the work of Dr. Ioannidis strikes a raw nerve. In fact, his 2005 essay "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" remains the most downloaded technical paper that the journal PLoS Medicine has ever published.
Scientists messing around with data or who have an agenda? Say it isn't so.
Podcast: Jack Goldsmith on The Terror Presidency
Today we talk with Jack Goldsmith, the author of the new book The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration.
Goldsmith was the former Assistant Attorney Gerneral, Office of Legal Counsel whose duty it was to "advise President Bush what he could and could not do...legally." During the interview, he discusses his new book, how the war on terror is being strangled by lawyers, the response to 9/11, the detainee and torture disputes, the Bush Administration's theory of executive power, and what the next President needs to know. You can listen directly -- no downloading needed -- by going here and taking advantage of the gray Flash player. Or you can download the file and listen at your leisure by clicking right here.
This podcast is brought to you by Volvo USA.
"The fear of public speaking or performing is more than anything a fear of being eaten."
So says Mary Fensholt, a consultant and author of The Francis Effect: The Real Reason You Hate Public Speaking and How To Get Over It.
Fensholt was interviewed for this MSNBC article on stage fright:
So my stage fright is nothing more than a fear of being eaten, that's good to know. But heck, I might order the book just to find out how to get over thinking I am going to be some predator's dinner.
Fensholt was interviewed for this MSNBC article on stage fright: Building on the theories of sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson, Fensholt argues that historically, being intently scrutinized and singled out was a prelude to being eaten by a predator, so human ancestors evolved a strong fear response against setting themselves apart from the protection of the group.
It's a fascinating theory, but all we really know for sure is that stage fright represents the fight or flight response, says Shara Sand, clinical assistant professor of psychology at New York's Yeshiva University. Sand is also a trombonist who has had firsthand experience with stage fright.
"What primitively is going on is that there's a kind of exposure and vulnerability," she says. And even though there isn't any real danger, it can feel like there is.
So my stage fright is nothing more than a fear of being eaten, that's good to know. But heck, I might order the book just to find out how to get over thinking I am going to be some predator's dinner.
What I Learned in Men's Health
Warning--do not read this post should you be one of those types who suffers from Internet Induced Hypochondria.
I often read Men's Health magazine,
it's not the best read in the world but one can generally get some no-nonsense information on diet, exercise and health. There was a very good article in the September 2007 issue on a heart condition that often afflicts fit men. There is probably a lot of recycling of these stories in various magazines, but I found this one informative.
The article, entitled, "The Fit Man's Heart Threat" takes a look at a condition called Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy. The author of the article is distraught that his friend, 43-year-old Bill died suddenly while running a marathon. He finds out his friend had cardiomyopathy and talks to the president of a foundation for this disease:
One of the scary things about this disease is that exercise can bring it on:
Are you a susceptible person? I was, although my heart condition was a bit different. The only way to find out if you are at risk is to ask your doctor if you need tests such as an ECG or EKG and if abnormalities are found, to follow up with an echocardiogram (an ultrasound of the heart) or whatever tests the doc recommends.
If you have gotten this far in the post, don't get paranoid but do take care of your heart health; it's important.
I often read Men's Health magazine,
it's not the best read in the world but one can generally get some no-nonsense information on diet, exercise and health. There was a very good article in the September 2007 issue on a heart condition that often afflicts fit men. There is probably a lot of recycling of these stories in various magazines, but I found this one informative.The article, entitled, "The Fit Man's Heart Threat" takes a look at a condition called Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy. The author of the article is distraught that his friend, 43-year-old Bill died suddenly while running a marathon. He finds out his friend had cardiomyopathy and talks to the president of a foundation for this disease:
"Anything more than 1.5 centimeters is definitive," says Salberg. She explains that HCM is characterized by the thickening of heart muscle. As the muscle wall separating the right and left ventricles bulges, it obstructs the flow of oxygenated blood leaving the heart through the aorta, making it more difficult for the heart to function, particularly during exercise. It's caused by a genetic flaw that can be passed down from either parent. So far, researchers have pinpointed 14 genes associated with the condition. Those who carry any one of these genes generally develop HCM during adolescence or early adulthood.
Then she drops a whopper: One in 500 people has HCM. It's more prevalent in the United States than is HIV and Parkinson's.
And then another whopper: You know you have HCM if you die unexpectedly. That's often the first symptom. About 15 people in this country drop dead from the condition each day. It's the most common heart-related killer of men younger than 30.
One of the scary things about this disease is that exercise can bring it on:
.... In April, the American Heart Association released a scientific statement noting that although regular physical exercise is now widely advocated by the medical community, studies show it can increase your risk of early death. A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that joggers in Rhode Island were 7.6 times more likely to die early than people who didn't run. In another study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers reported that the incidence of cardiac arrest during exercise was 25 times higher than during light activity or while resting. The AHA statement concluded that exercise "acutely" increases the risk of sudden death in "susceptible persons." For these people, "the health risks of vigorous physical activity almost certainly exceed the benefits."
Are you a susceptible person? I was, although my heart condition was a bit different. The only way to find out if you are at risk is to ask your doctor if you need tests such as an ECG or EKG and if abnormalities are found, to follow up with an echocardiogram (an ultrasound of the heart) or whatever tests the doc recommends.
If you have gotten this far in the post, don't get paranoid but do take care of your heart health; it's important.
A Different Kind of Brain or the Same Old Biased Research?
A number of bloggers are discussing this new "study" that finds that the liberal and conservative brain is different:
In yet another of their "objective" studies, New York University professors draw conclusions that make liberals look good and conservatives look bad, although the authors attempt to make themselves look objective about the new study when one of them, John Jost, whom I have blogged about before, states the following:
I might be more persuaded by Jost's defense of his research as objective if he wasn't forking money over to Hillary Clinton--isn't that a conflict of interest? If not, it should be.
I wonder if this study could be duplicated in a double-blind study using researchers who weren't liberals as well as subjects who weren't college students? Somehow, I doubt it.
The differences between liberals and conservatives may run deeper than how they feel about welfare reform or the progress of the Iraq war: Researchers reported Sunday that their brains may actually work differently.
In a study likely to raise the hackles of some conservatives, psychologist David Amodio and others found that a specific region of the brain's cortex is more sensitive in people who consider themselves liberals than in self-declared conservatives.
The brain region in question helps people shift gears when their usual response would be inappropriate, supporting the notion that liberals are more flexible in their thinking.
In yet another of their "objective" studies, New York University professors draw conclusions that make liberals look good and conservatives look bad, although the authors attempt to make themselves look objective about the new study when one of them, John Jost, whom I have blogged about before, states the following:
"It's wrong to conclude that our results provide only bad news for conservatives," he wrote on Aug. 28, 2003. "True, we find some support for the traditional 'rigidity-of-the-right' hypothesis, but it is also true that liberals could be characterized on the basis of our overall profile as relatively disorganized, indecisive and perhaps overly drawn to ambiguity."
I might be more persuaded by Jost's defense of his research as objective if he wasn't forking money over to Hillary Clinton--isn't that a conflict of interest? If not, it should be.
I wonder if this study could be duplicated in a double-blind study using researchers who weren't liberals as well as subjects who weren't college students? Somehow, I doubt it.
Blog Anniversary
I just realized that this week, this blog will celebrate two years in existence. My husband set this blog up in November of 2001 so I would quit yelling my opinions out to him and instead could shout them to the world, but at the time, I was too stupid to listen. I worked some with my website violentkids.com that I started in 1999 and then set up sixthemovie.com after making my documentary but thought blogging would be too much trouble. But two years ago in September of 2005, I decided to start blogging so that I would quit yelling at the television, newspaper and anyone else who would listen. Has it helped me to get my ideas out in the world, even in some small way? Absolutely, and I thank each and every one of you who has come by to listen, comment or just lurk. Thanks!
Tam at View from the Porch also had a blog anniversary recently--find out what she has learned about blogging.
Tam at View from the Porch also had a blog anniversary recently--find out what she has learned about blogging.
Shopping Phobia
Yesterday, I went to return a coat I bought; now normally one would think this would be no big deal, right? You buy a coat and when you get home and try it on, you realize you don't like it. But for me, I dread the experience of returning it to the store; in fact, I dread the experience of shopping for clothes or anything where I have to deal with salespeople. Ever since I can remember, the only clothing stores I have ever frequented (if I shopped at all) have been those where there were few salespeople and I could try on clothes anonymously in a dressing room without someone coming in every five minutes to ask if I am "doing okay" or need another size. Whenever I am around salespeople, I tend to pick up the first thing I find, say it's fine and leave with something that doesn't fit or just plain looks stupid on me. Needless to say, I have a closet full of junk.
I have recently started trying to dress better; if you are a reader of this blog, you will know that this is the type of outfit I have been wearing for many years now. Beware when you click through, the clothes are not much to look at. I think that if you want clothes to fit, you have to deal with salespeople and if you want to look decent, you have to spend considerable time doing so. I have learned that many of them are wonderful and helpful and really do want you to look good and find things that you like. In fact, sometimes they make the experience more pleasant by knowing you, your tastes and what looks good so that you can save yourself the time of going from store to store.
I have tried to examine what it is that fills me with such fear about salespeople but maybe the right word is not fear--as it is discomfort with dealing one-on-one with someone with whom I have to make small talk. I suck at small talk and have never been good at it. Maybe that's because I am an INTP. I wonder sometimes, how many of us who do most of our shopping at online stores like Amazon.com are just closet shopping phobics or are INTPs in hiding?
I have recently started trying to dress better; if you are a reader of this blog, you will know that this is the type of outfit I have been wearing for many years now. Beware when you click through, the clothes are not much to look at. I think that if you want clothes to fit, you have to deal with salespeople and if you want to look decent, you have to spend considerable time doing so. I have learned that many of them are wonderful and helpful and really do want you to look good and find things that you like. In fact, sometimes they make the experience more pleasant by knowing you, your tastes and what looks good so that you can save yourself the time of going from store to store.
I have tried to examine what it is that fills me with such fear about salespeople but maybe the right word is not fear--as it is discomfort with dealing one-on-one with someone with whom I have to make small talk. I suck at small talk and have never been good at it. Maybe that's because I am an INTP. I wonder sometimes, how many of us who do most of our shopping at online stores like Amazon.com are just closet shopping phobics or are INTPs in hiding?
Female Porn
Dr. Sanity's Carnival of the Insanities is up this Sunday morning. In particular, take a look at the female porn that Dr. Sanity linked to--I don't find it sexy at all.
Many of you have emailed me with one particular story. I haven't posted on it yet because when I saw the title at Slate, I thought it was a parody: "Snips, Snails, and Puppy Dog Tails: There's finally proof that boys do ruin schools for girls."
I simply think that if a man wrote this--it has to be a parody and if it's not, we need to bring back tar and feathering.
Girls' schools are clinging on tenaciously in the public sector here in Britain: More girls go to single-sex schools than boys. In inner London, parental preferences for girls' schools are particularly pronounced. The Guardian has reported that more than half of inner-London girls attend girls' schools, and just over a quarter of boys attend boys' schools. The result, of course, is that the mixed schools contain a disproportionate number of boys.
Parents make these choices because of a widely held belief that girls thrive in single-sex environments. But is that true? And what are the implications for the girls left surrounded by emotionally retarded adolescent males? (my emphasis added).
Boys pollute the educational system, it seems, for a number of unmysterious reasons: They wear down teachers, disrupt classes, and ruin the atmosphere for everyone. And more boys are worse than fewer boys, not because they egg each other on but simply because more of them can cause more trouble in total.
It is all rather troubling, especially for the parents of little angels like my daughters. Evidently, it is impossible to satisfy the�apparently justified�parental demand to educate girls in single-sex schools and boys in mixed classes. (Not for the first time in my life, I conclude that the world doesn't have enough girls in it.)
...A social planner might thus conclude that all education should be single-sex. The difficulty is to combine this perspective with the principle of parental choice. I have the answer: a congestion-charge-style tax on parents who insist on polluting girls' education with their testosterone-fuelled little monsters. The money could go toward hiring extra teachers�and riot police.
I simply think that if a man wrote this--it has to be a parody and if it's not, we need to bring back tar and feathering.
Shrink Liberally
I was reading the National Journal today and found this little tidbit by Neil Munro entitled "Shrink Liberally:"
When the APA wonders why more people don't take advantage of all that psychology has to offer, maybe they should understand that the conservative half of America doesn't trust them to be fair or objective. Diversity is a good thing, so maybe psychology needs more political diversity. It could hardly have less.
Everybody knows that the media and academia lean left. But these elites are bipartisan wafflers when compared with psychologists who donate roughly 21 times as much to Democratic candidates and political action committees than Republican ones. According to Opensecrets.org, psychologists gave 526 donations worth $499,982 to Democratic causes and candidates in the '04 and '06 cycles and the '08 cycles to date. In contrast, the shrinks opened their wallets to Republicans only 43 times, and gave just $22,255. Maybe that explains why some conservatives prefer prayer to psychotherapy.
When the APA wonders why more people don't take advantage of all that psychology has to offer, maybe they should understand that the conservative half of America doesn't trust them to be fair or objective. Diversity is a good thing, so maybe psychology needs more political diversity. It could hardly have less.
Too Masculine or not Masculine Enough?
There is a new journal article out in Professional Psychology: Research and Practice entitled, "Boys and violence: A gender-informed analysis"(Hat tip: Steven Erickson). The abstract reads as follows:
I read the whole article and what I can gather is that boys who "suffer" from the horrors of traditional masculine socialization are more likely to be violent--especially at schools, as in the article the authors mention various school killings. If the authors' theory is correct--that traditional masculine socialization leads to violence--then why was it that in years past, when we had more traditional masculine socialization, fewer guys were shooting up schools?
I suspect that many of the school shooters were looking for some way to prove themselves as men because they did not grow up with any type of "male socialization," not because they did. We do not allow young men to grow up, to engage in masculine behavior without punishment, or to learn the boundaries of violence; in fact, we just generalize and tell them never to be violent at all. Add to this confusion that there is no ritual or passage of manhood anymore and we leave many of our boys to find their own way in the world, without guidance and sometimes, they act out their desperate need for the manhood they are missing in the most horrible of ways. These school shooters are geeky boys trying to find their masculinity, not strong, silent types.
This article discusses the phenomenon of youth violence from a psychology of gender perspective. Although other factors are discussed--including gun availability, violence-related media influence, family and caretaker factors, and effects of teasing and bullying--the intention is to highlight new thinking on the potential relationship between boys' traditional masculine socialization experiences and violence. In this new perspective, traditional masculine socialization estranges and isolates many boys from their genuine inner lives and vital connections to others, which is theorized to heighten their risk of engaging in acts of violence. The authors identify school and community programs that may be helpful in counteracting damaging socialization experiences and supporting boys' healthier emotional and psychological development. Finally, the article discusses approaches that psychologists and other mental health professionals can use to help address this vital issue.
I read the whole article and what I can gather is that boys who "suffer" from the horrors of traditional masculine socialization are more likely to be violent--especially at schools, as in the article the authors mention various school killings. If the authors' theory is correct--that traditional masculine socialization leads to violence--then why was it that in years past, when we had more traditional masculine socialization, fewer guys were shooting up schools?
I suspect that many of the school shooters were looking for some way to prove themselves as men because they did not grow up with any type of "male socialization," not because they did. We do not allow young men to grow up, to engage in masculine behavior without punishment, or to learn the boundaries of violence; in fact, we just generalize and tell them never to be violent at all. Add to this confusion that there is no ritual or passage of manhood anymore and we leave many of our boys to find their own way in the world, without guidance and sometimes, they act out their desperate need for the manhood they are missing in the most horrible of ways. These school shooters are geeky boys trying to find their masculinity, not strong, silent types.
Is There Anything Good About Men?
Roy F. Baumeister, a psychology professor gave the 2007 invited address at the American Psychological Association entitled, "Is There Anything Good About Men?" (Hat tip: Bruce Charlton). Some highlights from the talk:
I don't agree with some of what he says, but it is an interesting talk and not terribly anti-male--uhh, except maybe for the title, imagine the reverse, "Is There Anything Good About Women?" My main disagreements are with how he views women as more socially connected and interested in babies rather than in achievement since men in society have to achieve something to get status and a woman has a baby to adore her. I think that women are interested in achievement for itself and not all of us are fullfilled by a baby "adoring" us!
Go read the whole thing and form your own opinion.
In an important sense, men really are better AND worse than women.
There are more males than females with really low IQs. Indeed, the pattern with mental retardation is the same as with genius, namely that as you go from mild to medium to extreme, the preponderance of males gets bigger.
My guess is that the greater proportion of men at both extremes of the IQ distribution is part of the same pattern. Nature rolls the dice with men more than women. Men go to extremes more than women. It�s true not just with IQ but also with other things, even height: The male distribution of height is flatter, with more really tall and really short men.
Maybe the differences between the genders are more about motivation than ability.
I don't agree with some of what he says, but it is an interesting talk and not terribly anti-male--uhh, except maybe for the title, imagine the reverse, "Is There Anything Good About Women?" My main disagreements are with how he views women as more socially connected and interested in babies rather than in achievement since men in society have to achieve something to get status and a woman has a baby to adore her. I think that women are interested in achievement for itself and not all of us are fullfilled by a baby "adoring" us!
Go read the whole thing and form your own opinion.
Ask Dr. Helen
My PJM column is up:
Go read about older men and younger women and let me know here or there what you think.
Older men and much-younger women is a hot topic on which everyone seems to have an opinion�just ask Fred Thompson. PJM advice columnist Dr. Helen Smith offers her take on the subject, along with her opinion on a reader�s very different, very loaded definition of mixed marriage.
Go read about older men and younger women and let me know here or there what you think.
GM's Corner has a tour of the Psych bloggers. Take a look if you want to see what the mental health bloggers are up to.
Rock Star Foreplay
So far this Labor Day Weekend, I haven't done much except read and hang out in various restaurants and outside. While sitting in the sunshine, I read a recent copy of the Star
which I couldn't resist since it had the "best and worst beach bodies," but that's something that I won't bore you with at this time. I couldn't help but notice another story about soul diva Amy Winehouse with a picture of her bleeding husband that I recognized from this post at Jezebel.com about women who enjoy beating up men. The accompanying gossip in the Star was that Winehouse is living a wild life that is spiraling out of control with drugs, rehab and rowdy fights between the couple being the norm. The picture you see here is Winehouse's husband Blake after Winehouse apparently cut him in a hotel room. The two were photographed while coming out of a London hotel dripping with blood after a "tumultuous predawn brawl."I thought this couple was an interesting example of the type of reciprocal violence that was discussed in this post on the dangers of both partners getting involved in fights. Often the man is the one who is injured more severely in these cases but you would never know it when you hear about domestic violence. Even the women themselves say that they initiate violence with their mates but apparently no one is listening. Wikipedia (take this for what it's worth, its Wikipedia afterall) reports that Winehouse admits that she is often the instigator of violence with her husband:
In a series of texts between the singer and celebrity blogger Perez Hilton, the singer said "I was cutting myself after he found me in our room about to do drugs with a call girl and rightly said I wasn't good enough for him. I lost it and he saved my life."[44] [The Star adds here that Winehouse says, "He saved my life again and again and got cut badly for his troubles"]. In a June 2007 interview with World Entertainment News Network she was quoted as saying "I'll beat up Blake when I'm drunk. I don't think I have ever bruised him, but I do have my way. If he says one thing I don't like then I'll chin him."[45]
Okay, so neither of these two is a paragon of decency but my point here is that reciprocal violence can end in injury to both parties. I certainly think people should be able to fight like this if that is the sick (or fun) type of relationship they are looking for. However, once the law is given the authority to intervene, the police and other law enforcement should not be prejudiced enough to think that only women are victims and men the perpetrators because clearly, this is not always the case.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)