Mailvox: pretty much, yeah

AF is curious about men’s responsibilities:

Do you believe American men are increasingly unsuitable for marriage? I believe they are. American men are weak- in mind and in spirit. They lack strength of character, conviction, and courage. They tend to be spoiled, lazy, and self-indulgent. They are quite capable of finding fault with good Christian women who would truly love to be married and raise a family. Most men find these women fall into the ”no fun” category, because they do the best every day to live up to their Christian beliefs.

Unfortunately, I also see that there are too many women who can’t or will not handle the responsibility that comes with being a wife and mother. However, one of the biggest problems in our society is the fact that men have given up their natural roles of providers, protectors, and leaders. Most single women I know would love to find a man that would cherish those roles. Too bad men like that are too hard to find.

Yes, it surely cuts both ways. I don’t spend much time criticizing men as there is a plethora of writers and publications devoted to doing so. But the blame for the destruction that feminism has wrought on the West ultimately lies at the feet of the men who, unlike their more manly predecessors such as John Adams, fail to tell women “no”. Even Winston Churchill, who boldly faced down the wrath of the Fuhrer, was eventually worn down by women’s whining.

And men are prone to the same sort of cowardice in many individual relationships as well. Most men these days are more than a little confused, because they have been indoctrinated into a quasi-feminist mindset which is completely at odds with what they have learned through personal experience. This confusion leaves them weakened intellectually and ideologically, after all, it is difficult to have the courage of your convictions when you possess none except a vague notion of tolerance being desirable. When confronted by a woman shrieking histrionically about her “rights”, such a man’s natural tendency is to cower and give in to whatever nonsense she demands. Equal pay for equal work? Fine. Equal pay for different work? You got it. Equal pay for less work? All right. Equal pay for no work at all while you have kids? Here, just please shut up!

A woman has whatever power over a man he chooses to give her. While her misuse of that power is her responsibility, it should never be forgotten that he elected to give it to her in the first place. If a man is not prepared to disagree with a woman and accept whatever consequences may result from that disagreement, then he is, as AF suggests, unsuitable for marriage and would do well to avoid it.


Mailvox: where to start

WSL seems to be arguing with herself:

For years I have heard how important a woman’s career/income is to a man. Indeed I have experienced the double-tongued hypocrisy of men who both demand the woman who wants to stay at home and be a “homemaker”, vs. the woman who highly contributes to the man’s income by her own willingness to sacrifice herself on the alter of man’s materialistic appetite. He loves the fact that she is “everything” to him.

Your article is a reinforcement of what Christian women know for a certainty: men don’t know what they really want. You cannot have a vibrant, intelligent, educated-according to man’s limiting definition of “educated”–sexually gratifying, again according to man’s criteria of wanting both a mistress and a woman who values fidelity, and add to that a woman who is a mindful of her commitment to her employer and takes that commitment seriously, PowerPoint presentations at midnight notwithstanding. You want the purrrring sexually kitten with a Hugh hefner mindset on the one hand, but a pure, angelic creature, with the Proverbs 31 image parading into your bedroom.

To the contrary, there are women who are incredulously balanced. It is the man, the balanced woman discovers, is not balanced and realistic in his expectations.

Do I need to even bother trying to dissect this Thalidomide-twisted miscarriage of an argument? Forget arms, it doesn’t even have a head!


Mailvox: amazing career women without brains

KL meanders about as she attempts to find a rationale for criticizing yesterday’s column besides “I don’t like being criticized by implication”:

I found your recent article entitled The Value of Marriage ridiculous and chauvinistic. Not to mention, totally un-Biblical. I find it hard to believe that in this so-called forward thinking culture, this idea is still played around with.

Yes, Scripture is quite clear on its requirement for a woman to obtain a university degree, preferably in English, Sociology or Education, start her career, have children and put them in a Godly day care center. It’s all right there in the Bible! And no one has ever assigned a monetary value to sex; it’s a well-known fact that Rahab the prostitute only bartered honey and bananas in return for her favors.

First, I am a woman. Second, I am in a career. Third, I am married. Fourth, I am a walking Christian. The important things in my life start with God, then my husband, then my family, then my friends, and last my career/myself.

I am so shocked! A career woman who doesn’t like hearing that men don’t value women’s careers! I find it amusing that her career ranks both second as well as fifth with her. Now, perhaps her priorities are indeed in what I would consider to be in order, (although I seriously doubt she puts her friends ahead of her job), but does she really think she’s as valuable to her employer as the single atheist male who puts his job first instead of fifth. What is it about women that they cannot seem to grasp the concept of opportunity cost?

I know many women like me. Their ages are different -young to old. Some have been married years, others months. Some have kids, some are waiting. Guess what!? They’re all doing well. Even with careers. Our husbands are wonderful men. They are not controlled by us, before you suggest that. They are men of the Lord who lead our families with fortitude.

As usual, the woman thinks personal anecdotes are an apt response to statistical data. One might as well respond to the economist who states that Americans are wealthier than Colombians based on per capita Gross Domestic Product by announcing that the economist is full of it because you happen to know a rich Colombian drug dealer, thereby proving Colombians are wealther than Americans. The chance that all those husbands are wonderful men and that all those marriages will do well is remote indeed, but possible… and also statistically irrelevant.

Why is it you suggest that women shouldn’t work and be married at the same time? So, a man can be happily married, have kids, have a career, and so forth and still be in God’s will? Yet, a woman can not? Apparently her only value is popping out kids, bowing to her husband’s whim, and so forth. Pretty stereo typical male ideology there.

What does God have to do with it? Precisely none of my valuation argument in yesterday’s column was based on God’s Will, except that Christian and other religious men retain a duty to marry in a society where it makes no logical sense for a man to marry otherwise. Marriage provides a man with nothing except increased financial and emotional risk today… he can already obtain sex, children, companionship, emotional bonding, a modern dowry equivalent and/or household services without having to commit to a state marriage contract. I defy anyone to give a single reason why a modern American man should marry that does not ultimately rest on a religious rationale.

That’s a shame, because I know many brilliant amazing women who contribute to this world by having a career. They make things a little brighter and contribute a lot of good. Not to mention, most of the women I know capably handle all these things quite well. (Before you suggest the said couple’s sex life suffers, allow me to correct you again.) Women are capable of handling these things with grace and dignity. Women are smart with brains – and many want to use what God gave them to glorify Him.

No, you don’t. I’ll bet there isn’t a single thing that any of those women have done that I, or the average individual, would consider amazing, and the probability is high that none of those women have an IQ in excess of 150. As for their satisfactory sex lives, better ask the men before you reach any conclusions….

I am tired of hearing men extol the virtues of women being at home. Yes, her life should revolve around you. Isn’t that a little selfish and controlling on the men’s end?? I have no issue with women who stay at home. That’s great. My own mother is a home maker and we are very close. But, women should be allowed to use their brains and contribute to society without judgment if they so desire – especially by the Christians.

Precisely how is it selfish and controlling for a man who is seldom at home himself to provide his wife the means to stay at home and manage the household? One could more easily make the argument that the man is serving the wife, especially if she is the one spending the majority of the money that he earns? And who has more control, the housewife who homeschools her children and decides personally what they will be learning or the working mother who hands over her children to day care and the public schools?

The point is that working women don’t contribute anything vital to society while inordinately tending to deprive it of the one thing it needs to sustain itself, children.

Try reading Galatians 3:28 and 1 Peter 3:7. God says all are created equal. So, God does not priortize the white male over all else, or veiw him as more valued. Women can be married happily and have kids and have a career and have a walk with God. And do it well. The key is to rely on the POWER of God. We can do all things through Him who gives us strength (Phil. 4:13).

Nice try at playing the race card, but it won’t fly here. And while it is possible to do all those things, it is extremely unlikely and the facts demonstrate that the chances are that opportunity cost will quickly catch up with women attempting to have it all. As for KL’s unique interpretation, I would think that the POWER of God isn’t much more likely to help a woman there than it is to help her cut out still-beating hearts while sacrificing virgins to Quetzacoatl. At least not the Christian God, anyhow.

Finally, there are many amazing women who have contributed to the world as a whole. Had they stayed home, and not used their brains and talent, we would have missed out. Try Elizabeth I, Marie Curie, Amelia Earhart, Rosa Parks, countless female missionaries. Some maried, some not. But each is an example of an amazing woman who had a brain! Not to mention, the countless ladies out there who raise amazing kids, have great marriages, and careers. Or our female soldiers who fight to defend our freedom.

Yes, it’s very difficult to get lost and get yourself killed, wherever would the world be without Amelia Earhart? Probably still crossing the Great Plains in covered wagons, I suppose. And female soldiers aren’t even allowed in combat, assuming that we were actually defending our freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan anyhow. While I’m sure that all these “amazing” women had brains, this missive has to make one wonder precisely what KL is attempting to use as a substitute.

Say… you don’t think this KL is actually Katherine Lopez from National Review, do you? That would explain why they’ve never asked me to write for them, wouldn’t it….


Commercial culture

I saw a commercial for TIM, the Italian cellular giant, which illustrated some of the differences between current Italian and American cultures, especially when it comes to heterosexual relations. In the ad, the utterly delectable Miss Lima calls her boyfriend on his new videophone, tells him that she has an important appointment and doesn’t know what to wear.

There’s no hostility, she addresses him cheerfully as “amore” and he sounds generally delighted when he answers “Adriana!” But he isn’t the typical clueless schlub always seen on US TV, instead he shakes his head when she presents her first outfit, a Britney Spears “Hit Me Baby” schoolgirl look which only goes to show that Adriana is approximately 650 times more attractive than Britney was at her best.

She goes through several more outfits which range from silly to sexy, and which have the boyfriend either shaking his finger or peeping through them in reluctant fascination. In the end, she shows up in a sleek and sophisticated outfit that she hasn’t shown him… needless to say, she looks fantastic and the boyfriend’s silent “wow” shows his appreciation for both her taste and her impeccable bella figura. She apologizes for having been frantic, explaining that she didn’t know what she should put on, then leans forward and kisses him affectionately on the nose.

The subtext is more ambiguous, however. “Scusa se agitato” could also mean “I’m sorry I flustered you”, in addition to which it is left unsaid with whom the “important appointment” might be… it may actually be this meeting with him which appears to be unexpected. If that’s the case, then it’s clear that she didn’t actually need his help in dressing herself, she was merely playing a flirtatious game that entertained both of them… an idea supported by both her overall demeanor throughout and the wink she gives him while displaying outfits.

I merely thought this was interesting, in that it posits a more traditional notion of men and women as sexual beings interacting playfully and intelligently with each other rather than competing in a zero-sum game of domination and mutual dislike. The probability that this commercial would be denounced as sexist in the USA only tends to demonstrate the sickness of our commercial culture.


These are pretty funny

Regardless of their veracity:

Lifeguard on megaphone: Attention, beach-goers, due to the sunset, you must get out in 5 minutes or else we will turn the waves off.
Girl: Oh my God! Is he serious?!

—-

Girl #1 As Shakespeare once said “Thou shall not kill.”
Girl #2 No, that would be God.

—-

World’s best wife: Honey, twelve o’clock.
Clueless husband: Huh? No, it’s not. It’s two-thirty.
World’s best wife: I mean twelve o’clock.
Clueless husband: I don’t get you.
World’s best wife: Look straight ahead.
Clueless husband: Why?
World’s best wife: Look at the hot chick right in front of you! Look! Look!
Clueless husband: Oh!…Niiice.

—-

Spanish teen: Yo, mami, how ’bout I take a picture of me and you with that camera?
Preppy chick: How ’bout you’re not touching my camera?
Spanish teen: Oh, ouch! I’ll let you hold my phone. It’s worth lots!
Preppy chick: This camera is probably worth more than you are to your own mother.

And in tangential relation to today’s column, this first woman is obviously a prime candidate for DeBeers new right-hand diamond ring marketing, while the second quote shows a certain amount of support for the link between career women and cats:

Woman on cell: I want the wedding without the husband. No, really, I want to wear the dress and have a party all about me.

Woman #1: I don’t think I can handle a two-hour meeting.
Woman #2: The trick is to doodle in your notebook the whole time; it looks like you’re taking notes.
Woman #1: I can design outfits for my cat rodeo!



No good at this

I think this might serve as a summary for why I will never cut it as a proper conservative columnist. With Spacebunny out and about, I can actually watch videos recorded more recently than 1991 for once… I’m not an MTV fanatic but as a sometime songwriter I do like to keep up on the latest trends in music and video from time to time and after playing three hours of soccer today I’m pretty much useless for anything that requires either physical movement or brainwave activity.

Anyhow, I happened to see Nelly Furtado’s video for “Promiscuous”, which led me to the following four conclusions:

a) I don’t remember Nelly Furtado being smoking hot. When did that happen?
b) The rapper/singer dude is hilarious. The faces he made kept cracking me up.
c) Good, catchy song. I can appreciate a solid pop song.
d) What is Justin Timberlake doing in there?

Now, I’m not about to pull a Podhoretz here and start reviewing videos or anything, but it strikes me that if I’m ever going to make it on Townhall, I should loudly denounce “Promiscuous” as a terrible crime against the children of the nation and shake a finger at everyone who listens to it and likes it. Unfortunately, I don’t think I can work up either the inclination or the indignation to do so.

Other random notes from an hour spent imitating a cucumber:

1. The Lost Prophets are good. Good tune, good video.
2. Apparently Pharrell produces all music being recorded today.
3. Stitchie proves that great Christian hiphop is possible. “Fast and Pray” is a fantastic tune.
4. Supafly Inc would have been massive in the early 90’s. Now, they might not even make it to America. “Moving Too Fast” is an ideal club or party remix.
5. The Pussycat Dolls are wildly overrated. If the one chick wasn’t so ridiculously pretty, they’d be nothing. Girls Aloud are better.
6. You kind of have to respect Mariah Carey for writing “Heartbreaker” after getting the original jeter. I like that sort of emotional forthrightness in a song. Dumb video, though.
7. I don’t want to like the Black-Eyed Peas, but I do.

Nevertheless, I will not take any grief from for my occasional foray into pop. Currently in the CD: Ministry, Psalm 69. Rather timely, in light of some earlier discussions:

Theyre gonna set you up
So they can take you down
Theyre gonna suck you dry
Theyve left the blood to be found
Theyre gonna rip you apart
Youre gonna burn at the stake
Cos when its time to collect
Its only heroes who pay


This passes for a response

India Knight responds to Michael Noer:

So I would say this: Girls, a word of advice. Marry handsome men or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blonds or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don’t marry a man with a complex. Marry a man who is happy for you to be you, happy whether you do or don’t work. Marry a man who loves you as you are and who doesn’t think taking the rubbish out is beneath him. Marry a man who can put the children to bed when you’re running late and make dinner too without feeling he is the victim of an emasculating conspiracy. Never marry a man who is stupid enough to use feminist as a term of abuse. Don’t marry Michael Noer.

Or to summarize: girls, marry a man who isn’t a man. Typical fogginess, (precisely what complex is to be avoided, Oedipal? Prince Charming?), culminating in the predictable ad hominem attack.

Guys, this is why it is pointless to ask women what they want or even who they are. Just try responding to a woman as Ms Knight recommends – if you say “whatever you want, honey, you know I love you no matter what you do” more than three times in a row, she’ll throw a shoe and you and she’ll be right to do it, you pussy. This is just more “women like nice guys” equine ejectus cloaked in social commentary.

It’s not that women don’t know who they are, (or how could they ever say “that is SO me”), it’s that their self-identification tends to be variable, often depending upon what television show or movie last made an impression on them. One day she wants to be Carrie from Sex in the City (the non-slutty slut), the next Julia Andrews from The Sound of Music (the perfect step-mother), and then Julia Roberts from Pretty Woman (I deserve a rich man because I’m so inherently attractive). The reason that a man has to be a leader in the house is that when left to her own devices, a woman will usually bounce around from one impractical notion to the next.

Even the successful career woman, if you look closely enough, is simply following the path of her parents’ expectations. I spoke last week with an executive at a major media company who just got promoted and moved to LA; she’s still trying to “find herself” and is thinking of becoming a dance or figure-skating instructor. Needless to say, she’s unmarried.

Very few men go from trading on Wall Street to teaching yoga, or vice-versa. Women do that sort of thing all the time; the exceptions are mostly those who know that certain options are closed off to them.

Another presumably career woman adds:

Salon.com suggested last week that the article might just as well have been called, If You Are Really Self-Loathing and Weak, Try to Find Someone Who Doesn’t Work and Will Consent to Live With You Out of Financial Desperation For the Rest of Her Life.

Of course, this flies directly in the face of Ms Knight’s advice, which is to be weak and accepting of anything if you want a career woman to marry you. I still don’t see what all the fuss is about. If educated, high-income men such as Mr. Noer, myself and my entire social circle don’t wish to marry career woman, doesn’t that leave plenty of imported Mexican janitors for these wonderful, eminently desirable women?


We call them traitors now

But we may well come to see them as heroes when the truth of the Iraqi Occupation finally comes out:

We was going along the Euphrates river,” says Joshua Key, detailing a recurring nightmare that features a scene he stumbled into shortly after the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003. “It’s a road right in the city of Ramadi. We turned a sharp right and all I seen was decapitated bodies. The heads laying over here and the bodies over there and US troops in between them. I’m thinking, ‘Oh my God, what in the hell happened here? What’s caused this? Why in the hell did this happen?’ We get out and somebody was screaming, ‘We f***ing lost it here!’ I’m thinking, ‘Oh yes, somebody definitely lost it here.’” Key says he was ordered to look for evidence of a firefight, for something to explain what had happened to the beheaded Iraqis. “I look around just for a few seconds and I don’t see anything.”

Then he witnessed the sight that still triggers the nightmares. “I see two soldiers kicking the heads around like soccer balls. I just shut my mouth, walked back, got inside the tank, shut the door, and thought, ‘I can’t be no part of this. This is crazy. I came here to fight and be prepared for war, but this is outrageous.’”

He’s convinced that there was no firefight.

“A lot of my friends stayed on the ground, looking to see if there was any shells. There was never no shells.”

I don’t know if these stories are true. I haven’t talked to them men myself. But I do know that the neocon chickenhawk commentariat had better think twice before publicly labeling these deserters as traitors and cowards, especially the individuals who fought in Iraq. They are no more cowards than the IDF troops who are currently in hot water for refusing stupid orders that would have gotten them all killed in Lebanon last month.

Modern military tactics and weapons systems put a premium on soldiers with the ability to think. But this also puts serious responsibility on those who command them to avoid giving them obviously nonsensical missions and orders.


The Catch

Social scientists, especially those inclined towards feminist or sexually abnormal ideals, have a tendency to be particularly interested in the bonobo for reasons that are readily apparent:

De Waal: Wild bonobos live in a habitat that is more bountiful. Unlike chimpanzees, they have more than enough to eat, so that female bonobos can travel in groups. They form coalitions, help each other and defend themselves to avoid being dominated by the males.

SPIEGEL: A matriarchy?

De Waal: Yes, but not one in which individual females are dominant. Instead, the entire group is dominant, with the older female bonobos generally in charge within that group.

SPIEGEL: Is it this female dominance that makes the bonobos so gentle by nature?

De Waal: Female bonobos at least appear to be good at keeping the peace. After all, it isn’t especially worthwhile to them to constantly fight over their rank within the hierarchy, because rank has little impact on reproductive success. Although high-ranking female bonobos have better access to food for their young, this advantage is minimal compared to the benefits high-ranking male chimpanzees enjoy.

And interestingly enough, there’s some reason to believe that it would be theoretically possible to convince men to accept a bonobo-style matriarchy even though they would lose the ability to make decisions about their own fates. I rather doubt women would go for it, though, since there’s one little fact about bonobos that usually tends to get left out of the discussion….

Because bonobo males have sex with all bonobo females, they have no idea which children could be theirs.

In other words, women might be able to one day obtain their cherished dream of a matriarchy… as long as they’re willing to take one for the team every time a man crosses their path.