When facts meet feelings

Or: Panic in the Henhouse

About a month ago, Sir Tim Hunt, 71-year-old Biochemist who won the Nobel prize in 2001, said something that made women’s heads explode.

“Let me tell you about the trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them, they cry.”

Naturally this did not go down well with the Henhouse. When pressed for an explanation, he added:

“It is terribly important that you can criticize people’s ideas without criticizing them. If they burst into tears it means that you tend to hold back from getting at the absolute truth. Science is about nothing except getting at the truth and anything that gets in the way of that, in my experience, diminishes the science.”

When the yammering and the demands for his head subsided, he resigned from his post at the faculty of life sciences at University College London.

Some of the commentary is fascinating. The Henhouse mobilized with hashtags at the ready and Weaponized nagging fully engaged.

Here’s what we know:

  • All three parts of the original statement are demonstrably true, though obviously not for everyone. Does this mean that all women are like this? Of course not. Was he saying that women should not be in STEM? Absolutely not. Was he saying that women were the problem? Not at all. All he was doing was drawing attention to problems that most have us have encountered at one time or another.
  • The post that he resigned was an honorary one; his real job is in London Research Institute (Cancer Research UK). All of that complaining changed nothing.
  • His main job appears to be finding cures for cancer. Strangely, there are folks who would have him removed for the heinous crime of being politically incorrect.
  • He is 71 years old, even if he was fired from his main job, it would be no great loss, as he is probably not far off from retirement.

This reminds me of a post that I saw about a year ago, in which a female CEO put up a post entitled “I Don’t Want to Hire Women“, in which she stated something similar:

“I have had women cry in team meetings, come to my office to ask me if I still like them and create melodrama over the side of the office their desk was being placed. I am simply incapable of verbalizing enough appreciation to female employees to satiate their need for it for at least a week’s worth of work… (but) when I have something to say to one of the men, I just say it! I don’t think it through – I simply spit it out, we have a brief discussion and we move on. They even frequently thank me for the feedback! Not so fast with my female staff…”

And yet nobody called for her head on a platter. Nobody asked for her resignation. I wonder why…

Returning to Sir Tim one last time, I particularly liked one of the headlines: Nobel Scientist Says Women Take Things Personally; Women Take It Personally

I could not have put it better.

Oh Rick!

This story came across my desk: Two words on my wedding night ruined my marriage, honeymoon.

To summarize:

  • The heroine was previously in an “intense” relationship with “Rick”. After it ends  badly, one assumes – she swears off intimacy (i.e., “sex”).
  • She meets “Tom”, and decides “no premarital sex”. Tom agrees (like he has a choice in the matter).
  • Fast-forward to their wedding night, at a hotel before flying out to their honeymoon. while “getting to know each other”, she blurts out “Oh Rick!”
  • Tom calls his parents and tells them that the marriage is over. He then calls her parents, asks then who “Rick” was.
  • He gets dressed and leaves for their “honeymoon”, taking her passport with him, presumably so she cannot follow him.
  • She then writes to an agony aunt as the aggrieved party.

This is a classic example of how women lie to themselves and each other. She did not “make a mistake”, she lied to her husband about her sexual past.

The fact that Tom did not know who Rick was shows that this was clearly a lie of omission. You don’t like it when that hot guy forgets to tell you that he’s married? This is no different. Why is it that a man who lies is a rat, but when a woman does it, it is somehow OK?

It is amazing to me how many women buy into the “I’ll-have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too-and-what-he-doesn’t-know-won’t-hurt-him” meme, only to find the truth hitting them in the face at the most embarrassing possible time. Fortunately this time the truth came out before the man was trapped in a marriage with a woman who decided that a “very intense relationship with” with hot guy Rick somehow “didn’t count”. And women wonder why men are walking away from marriage.

Ladies, your sexual past is important to us. You don’t get to decide what is and is not important to us. You just don’t.

While it was wrong for him to take her passport, it is understandable – but that is relatively minor and is not germane to this story; funny how many people latched onto that one. It’s almost like they needed something to pin on him to cast him as the villain of the piece.

As far as I am concerned, justice has been served. She was ready and willing to start her marriage based on a lie. A lie of omission, to be sure, but a lie nonetheless.

It has been fun watching all the girlies circling the wagons and protecting the sistahood though…

When Inequality meets Injustice

Just stumbled across this story (original source). The short version: Couple has sex on the beach, in front of families. Folks get offended, they get arrested, and both end up in jail.

He gets two and a half years.
She gets time served and is released.

My thoughts:

  • It takes two to tango, but only one gets to pay the piper. They both did precisely the same thing. Wassup wid dat? He was given the heavier sentence because of a previous drug-related conviction which was served in full. To me, this is just not right; this was not a second drug offense, this was an unrelated charge.
  • Two and a half years? Some killers and rapists get lighter sentences than that.
  • “Witnesses testified that a 3-year-old girl saw them” Chances are that a three-year-old won’t won’t understand what they are seeing anyway, and if they did, it would be a lot like watching a couple of animals mating at the zoo. This is sad, but kids see worse things on prime-time TV every single day.
  • He was 40, she was 21. That dude has some serious mojo if he can pull a bird half his age and close the deal on the spot. Whatever vitamins he is taking, I want some o’dat.

I’ll end with a particularly bone-headed quote, from Assistant State Attorney Anthony Dafonseca: “If you think about 2:30 in the afternoon on a crowded beach. It takes a certain type of person to do that in front of children a few feet away,”

Er… no. it takes a certain type of couple.

Damned if you do…

Or: Action, meet consequence

Stumbled across an interesting story: Here and here:

TL;DR. Some male members of Congress have policies in place that prohibit them from being alone with female staffers. They say that it is to eliminate the appearance of impropriety, and to defend their reputations against accusations of impropriety or sexual harassment. Naturally the “Equality mob”, who, by definition, are never satisfied, are up in arms about this; they say that this “reduces women’s access to advancement opportunities and is discriminatory”.

Cut the crap, ladies.

Let’s face facts; a man’s reputation can be easily shattered by even a hint of impropriety. One accusation is enough to put a cloud over a man’s career that never goes away. We live in a world where sexual harassment is taken seriously, but the same system that protects women can be abused by unscrupulous ones, and a man’s career can be derailed or permanently besmirched without a shred of hard evidence.

So what is a man to do? If he allows himself to be alone with a woman, he opens himself to accusations of sexual harassment; if he doesn’t he opens himself to accusations of sexual discrimination. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. As for me, I err on the side of caution; in my work life, I will not allow myself to be alone with a woman behind closed doors. So you can see which side of the debate I am on.

Lincoln once said “He has the right to criticize who has the heart to help“, so in that spirit, let me propose a solution. These congress-critters should amend this policy so that, In the interests of transparency and integrity, they are not alone with *any* person. Male or female. Problem solved.

There. Fixed that for you. No need to thank me.

Why 40 doesn’t suck (if you’re a man)

A friend sped me to a post called “40 reasons 40 doesn’t suck“, ostensibly written by a professional writer/journalist. I say “ostensibly”, because I cannot remember the last time I saw such a load of tosh trying to pass itself off as serious journalism. Her “40 reasons” included such pabulum as knee socks, cussing, crying, complaining about the cold, and calling husband “perverted” for daring to want what he wants. And to top it all off, her list of “40” things ends with #32, and she somehow manages to pass this innumeracy off as a good thing.

I have no personal axe to grind here — she’s written some good stuff – but this particular one looks like it was written to a headline and a deadline and it came across as the ramblings of a crotchety old man. Still, her blog, her rules… which is probably why her post did not invite commentary. Strange, that.

But it got me to thinking… does 40 really suck? I have to say “no”. Partly because I was a late developer, but mostly because I am a man.

By and large, women bloom early and fade early; Mother Nature blesses them with the gift of attraction (aka Fertility) at about the age of sixteen, but Father Time takes it away again about twelve years later, which explains the crowd of late-twenties-early-thirties women who are surprised that Mister Exciting is no longer returning their texts. So for a woman, 40 is the death knell of physical attraction that stops men in their tracks and makes them cross the room to introduce themselves, to the annoyance if many harpies-in-training. And if you are offended by this, don’t worry dear, you’re one of the rare exceptions. Honest.

Men, on the other hand, tend to bloom later. The jocks bloom in their twenties, and the geeks – like yours truly – bloom in their thirties. So for them, 40 is the sweet spot in the middle of “The Zone” (for women, this occurs at about age 22-24). You can argue about this if you want, but this is not the place for it – I have blogged about it before.

So here are my reasons that 40 doesn’t suck… if you’re a man.

  1. You finally get some dress sense. When you’re a kid, you can wear any old rubbish and get away with it. As you get older, you realize that style is timeless. Unlike the ladies, you can make do with a handful of outfits and don’t need enough accessories to fill a small warehouse.
  2. You stop caring what others think. You have grown out of needing approval, and doing what you want. Congratulations on finally becoming a grown-up. For some reason, women find this somewhat winsome.
  3. You know who you are: By 40, you should know what you want to do with your life, and you don’t need anyone else to give you direction, validation or encouragement.
  4. You’ve got money. One would hope that by the age of 40 you have a little money put by for your old age. For some reason, women find this exceedingly attractive.
  5. You begin to understand masculinity and the laws of attraction. You begin to realize why you fared so badly with the fairer sex in your younger years; some of your behavior was cringe-worthy.
  6. You realize that time is on your side. A single man at 40 who is in good shape can easily date a girl in her twenties. A single woman at 40 has far fewer options and will find it difficult to catch the eye of any men under 50. I have seen this happen several times.
  7. You have all the power. As you mature, you get wisdom, which allows you to separate the wheat from the chaff more easily – and there is a *lot* of chaff out there. Twelve years of incredible power over men can go to a woman’s head – and often does.
  8. You don’t need 40 reasons for anything. You only need one. Because you want to.

Full disclosure: 40 is a vanishingly small smudge in my rear-view mirror. And I’ve still got my foot to the floor.

Disrespect

Most of the annoyances in life boil down to some level of disrespect. I see it everywhere.

  • People fiddling with their phones while you are talking to them. I recently had a conversation with a young man who spent the first ten minutes of the conversation texting with his girlfriend, until a colleague called him out on his behavior.
  • Folks who show up twenty minutes late for church then walk to the front, distracting everyone. That’s what the back four rows are for! You wouldn’t show up late for work, or to the game, so obviously God isn’t as important.If it were down to me, I would have them lock the doors when the service begins, but thank God it isn’t.
  • Folks who think that it is OK to inflict their crying babies and badly behaved children on others. No, they’re not “cute”, they are annoying.
  • People who use expressions like “it takes a village” to defend the above misbehavior without knowing what it actually means. It only works if you are OK with strangers disciplining your kid. Otherwise, it is your problem.
  • People crossing a street or a parking lot without looking around for oncoming traffic.

Am I overreacting? Have I missed something? Comment! And in the meantime, get off my lawn!

End Paternity Fraud

It is estimated that as many as two million men in this nation are unwittingly raising another man’s child. What’s worse, if the mother can keep that fact under wraps for three years, her husband will be on the hook for child support for somebody else’s child — even if she leaves him and moves in with the child’s biological father.

Don’t expect any sympathy form the courts; they are not interested in justice. When faced with a situation like this, they will think of the child first, the mother second, and throw the man — any man — under the bus. If the real father cannot be found — or chooses not to be identified — the poor schlub who married her will be required to pay the bill, whether he is the father or not. And if he can’t pay, perhaps because he can’t find work or has lost his job, the court will guestimate what his income should be, calculate child support accordingly, and put him in jail if he cannot pay it.

As it happens, paternity fraud is not a crime in any state of the union. And if a man suspects paternity fraud by his cheating wife, she can refuse to divulge the true identity of the father of her child that he is expected to support, and there is no way he can force the issue without her permission. How can it be that an unemployed father can be compelled to pay child support, but the mother can refuse to provide proof of paternity in support of that same child support?

It gets worse: in France, paternity testing is banned. Apparently the courts don’t even care whether or not you are the father – all they care about is whether you can pay.

This needs to change.

The first thing that must be done is to establish paternity at birth. It’s not hard; just make paternity testing a compulsory requirement before the father’s name goes on the birth certificate — and if the child isn’t his, there should be legal remedies available, up to and including termination of the marriage in his favor. If hospitals can routinely perform circumcisions on newborn baby boys, a simple blood test should not be an issue.

Naturally, women will kick and scream at this one. Expect active hostility from the distaff side of the aisle; like moderate Muslims who feign outrage against terrorism while covertly admiring jihadists, women will agree that paternity fraud is wrong, while fighting to keep things just the way they are; they currently benefit from the current “Mama’s-baby-Papa’s-maybe” system, and want the legal protection that they currently enjoy against any indiscretion that they may commit in future to to continue. Apparently their loyalty to “team woman” can trump even sacred vows made before witnesses. And then they will doubtless complain about how men don’t want to marry.

There is a reason that all major world religions rail against adultery, even while Hollywood is busily glorifying it in any way that they can. But every man has a right to know that the children that he is sacrificing his blood and treasure for are actually his, and not the product of an indiscretion – and if they aren’t, he deserves to know that his wife is the dictionary definition of a lying slut.

The second change that is required is that paternity should be proved in all child-support cases. No man should never have to pay child support for another man’s child. No paternity test? No dollars.

The second change that is required is an end to no-fault divorce where children are concerned. It is wrong for a man to walk out on his wife and children. Deadbeat dads are a definite problem. But more and more women are abandoning their marriages, then plundering their joint assets in the name of “fairness”. When a marriage breaks up and children are involved, somebody’s got some ‘splaining to do.

In conclusion, in future elections, make candidates aware if this issue and as what they intend to do about it. Ask incumbents what they have done about it. And vote accordingly.

Going back to the well

Saw this story a few weeks ago.

TL: DR: Back in the nineties, a two people made a baby. He was unemployed and she divorced him in short order. No child support was awarded because he had no money.

Fast-forward twenty years, and he is a multimillionaire… and she suddenly wants £2 Million for child support.

This is not exactly news: She tried this before and was shot in flames down a few years ago, but she’s obviously not letting that slow her down.

At this point, she has only received permission to apply for child support, so there is not much of a story here. But the fact that she has even received permission to take this matter to court is alarming.

There is a tendency in divorce family courts to put women and children first, mostly at the expense of men. This made sense when women could not vote, own property, divorce their husbands without cause or survive and thrive after divorce. But those are no longer problems, yet we still expect men to live up to their side of an ancient bargain that no longer exists.

But women who walk out on their husbands have already made that decision. They have chosen freedom over marital obligation.

If a woman decides to blow up her marriage and walk out on her husband, that is her choice. But that choice came with consequences.When she left him she knew that life would be hard, and she knew that he would not be able to help her. For her to then change her mind yet again and claim child support because he has money is effectively saying:”I don’t want you, but I sure would like some of your money“.

A wife takes a man for better or for worse. A mistress takes a man for better.

It sounds to me like she is trying to get the best of both worlds.

Run Randall Run!

It has just come to my attention that Rand Paul has announced his bid for the Republican Presidential Nomination.

Long-time readers of this blog will know that I have long supported his father, Libertarian Ron Paul, in his previous attempts to attain the highest office in the land, while being painfully aware that his chance of being elected were low. So I have greeted this news with much optimism.

The Republican party has lost much of its unity over the past eight years. Whomever wins the nomination will have to unite a mixture of TradCons, NeoCons and RiNOs and Socialist-Lite factions within the party. A lifelong Libertarian, Rand Paul is about taking the party back to the roots of Republicanism: Small government, low taxes, non-interference, anti-socialism, free-market, personal liberty with responsibility.

This will annoy a lot of people; from the hard left who believe that Government should be all things to all people all the time (Obamacare, anyone?), to moderate conservatives, who would like the government to pay for their pet boondoggle. Bot those on the far right will be threatened too, as their dreams of Empire will be thwarted by any president who takes the Constitutional Limitations of his job seriously,.

I wish you luck, Sir.

Disillusioned

I am a creature of many passions, two of which are playing games and writing. So last year I decided to combine those two passions and write a book about a game that I enjoyed playing. And so the Assassins’ Creed: Pirates Game Guide was born.

I originally released it in two versions: a free version and a paid version with ten extra pages of personal research and information that was not available anywhere else. I figured that if folks liked the free version that they would pay a few dollars for the paid version.

I was wrong.

The free version got hundreds of downloads, but in spite of my lowering the price from $4.99 to $2.99, there were only a handful of sales. The market has spoken. Or more specifically, the freeloaders have made their point. I made a mistake, one that I will not make again.

As a result, I am reducing the free version to a “preview” version that features only the first twenty-five pages of the book.

This will doubtless upset some people; you may thank the huge number of freeloaders who do not value the many hours of work I have put into writing and publishing this book.

Don’t blame me, blame the freeloaders.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 173 other followers