Category Archives: Opinion

Ten things that you didn’t know about Roe v Wade

Source: Pixabay

  1. “Jane Roe” was no angel: The woman in the case, Norma Corvey, had been in and out of prison and had already had two children before she was twenty. She was, in her own words “unemployable and depressed”, and when she got pregnant for the third time, she didn’t want the child.
  2. By hook or by crook: At the time, the law in Texas prohibited abortions. She was advised by friends to file a false rape accusation, which she did. The accusation was (rightly) dismissed because she didn’t report the rape to the police at the time. When that didn’t work, she tried to get an illegal abortion, only to find that the clinics near her had been closed down by law enforcement. In desperation, she found a pair of female lawyers who took the case all the way to the Supreme Court.
  3. The case was moot: Norma never had an abortion.The child who triggered the case was put up for adoption.
  4. Roe v Wade was never about “Women’s rights”: The case was heard by the Supreme Court as a privacy issue, not as an abortion issue. The case was fought primarily as a right for physicians to practice medicine freely and with a minimum of federal oversight
  5. The right to life is important: In its ruling, The Supreme Court found that the state’s duty to protect life outweighed the mother’s privacy rights at the point where the fetus was viable. In the 70s, viability was about six months. Today it is abut four. When artificial womb technology becomes available, that will effectively drop to zero, at which point viability will, at least theoretically, trump abortion.
  6. The case was not fought on the morality of abortion: One of the arguments was whether consent to sex equaled consent to parenthood. The court rightly found no such equality.
  7. The trimester model: A woman had the right to an abortion during the first trimester. During the third Trimester, the fetus was viable, and abortion would therefore be murder. the “trimester model” was dismantled in subsequent Supreme Court cases.
  8. It is Constitutional. Sort of…: In its majority finding, The Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution… even though there is nothing in the constitution that deals directly with the matter. Legitimizing abortion is “a matter of privacy” is a joke, as it does not supersede the “right to life” enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.
  9. Roe V Wade is a bad law: Since the case was settled, many Supreme Court justices have said that Roe v Wade was a bad decision. A prime example was none other than Ruth Bader Ginsberg https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit
    Jane Roe is anti-abortion:
  10. Roe Repented: Norma Corvey subsequently regretted her actions and the landmark case which bears her name. She went on to become a pro-life advocate. Before she died, she created a website called www.endroe.org.
Advertisements

A digital book-burning

I recently meandered across a story called “Alex Jones will never abandon deranged propaganda, that’s why Twitter needs to ban him“. As is often the case for opinion pieces, comments to the piece were neither requested nor required. So here we go…


If untruthfulness was the basis of censorship, half of the liberal media would be in jail. Sadly, there are no laws in this country against mendacious libel as there are in the United Kingdom

Every week the tabloids disgorge a fresh cargo of sex, lies and fanciful tales at supermarket checkouts throughout the land, and nobody seems to get upset. While I voted for Trump in the last election (and I called it five months out) I am not a fan of Alex Jones. I find him to be a blowhard. I have never been a fan of either Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, though I have agreed with some of their ideas, principles and positions. By the same token, I find Michael Moore to be a delusional blob of feel-good socialism. But they all have every right to speak, write, make movies, and do their thing. And I would oppose any attempt to censor or silence any of them.

Last time I looked, Ignorance wasn’t a crime. If it were, the Bernie-Sanders socialists would be up on charges for failure to understand basic mathematics.

Close but no Cigar, bucko. While you are absolutely correct in saying that Twitter/Google/FakesBook et al are private organizations who can do as they please, that is not the point. The point is that these organizations are blatantly practicing partisan politics while pretending to be politically neutral. To quote Judge Judy Scheindlin: “Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining”

Another true-but-disingenuous statement. First up, the left increasingly uses “Hate” as a catch-all phrase for “criticism that I don’t like“, in the same way that they use Alt-Right to describe “someone I want to describe as a Nazi/Fascist/Racist/White supremacist, but can’t use those terms without looking like an intellectually dishonest idiot“. Most sensible people define “Hate speech” as something along the lines of “Any speech that calls for harm to another person”. By this definition, Maxine Waters’ call to harass Trump’s Staff in public is hate speech, as are the consistent calls to assassinate President Trump. Kathy Griffin’s infamous photo stunt may be a form of hate speech. No liberal media outrage in either case. Liberals, your political slip is showing.
Secondly, the NFL’s decision to ban players from any kind of political grandstanding is right and reasonable; the players are paid to play ball, and the League, who pays their salaries, can do as they please. If players want to play politics, they are more than welcome to do so on their own time. If I walk into a Starbucks wearing a MAGA hat, I should be treated the same way as anyone else. However, if I work there, my employers have the right to require me to remove it or leave. The bottom like here is the same: Don’t mix politics and business.

There’s the H-word again. Whenever you see that word, substitute “WAAAAH! SOMEBODY SAID SOMETHING I DIDN’T LIKE!” Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Let them speak, and let the chips fall where they may.

If there’s one thing that the last few Administrations have taught us, it is that a power that is given to one president is inherited by the next one. That which is created by the stroke of a pen can be destroyed by the stroke of a pen. The use of censorship to silence your opposition may one day blow up in your face.


He’s hitting all the buzzwords here. These people use cellphones and Postal serviced to communicate. Want to ban those as well? And what about the ISIS Recruiters on Social Media, are they being shut down with the same alacrity? Why is “Kill all white men” perfectly acceptable speech, but substituting the word “Black” is somehow racist?

This is just plain dishonest. Is the Post Office answerable for letter-bombs? Is the phone system legally responsible for wire fraud? Of course not. Is Facebook responsible for every DuckFace Selfie? So why is Twitter being held responsible for every tweet? And what, pray tell, is “real fake news”?


I am a firm believer in free speech, as long as it does not infringe upon anyone else’s rights. But that includes speech that I may disagree with. No one has a right to not be offended or outraged. If I don’t like it, I can spend my time, attention, and dollars elsewhere. Twitter has a competitor — Gab.Ai — and a lot of Conservatives, both reasonable and crazy – have moved there.

Bottom Line: The author is trying to suggest that Twitter can and should be some kind of digital safe space. Even if that were feasible, it would be an extremely bad idea.

Rebirth of a Nation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXPhLXuJ90I

  • What if I told you that Donald Trump was not a Nazi?
  • What if I told you that Republicans are not Fascists?
  • What if I told you that Fascism came, not from the right, but from the left, and always has?
  • What if I told you that the Ku Klux Klan was originally the paramilitary arm of the Democratic Party?
  • What if I told you that,before they became enemies, Adolf Hitler admired President Roosevelt’s Progressive policies, and considered him to be “One of us”?
  • What if I told you that the Nazi Nuremberg laws, which turned the Jews into second-class citizens were based on the Jim Crow laws created and passed by Southern Democrats?

I’m not going to tell you any of those things. I leave that to Dinesh D’Souza, who lays out his case in this engaging film, which I watched a few days ago.

The movie starts with a depiction of Hitler’s last moments in a German Bunker, before answering the question “What is a Nazi?” (Answer: “The German National Socialist Worker’s Party“), defining Fascism (State control and regulation of the private sector), and examining the political and ideological similarities between Hitler, Mussolini and Franklin D Roosevelt.

The movie goes on to examine the life and times of a Republican President who was so controversial and so incensed Democrats that they were openly calling for his assassination and were willing to divide the nation and go to war to bring him down. Sound familiar?

It should… it was Abraham Lincoln.

D’Souza draws parallels between Presidents Lincoln and Trump that are sure to warm the hearts of liberals everywhere.

But don’t take my word for it. Watch the movie. Hear out his claims, and disprove them if you can.

Roe V Wade… for men?

There is a lot of noise coming from the “Loony Left” that President Trump is bent on “Reversing Roe v Wade”. As with so much that comes from the liberal media, this is a complete red herring; he has said no such thing, and there is absolutely no evidence to support this. (Returning abortion decisions to the states is not repeal, it is simply following the constitution). Nor would it be easy; a “settled law” Supreme Court case cannot easily be reversed by Executive Order, the only thing that can stand against it is legislation – and that has to come from Congress.

This got me thinking… instead of reversing Roe v Wade, why not expand it? We live in an age of equality, so why not expand Roe v. Wade to apply to men as well?

Right now you are thinking that the Wizard has lost his marbles. “Men can’t get pregnant, so how can abortion be an issue?” And you would be right, except for one thing: Roe v Wade was not about abortion. That was the practical upshot, to be sure, but the plaintiffs did not fight the case on the morality or merits of abortion-on-demand; they would have lost that argument. Instead, the case hinged on one simple question:

“Is consent to sex consent to parenthood?”

The court, quite rightly, said no, and that was how the case was won. A woman cannot be forced to have a child against her will. So far so good. But by the same token, if a man doesn’t want a child, why should he be forced to pay for it?

The sad fact is that an increasing number of women are mis-using their fertility as a way to collect dollars from wealthy, desirable men. And they are getting it. Some women are getting pregnant for famous sports starts and then taking them to court, often for ridiculous sums. This practice needs to stop.

A few simple changes to the law are all that is needed to fix this:

  • No child support for children born out of wedlock with the father.
  • Compulsory paternity testing at birth.
  • Standardized or itemized child support costs.

Most men would look at that list and find it to be fundamentally just. Many women will consider it fundamentally unjust. But a woman who is pregnant has three ways to avoid the burden of parenthood; abortion, adoption or legal abandonment. Men have none. Even men who are the victims of statutory rape by an adult woman are still on the hook for eighteen years of child support if she gets pregnant. This has to change, otherwise men will continue to disengage.

…or, we can just keep doing what we are doing and hoping for a different result. Good luck with that.

Truth and Consequences

Henry Cavill is an actor who recently got himself into a spot of bother with a horde of yammering harpies. In an interview with GQ, he said the following:

“Stuff has to change, absolutely,” he adds, addressing men’s behavior. “It’s important to also retain the good things, which were a quality of the past, and get rid of the bad things.

“There’s something wonderful about a man chasing a woman. There’s a traditional approach to that, which is nice. I think a woman should be wooed and chased, but maybe I’m old-fashioned for thinking that.

“It’s very difficult to do that if there are certain rules in place. Because then it’s like: ‘Well, I don’t want to go up and talk to her, because I’m going to be called a rapist or something’. So you’re like, ‘Forget it, I’m going to call an ex-girlfriend instead, and then just go back to a relationship, which never really worked’. But it’s way safer than casting myself into the fires of hell, because I’m someone in the public eye, and if I go and flirt with someone, then who knows what’s going to happen?
“Now? Now you really can’t pursue someone further than, ‘No’. It’s like, ‘OK, cool’. But then there’s the, ‘Oh why’d you give up?’ And it’s like, ‘Well, because I didn’t want to go to jail?’”

Unsurprisingly, the girlies went nuts. Here are a couple of their offerings

It’s not about rape, sweetheart, and you know it. And it is not about men trying to “position themselves as “victims”” either. This is an example of a female trying to move the goalposts by changing the subject.

You wish. His exact words were “wooed and chased”, which clearly shows romantic, rather then terroristic, intentions. Oh, and I’ve seen your picture; you have little to worry about.

Everything he said was 100% true. The irony is that a man talking to a magazine that is ostensibly aimed at other men (GQ, if you didn’t know it, stands for Gentleman’s Quarterly) can cause such ire among a bunch of women. This is not about rape or sexual harassment, it is about perceptions, accusations, trial-by-media and witch-hunts. We now live in an age where a man’s life can be ruined over one accusation without any proof; Google “Brian Banks” if you don’t believe me.

For men in the twenty-first century, the ground is shifting under their feet. First it was rape; a serious crime that is committed by about 5% of men, but for which the other 95% are somehow guilty by association and are therefore responsible for policing and fixing.

Then it was Sexual Assault, which, while also a crime, is often far less serious; touching a woman inappropriately — and the term is often loosely defined — is most often solved by confronting, either with words or a good old-fashioned slap, and requires jail time only in the most extreme cases.

Having made men aware that inappropriate touching is bad, they them moved on to the next target; Sexual Harassment. Once upon a time, powerful men hired pretty young secretaries to look pretty, fondle, and occasionally sleep with. If truth be told, many of today’s powerful men probably miss those days, but they are gone. And I suspect that at least a few pretty young girls are probably upset that the powerful big-shots in the corner offices are forever beyond their reach, thanks to the advent of the Pence Rule, an entirely rational reaction to the specter of Sexual Harassment.

Almost all employers are now bending over backwards to make sure that we are aware of (i.e., they can’t be sued over) sexual harassment. Which will kill any chances of a young woman finding a husband in the workplace, cos all of the high-value guys are either Gay, already taken, or understandably gun-shy.

Cavill’s biggest mistake, in my opinion, was apologizing. To be fair, his apology was actually for the confusion that his remarks may have caused, but to the horde of yammering Social Justice Harpies yapping at his heels, it was a victory and another male scalp to add to their collection. My take on this is to never apologize for being right, Misunderstandings should be cleared up, but not from a position of submission. If I had a say in the matter, I would have advised Mr. Cavill to call a press conference and say the following:

“There are some in the media who would chide me for my use of words. They would say that the word “chase” makes some women feel uncomfortable. However, it should be obvious to anyone with an ounce of sense that the word was used correctly in context. Most men understand that #MeToo is in danger of morphing from a genuine grievance, to something that looks a lot like trial-by-media and punishment without due process. If you are one of those who is that easily offended by a misunderstanding, you just made my point for me. Thank you.”

Ladies, changing society to make you feel more comfortable is all well and good, but don’t think for a minute that such change comes without consequences. And one of those consequences is that in the age of #MeToo, the only men who can effortlessly approach women are men who have nothing to lose.

Good luck to you

Spot the Racist

Loses job, series cancelled

*crickets*

If one is racism, how is the other one not?

Skeptical

Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic

When I went to college, it was to study Biochemistry and Environmental Sciences. Back in those days, it was understood that we were, geologically speaking, due for an Ice Age “any day now”.

Within ten years, this changed: Over time, “Global Cooling” became “Global Warming”.

More time passed. It soon became apparent that the planet was neither warming nor cooling; some parts of the globe were getting cooler, other parts were getting warmer. So the Scientific Community, presumably in a bid to not sound like idiots, coined the term “Climate Change”, which has the advantage of meaning … whatever you want it to mean (see also “Hope and Change”).

Before we go any further, it must be said that I accept that there is such a thing as Climate Change. Planet Earth is not a static system. As we speak, the force of the Indian Subcontinent driving into the underbelly of Asia is driving the Himalayan mountains ever higher. And the world’s largest island, Australia, is charging around the globe looking for some unsuspecting continent onto which it can disgorge its cargo of Kangaroos, Koala Bears, Duck-Billed Platypuses… and some of the most dangerous and venomous insects in the world. So some places are getting warmer, some are getting cooler.

What I remain unconvinced about is Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), the idea that humans are single-handedly ruining the planet. I “deny” nothing, but I am skeptical, for a great many reasons. So if you call me a “Climate change denier“, I will call you a “Climate Change Alarmist“. I prefer the terms “Climate Change Believer” and “Climate Change Skeptic/Agnostic“. I appreciate that others will not like these terms, with their religious overtones, but the “Consensus” claims of the Alarmists, along with their eschatological panic, make them look a lot like religious zealots.

So yes, climate change is a thing. No sensible person will dispute that. The salient questions are:

  • Are we causing it?
  • How did we cause it?
  • How can we fix it?

Are we causing Climate Change?

Here are some thoughts on the subject:

  • Two thousand years ago, the Romans grew grapes in London. That no longer happens.
  • Between the 14th and the 19th centuries, Europe experienced a “Little Ice Age”. The river Thames froze over many times. That no longer happens either, and has not happened at all in the last two hundred years.
  • So England was cooling, and warming, for centuries, long before industrialization came along.
  • My utility bill tells me the average temperature during the past month, along with the average temperature for the same month last year. In the vast majority of cases, this year has been colder than last year.

Climate Change Alarmists are convinced that unless we change our ways quickly, bad things will happen. However, they cannot agree on what that change will be. We cannot trust the weatherman to tell us what the weather will be a week from now, but they expect us to believe that they know what the climate will be a thousand years from now.

How did we cause it?

The accepted answer from the Climate Change community is “Greenhouse Gases” There are two major greenhouse gases: CO2 and Methane.

CO2 is emitted by emission from burning fossil fuels and also by plants in sunlight. Fossil fuels, however, are not born equal; they range from clean-burning (in terms of CO2 emissions) Natural Gas, to the relatively “dirty” Coal (in the past thirty years, the percentage of power generated from coal has dropped from 57% to 37% in the U.S.).

Methane is a far worse “greenhouse gas” by a factor of about 30 (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140327111724.htm) is found mostly generated mostly by natural seepage. Our main contribution is cow flatulence.

Can we fix it?

If ACC is true, There is only one way that works, and that is de-industrialization on a massive scale; no more motor cars, no more power plants, no more electricity, no more civilization; we and go back to living in tents and caves, dying young, and reducing ourselves to a third-world lifestyle. Women will die from childbirth or iPhone withdrawal, men will die in battle. Life will return to its historically natural state: “Nasty, brutish, and short”. Well sign me up!

Assuming that this is not an option, what else is to be done?

  1. Build Nuclear Power Stations. They don’t emit greenhouse gases. Wind-generated power won’t be enough, and Geothermal power, while a viable future option, isn’t there yet.
  2. Give up eating beef.
  3. Buying a hybrid or electric car won’t help. All this does is move the pollution from the vehicle’s exhaust pipe to a power-plant. See #1
  4. International agreements like the Paris Climate Accords are a farce; China and India refused to sign up, and they are among the world’s biggest polluters. Yet when Donald Trump abandoned the accords, he was savaged by the press. I applaud him. No President should embark on a course of action that puts American businesses at a disadvantage.

Some will say things like “95% of scientists agree that ACC is real. That claim may be true, but should be taken with a grain of salt. What they fail to mention is that 100% of government research funding goes to defining and finding a solution to “The problem of Climate Change”. There is no money to be made in pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. It is impossible to make someone believe something if their paycheck depends on them not believing it.

Climate Change Alarmists’ predictions are inconsistent, and often hysterical.

  • In 2007, Al Gore predicted that the Arctic Polar Ice cap could be gone by 2014 . This has not happened, Not even close.
  • Back in the 1970s, and 1980s, there was much talk about the “Hole in the Ozone Layer”, ostensibly caused by CholoFluoroCarbons — or CFCs for short. As a result, CFCs were banned throughout the industrialized world, though it is still in use elsewhere. Within a decade, the hysteria subsided, and there is currently no evidence that there ever was a hole in the Ozone layer. No explanation or apology has ever been given by those who were spreading all of this panic, except for the “It-is-healing-really-really-fast” theory, which is not science. But we are supposed to trust them this time. This reminds me of the end-times claims given by many religious folks.

Conclusions:

I have yet to be convinced that Anthropogenic Climate Change is real.

For obvious reasons, cutting pollution is a good idea, as long as it does not interfere with progress or economic growth.

The Evidence Is Not Conclusive. Climate change “consensus” is not science.

  • Thirty years ago, eggs were good for you.
  • Twenty years ago, eggs were bad for you.
  • Ten years ago, egg yolks were bad for you, while egg whites were good for you.
  • In these enlightened days, eggs are good for you… again.

So much for “Scientific Consensus”

Next time you hear someone saying “We believe that climate change…” or “I believe in science“, remind them that science is not something that you believe in, it is something that you do. When you “believe” in science, something that many prominent atheists claim, you are actually making science your religion.

Wooly Thinking

I came across this story in Psychology today. The story is a few years old, but I am amazed at how deliberately misinformed, if not disingenuous, someone can be.

Is Marriage Worth the Trouble For Women? The benefits go mostly to men.

Let’s start at the very beginning:

A casual look at how marriage is represented in popular culture may lead one to conclude that ending up at the altar is the ultimate female desire.

It is. Men don’t fantasize about getting married. Women have been known to.

Wedding magazines are aimed almost exclusively at brides, not grooms.

They are. Women spend far more on magazines than do men. And nobody ever went broke telling women what they desperately wanted to hear.

Reality TV shows highlight Bridezillas, not Groomzillas, and The Bachelor, in which multiple women vie for a ring, is a ratings juggernaut.

They are. Men don’t watch reality TV. Look at the adverts; who are they aimed at?

The central attraction in the pageant of the average wedding is reserved for the bride’s dress, while the groom’s attire receives little billing.

Working as designed. Women will spend big money on fashion. Man is the only animal species where the female wears the plumage.

Pop culture queen Beyoncé herself has famously admonished men that if they like it, then they should put a ring on it.

And most girls look like Beyoncé… NOT! If did, I’m sure that you would have no shortage of suitors. This is a classic Apex Fallacy.

Proverbs 31 says “An excellent wife, who can find? Her value is greater than rubies”. Translation: Most women ain’t wife material.If he ain’t “putting a ring on it” it’s probably because you are unworthy.

Men, on the other hand, are often depicted as commitment phobic, having to be conned or whipped into marriage, or dragged to the altar against their deeply promiscuous nature, which abhors long-term monogamy.

Close but no cigar. Decades ago, women were far more chaste and feminine than they are now. They had the requisite skills that made them good wives. I would posit that feminism has caused women to behave like men, and men have rationally started behaving like boys. As women invaded colleges and the workplace en masse, taking up more and more traditional male spaces and, men have become increasingly sidelined, less educated, less affluent, less able to support a family. Women have also put off marriage into their late twenties and early thirties, denying marriage-minded men of the youth, beauty and fertility that they crave and would pay the ultimate price for.

Both women and men have inherently become both less marriage-minded, and less marriageable. But since the men are the deciders of commitment, when they balk, women, ever reluctant to admit their faults, are quick to portray them as marriage-averse. But I have seen too many women who want to be a bride, but not a wife. It’s not that we don’t want to marry; it’s that we don’t want to marry you.

The notion of a “midlife crisis,” during which men are bound to jettison their old wives for a new, younger trophy model is also a familiar cultural trope.

…while the notion of wives who get fat and bitchy, deny their husbands sex (it is estimated that 80% of ten-year-plus marriages are essentially sexless) while holding the specter of divorce-induced financial ruination over his head, remains safely ignored.

Oh, and the “trope” is generally untrue; very few men “trade in” for the very good reason that most men can’t afford it. Another Apex Fallacy, methinks. Seriously. How many of the divorces you know of follow this pattern?

Marriage, we have been led to believe, is a natural habitat for women, but a stifling cage for men. Thus goes the popular fantasy. However, in the real world of data, things shake out quite a bit differently.

We’ll see about that

First, confounding the view of marriage as the female heaven and haven is the fact that marriage actually appears to benefit men more than it does women.

Yes, marriage is good for men. And Divorce is an absolute bloody disaster. And the Divorce rate is 50%. If a man is going into a deal where there is a fifty-fifty chance of having his head taken off, there had better be some serious benefits for him. This obvious and incontrovertible fact seems to be lost on some psychologists, it seems.

Research has shown that the “marriage benefits”—the increases in health, wealth, and happiness that are often associated with the status—go disproportionately to men. Married men are better off than single men. Married women, on the other hand, are not better off than unmarried women.

Correlation, it is written, is not causation. Could it be that women are attracted to — and tend to marry — men who are healthy, wealthy and happy?

Second, in contrast to the myth that marriage is a woman’s ultimate and sacred fulfillment is the reality that roughly two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women… A recent AARP survey of 1147 men and women ages 40-79 who experienced a divorce in their 40s, 50s, or 60s, found that 66% of women said they initiated the split.

It is also true that the longer a couple have been married, the more ruination a departing wife can visit upon her husband. It is often pre-planned; in many cases the poor sap had no idea until she had him served with divorce papers.

The results revealed an intriguing pattern: As expected, women initiated roughly two thirds (69%) of the breakups in heterosexual marriages. However, the gendered trend in relationship breakups held only for marriages and not for other non-marital unions.

I have a theory on this. Women don’t generally dump men for nobody. Outside of marriage, they tend to delay dumping their boyfriends until they have another one primed and ready to go. But with marriage, there are cash-and-prizes that come with a divorce. In some cases, the husband ends up with all of the financial obligations of marriage with none of the benefits that go with it. The Government effectively becomes her new husband.

Moreover, women in marriages, but not in other relationships, reported lower levels of satisfaction.

This is bunk. Study after study has shown that married women report the highest level of happiness. If you don’t believe them, reality is only a glance away. Think of the most depressed, miserable and bitter women you know. Who are they? Feminists. Just kidding! They are usually unmarried, childless, over thirty, and without hope of having the life they desperately crave.

According to Rosenfeld, these data suggest that the tendency for women to initiate breakups is not an inherent feature of male-female relationships. Rather, it is a feature of male-female marriage.

Rubbish. It is a feature of profitability; you can’t divorce-rape a boyfriend. The real acid test for this theory would be to look at the separation rates for couples in a state of Common-Law marriage, where they are not actually married, but the State treats them as if they were. If my theory is correct, common-law wives will dump their husbands for cash-and-prizes with the same alacrity that married women do.

This finding appears to provide support for the notion that women experience the institution of marriage as oppressive, in large part because it emerged from and still carries the imprint of a system of female subjugation.

What mealy-mouthed, self-serving Psychobabble. The popularity of “Fifty Shades of grey” shows clearly that women love the ideas of submission and subjugation… as long as he has a six-pack, a helicopter, a yacht, and conspicuous good looks. Hypergamy (the female tendency for women to date/mate/marry “up”) means that women are inherently much harder to satisfy than are men.

At the end of the day, the accumulating data paint a picture of marriage as complex commerce in which women may often play a paradoxical role: They work harder for a smaller share of the benefits, which may explain why, while they may often be more eager to get into a marriage, they are often also more eager to get out.

Women get plenty of benefits from marriage, but they get those benefits later in life, when his earnings are are their highest, her looks are gone, and no other man is interested. In a word, it is security. But if she can get the same security in Divorce Court, it will be easier for her to bust out of the marriage in a manner not unlike that infamous scene in Alien.

Here in the enlightened West, women are also never satisfied: how many wives have you heard complain that their husbands do too much around the house? None! This tells us men that women’s expectations are fundamentally unreasonable.

Conclusion: Data on Marriage and Divorce is like data on Climate Change – highly subject to interpretation. This piece seems to be written from a standpoint of “marriage is a bad idea because subjugation, and women shouldn’t do it”. If that is your honest opinion, don’t get married, for your sanity, and the well-being of the poor sap you are going to divorce. For those who do want marriage, I have one simple word of advice:

Appreciate what you have. Or someone else will.

Says Who?

Ran across this piece recently: The United States of Sex: A Survey of 17,000 Women.

Takeaway: 79%of a sample of 17000 women, most aged 18-45, considered themselves sexy some or all of the time.

Are you nuts?

In a nation where 3 out of 4 women are overweight or obese, four out of five think that they are sexy? Ladies, what are you smoking?

Here’s one for the guys. Next time you are in a public place, look around. Count the women. Now estimate the percentage of them who you would describe as “Sexy”. I guarantee it won’t be 4 in 5. Probably more like 1 in 10. Almost all of them will be under 30. And none of them will be obese.

In related news: The average man thinks the average woman is average, but the average woman thinks the average man is ugly. So who is truly capable of being objective?

Moral: Self-praise is no recommendation.

Where have all the Good Men gone?

I haven’t put pen to paper — or fingers to keyboard — in many a moon. This was not, as one might expect, due to writer’s block. Quite the opposite. I have too many ideas, many of which were too raw or edgy or unfit for publication.

In recent years, there has been much talk about “The Marriage Strike”, an oft-repeated over-dramatization about the dearth of men who are ready, willing and able to marry. Naturally, the Lamestream Media blames the whole thing on men who are two cowardly to “man up” and “do their duty”. Young women complain that the men their age are not very masculine, and are more interested in Video Games than marriage. They have a point, but they are confusing the symptoms with the cause.

Fifty years ago, a man in his twenties with good prospects could easily find a young (late teens or early twenties), traditional wife who would bear and raise his children and take care of his house while he went out and bought home the proverbial bacon.

Nowadays, women are in the colleges and the workplace in greater numbers than men. They have their careers their autonomy and their lives. Those who are married often continue to work, even after the children are born.

Couples are marrying later; whether this is because men cannot make enough to support a wife and family in their twenties, or because women are delaying marriage because they want to play the field, I cannot say, though I think that it is a combination of both. However, I would point out that feminine beauty has a sell-by date, and the longer a woman waits, the less likely a man will want to pay full price for what’s left. And no less than Forbes Magazine seems to think that a career woman is a poor bet as a wife.

But that is another story for another time.

So why is it that the average man could support a family fifty years ago, but cannot do so now? Part of it is the changing global landscape, to be sure, but I have a theory. One of the reasons that wages are low is because supply outstrips demand. When more people are out looking for work, employers get picky and offer lower wages. So when you double the number of people seeking work, (as happens when women enter the workplace en masse), wages will inevitably go down. And assuming that women seek safe, stable, comfortable jobs (almost all of the Dirty, Difficult and Dangerous™ jobs are still done by men) and generally do not start businesses (too risky!), the entry of women into the workplace does not substantially change demand for employees. So wages go down.

There. I said it. Women in the workplace drives down wages. This is going to make people mad, so let me be clear. I am not against any woman entering the workforce. That is not the point of this post. But when all women are entering the workforce, someone’s gonna get displaced; any idea of who that might be? That’s right, men. And when men can’t find high-status, well-paid work, what is the consequence of that? They cannot support wives and families; all they can do is work a menial job and… play video games.

Agree? Disagree? Comments are welcome.