Everyone Else Links with Jezebel, Why Can't I?

GLP linked to this zaniness at Jezebel.  Talk about grasping at straws.

My comment posted:
"When I was a kid, there was no WNBA. There were no female professional athletes."

The latter is simply not true - there were professional female figure skaters, skiers, gymnast/acrobats, synchronized swimmers.  Girls usually excel at different sports than boys. Not all of them are big spectator sports.

The study quoted takes a single data point from one sport - freestyle swim times - and extrapolates a wild conclusion - that girls at age 8 are just as good as boys at all sports.  It doesn't warrant explanation that personal best scores at age 8 are more indicative of how much training was done as 8 year-olds are still learning and developing basic skills and technics - despite the assumption that freestyle eliminates the training element and is "more likely to be influenced by muscle function".

I've coached young children in soccer and T-ball and, although there are some really good girls at young ages, most young girls are not nearly as good as average boys at the same age.  This is despite their aggressive, pushy mothers desperate that their 5-year-old girl must play elite-level sports one day.  It was no surprise when a local soccer club decided to split the boys and girls into separate leagues even at 3&4 years old.  I think it will have a positive affect on the girls divisions in times to come since less will be frustrated by playing against boys.

Finally, since when was a tie the same as kicking someone's ass? [end comment]
I guess Jezebel hasn't heard of the trend of injuries among Warrior Girls.
Femaleathlete is sensitive to criticism about her appearance.  Even though she's no model, she is probably at least a 6 or a 7 on the looks scale.  (Realistically speaking, not in the unrealistic scale that guys seem to use - i.e. perfect 10's don't exist and the hottest 2% score above 8 and 5 is average looking).  I distribute all women evenly on the scale - the top 10% are 10's, 10-20% are 9's etc.  Addlington is nowhere near ugly, especially judging by some of the photos posted by commenters [boob-flash].  I imagine that any athlete would want to avoid distractions before the biggest event in her career, so, I can't say I blame her for staying off twitter during the Olympics.  I'll just say that the Internet is a cruel, cruel place.  Don't post pictures of yourself unless you're willing to be humiliated.



Jezebelsuggests that 20-somethings consider freezing their eggs to ensure optimal fertility.  Don't consider, egad, seeking an older, stable mate and having children before you're thirty.  That's crrrrraaaaaaaazzzzzyyyyy talk.


Aging, one-hit-wonder, teen-pop-star, Alanis, reborn-as-pseudo-intellectual-hippie-chick, flash-in-the-pan, alternative-pop-star Alanis Morrisette is into attachment parenting [Boob-flash].  I don't think much of most of the attachment parenting philosophy (Mommy and Daddy need room in bed just to sleep, let alone get busy, so, letting kids sleep in their bed is just not going to work), but, I still love to see feminists so divided about a movement that both elevates The Female and encourages traditional roles at the same time.  There's just something so OPPRESSIVE about humanity since children leach so shamelessly off of their mothers.  If I could design a species, I tell ya, they'd be mowing the lawn by the time they were 12 months old.


Of course, everything about the Alanis piece speaks to her love for her child and the fact that she wants what's best for him, except the fact that she named him Ever.


[update:  I DID post that comment at Jezebel, but, it seems to have disappeared.  So, I've reposted.  See if anyone notices now.]

Not Too Busy for a Short(ish) Post

I haven't been posting lately, because I've been busy.  I work 5 days a week and it is now baseball season.  I think that coaching Little League is a lot more beneficial to the world than writing here.  So, it's taking up most of my time.

I'm done 1984.  I find that the Internet, is much like the telescreens in Orwell's novel.  The millions of postings by people like me are like flags to anyone who would be interested in finding out who is asking the kind of questions that they might not like.  I do not think it is too paranoid to think that governments are scanning the comments and cataloging the activities of individuals.  Partly, it should be their job to identify people who might be planning something harmful.  But, I'm sure that there are government strategists wondering how to deal with non-conforming opinion writers. 

In Canada we have hate-speach legislation.  I believe that it may be a crime, in the near future, to link to a website that contains what someone considers hate speach.  If that is so, I could post a link to OneSTDV or GLPiggy or even the NY Times where someone posts a hateful comment (I'm not sure if it happens more at OneSTDV or at the NYT) and end up contravening the law.  I don't think the lawmakers understand how the Internet works.  New York wants to ban anonymous blogging (GLP)

One more thing about the job of Winston, in 1984.  Does the Internet make his job (re-writing publications to suit The Party's motives) easier or obsolete?  Now, one person could simply re-write every article in real-time rather than having to re-print thousands of issues.  OR, would Winston just become a contract mercenary blog-poster?

I find the transient nature of Internet frustrating when I link to an article, but, then it disappears.  I have a friend who actually scrapbooks with newspaper clippings.  I've always wished I could track the shifitng of public (published) opinions, but, I'll never, ever have the time for that.  I feel like Winston when the Party announces that chocolate rations are being reduced to 20 grams per person from 30 one day and then congratulates Big Brother for raising the ration to 20 grams the next.  I've often noticed much smaller, more nuanced changes in wording and in the standard narrative from MSM that seem to erase the old narrative without so much as a peep from competing politicos or anyone.

Now, I'm reading Steven Pinker's latest book, "The Better Angels of Our Nature".  So far, it is going over much of the ideas covered in The Blank Slate, but, focusing on the violence of past cultures comparitive to ours.  I remember reading an account of an English explorer going to live with native Canadians.  Travelling to hunting grounds, they came across a group of Inuit men fishing.  All of the Inuit Men were killed.  I always think of civilization, in its ever expanding powers, as a great bringer of peace, despite all of its problems.

Other News:
Montreal Students demand free crappy government education rather than the good subsidized education they can now get.  If you really believe that arts education is worthwhile, you should pay for it.

It is still dangerous to climb the world's tallest mountain.

I Am Finally Reading 1984

I'm very familiar with this book even though I've never read it.  I'm finally getting around to it.  Orwell would truly understand why it is so hard to counteract today's prevailing government, PC rhetoric.

The best quote so far:

Talking to her, he realised how easy it was to present an appearance of orthodoxy while having no grasp whatever of what orthodoxy meant.  In a way, the world-view of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it.  They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening.  By lack of understanding they remained sane.  They simply swallowed everything, and what they swallowed did them no harm because it left no residue behind, just as a grain of corn will pass unigested through the body of a bird

Winston's rebellion is more ideological than Julia's.  She just wants to enjoy her life and the party wants to stop her.  So, she rebels by doing things like have forbidden sex, while, he rebels against the entire apparatus of the Party.  She can't care less that the news spouted through the telescreens is complete nonsense or that history is nonexistant.  Outwardly, she is able to appear completely in line with the orthodoxy of the Party line because it just doesn't matter to her.  While Winston cannot hide his deeper resentment for Big Brother because he understands how truly insidious it is and is easily picked out by Julia and later by O'Brien as not conforming.

The History and Future of Marriage

Hawaiian Libertarian linked to this article at No Ma'am which outlines the history of marriage as spelled out almost everywhere in the manosphere.  I've heard it from Girl Writes What most effectively (I linked to her profile rather than her specific video posting - you'll have to start at the beginning, just like I did.) 

Whenever I read the basic premise, I think, "Wow, that really makes sense."  Then I get this feeling of dread knowing that I am in a Marriage 2.0 contract.  I know that if something goes wrong at any time, I'm going to be dividing my possessions and assets and looking for a new place to live.  I'm brazen writing this, since, Mrs. Culdesachero has "threathened" to read my blog.  She knows about it, and knows that it's not complementary to feminism, but, doesn't read it except when I say, "Look, some one's talking about me!"

So, the sense of dread starts to grow as I read, and then, I think about my wife.  I remember what a sound, sensible person she is and how much she loves me.  I also feel how much I love her and remember the feelings I have when I stand beside her.  I like being married - if feels like I have a partner to help weather the storms of the world.  Together, we're stronger, happier and we need each other to do what's best for our children.  My marriage looks nothing like Dalrock's (we're atheists), but, I value his perspective as a traditionalist who questions modern morality.  I rarely read Athol Kay and haven't read his book, but, the concepts of his that I've absorbed seem to have helped me become a better husband and I feel closer to my wife now than I ever have.  There is no doubt that the truths I've discovered in the manosphere has helped me become a better man and strengthen my marriage - even though many voices within it would rather see men give up on marriage altogether.

Can this truth, about the history of marriage as an economic agreement, whereby the sexuality and reproductive power of the woman became the property of the man and the labour of the man became the property of the woman, be accepted by the general population?  If so, can it help society come to terms with what has become of male-female relations?  I think it is rather too much to digest, although, I will bring up the male half of the equation whenever the feminist trope of "women were once owned by their husbands" is brought up.

My wife is reasonable person.  She once sent me an article about the book Spousonomics.  She mentioned that we basically followed the ideas already and that she didn't mind doing more of the housework if it meant sitting down to watch Dexter together sooner.  If she can accept the word of economists when dealing with the sticky issues of matrimonial bliss, can the world understand the economic definition of marriage as outlined by a site called No Ma'am?

Personally, I think that the term "ownership" is too strong to accept by society at large when applied to any part of a person (including general terms such as labour or sexuality).  The general populace still thinks of another atrocious part of history when the words "ownership" and "person" are used together. 

Another problem, is that not only is marriage by the old definition dead, the world in which it thrived is dead.  No longer is traditional male labour all that valuable.  Male and female earning power is very close and society is set up to allow working mothers to thrive.  People no longer live in places where bears need to be chased away from the front door (except in Thompson, Alberta and Newfoundland) Marriage had to change - not to say the current arrangement is acceptable. 

I think the evolution of marriage will continue to stall until we admit what the original purpose of marriage was - to raise children.  However, right now, it is important for the left to suppress this fact until gay marriage is pushed through.  This is why I wish that the gay marriage non-issue would resolve itself.  Right now, it is just another issue that sticks under the conservative movement's craw making it very useful to the left as a wedge which many people are willing to hammer into the foundation of traditional society.  This is why I wish that the Republican party would listen to How The World Work's point of view.  If the left thinks it is a big issue, the right should make it a NON-ISSUE.  Allow gay marriage (who cares if two men or women want to call themselves spouses) and move on.

There, I've figured out marriage and how to get back on track toward fixing it.  Anyone want to start drawing up proposals for conditions for the next version of the contract?

Feminine Psychology cont.

Commenter Sew A Word In Edgewise has raised some very good points about my post on Feminine Psychology.  I was inspired to write that post by YouTube Video Blogger KellyJones00.  I started to respond and ... well, here it is.  Please tell me that I haven't gone off the deep end here.

SWE's comment:

Still, I feel that both feminists and non/anti feminists seem to think that being masculine is the only appropriate way to behave, and I dislike that just as much

Well, this is the crux of the whole issue.  It really deserves a full post.  The feminist myth is that The Female is undervalued in society while, in actuality, it has always been valued higher than The Male, evidenced by the protections females garner.  However, feminism has tried to attack masculinity and “male-dominated” realms and encouraging women to take a more masculine identity, thereby devaluing feminine psychology.    On the other hand, The Feminine is considered sacred and, although the prevailing mantra is that men and women are no different, feminists have demanded still need more shielding and advantages for women. 

So here is the rub.  The feminine identity is one of caring and nurturing.  This is vital to society.  However, if one allows too much of themselves to take on the feminine identity, it draws away from the ability to use reason and value truth as more of oneself is devoted to being nice.  This is not acceptable in politics, science, business and the search for knowledge.  So, if one assumes that women will display more feminine traits than men, due to their biology, we can conclude that women will be less prevalent in these pursuits.  If one wants to pursue a career these areas, male or female, the person must set aside the feminine traits, at least part of the time, to focus completely on the task at hand.  Setting aside the feminine psychology is what, I believe, Kelly Jones is advocating, at the detriment to the nurturing side.  This may be suitable for certain individuals or groups, but, it is certainly not acceptable for most people to deny what is inside them.  I certainly wouldn’t want to give up some of the less rational parts of my masculinity.  On a larger scale, I think it is disastrous for society to try and eliminate this feminine psychology (as it seems Kelly Jones advocates). 

Ideally, we would have value and a voice for The Feminine*.  The nurturing attitudes of Feminine Psychology must be openly celebrated, while, realizing that to truly understand reality and make serious decisions, it must be curtailed.  Everyone should think about this and decide where they reside on the spectrum.  Some women will choose to be more masculine and some will choose to be more feminine.  Neither should be admonished.  However, the consequences should be known.

Any individual can express more masculine or feminine traits as suits their personality and goals.  However, the realms where reason and wisdom are essential will invariably be more masculine.  It all boils down to the fact that we have two types of people and these traits evolved for certain reason to be more pronounced in one than in the other.

*I believe that it always has had one, but, feminism actually stifled it in a way (by demonizing men) and then, when it failed to go away, absorbed it back into itself causing a sort of bipolar beast.