Category: Uncategorized

Living as I do in Mexico, I get mail from guys saying “Hey, what’s the deal on women? I hear things are pretty good. Come on, spill it. What’s down there? Now, what are Mexicanas like?

I don’t suggest that women in the Third World (whatever exactly that means) are flawless gems. Ain’t none of us that good. You can find rotten apples in any barrel, regardless of country or sex.

What you will find, though, is that Mexicanas do not resent you for being male. They can get cranky, as most of us can, but it will be about what you did, not what you are. They are women, not sexual halflings in search of slights as pretexts for being disagreeable. It is this, not nice legs, that constitutes their greatest appeal. As wives, provided that you understand their strengths and limitations, they are just plain fine.

I think one of the single most important things an American young woman could learn is to realize that the ability to go in search of blame and successfully pin it on someone is not a strength, but an irritating weakness. There is almost nothing more annoying than having to constantly guard your words around someone, knowing that if you give them the slightest opportunity, they will intentionally misinterpret whatever you say and assign the worst possible interpretation to it.

For some reason, young women often seem to think that this is empowering and gives them a leg up on those around them, men and women. It’s a control mechanism and I guess it’s considered empowering because if you’re on offense, you’re not on defense and that is desirable in a zero-sum game like football. But a functional relationship is not a zero-sum game, no one is awarding points and this sort of behavior makes even the most reasonable man want to grab the woman, shake the proverbial waste products out of her and demand to know if she is actually brain-damaged or only pretending to be.

I find that the most effective way to deal with this nonsense is to not only agree with the stupid interpretation, but to up the ante. For example, if a reasonable remark about the fact that a particular outfit does not fit inspires the shocked intake of breath and the angry demand to know if you think she looks fat, the correct response is not to frantically deny that you could ever have possibly implied such blasphemy, but to say “yes, and obviously I don’t love you anymore.”

Once it becomes apparent that acting stupid means getting treated as if she’s stupid, she’ll give it up. Unless she’s a complete psycho, in which case you’re doomed no matter what you do so there’s no point in wasting any time worrying precisely which action of yours is going to set her off.

A point that has completely escaped me on, what for lack of a better term, one might call the masculinist side, is the attitude towards a man’s theoretical bastards. Now, I’m as opposed to divorce-at-will as anyone and I personally feel* that a woman who take a man’s children away from him simply because she isn’t happy at the moment deserves to be strangled with her fallopian tubes.

And yet, if I were to learn that a child of mine was not, in fact, mine biologically, I cannot fathom the notion of loving that child any less. To be honest, were I to learn that Big Chilly or – Cthulhu forfend – Bane were the actual father, my first thought would be to shake his hand and thank him for a gift of such inestimable value. I might even have tears of gratitude in my eyes, although I’m not a Bane-class weeper.

Now, I’m not saying that I wouldn’t eventually get around to kicking his ass on the whole cuckoldry thing, of course, as well as wreaking a degree of just havoc on the other party responsible. But what does this have to do with the child? I am not saying that men should ever be held legally responsible for that which is provably not theirs, but I strongly suspect that most of those men who are so militantly against the thought of raising another man’s child do not have children of their own.

I’ve seen far too much love on the part of adoptive parents to believe otherwise. One of the stories that most amused me growing up was hearing how a Korean neighbor, adopted as an infant, went to her white parents and demanded to know if she was adopted. She was ten. And despite the glaring differences between her and her blond-haired, blue-eyed Scandinavian siblings, the thought that she didn’t belong with them had literally never crossed her mind.

*in other words, this is not my rational and reasoned position on the matter, it’s simply how I feel. I have no interest in attempting to debate or discuss my feelings. If you have a burning desire to do so, go away and watch Oprah or something.

WS doesn’t think much of the men of today:

You very well expressed my female, older-woman observations. Would to God that men would find their God-given masculinity again and start acting like adults instead of little boys! I can remember when boys, even as young as 12, acted like heroic men, standing in the face of danger to protect girls and women. Now boys are made afraid to even look at a weapon without being told they are breaking the law. They have become conditioned sissies.

And don’t even GET her STARTED on that media-manufactured, might-as-well-be-queer metrosexual thing.

Ellen Ratner discovers Internet porn:

The other day I was at the gym at 4:30 p.m. mindlessly ticking off those calories one by painful one when I read the VH1 trailer, “Coming up next: Celebrity Sex.” The program proceeded to show various ill-gotten photos and videos of celebrities gearing up for, having or having just engaged in sexual activity. VH1 then showed the audience of little monsters how to search for and click onto these videos and photos from their own computers.

VH1 is not exactly a porn channel, but they must understand that pornography is big business. There are more porn Web pages than there are Americans in this country. Yet we have hardly heard a peep out of the usual self-anointed suspects. Tom DeLay, Jerry Falwell, Bill Frist, Rick Santorum, James Dobson – to name a few – are so focused on making a mountain out of a molehill with regard to gay Americans that they are getting crushed by an avalanche of what my mother used to call, “debauchery.”

Seriously, is she kidding? I don’t know about the politicians, but Falwell and Dobson have never hesitated to preach against the ills of pornography. But Ms Ratner practically on top of this new porn sensation by recent standards; she’s only years late instead of the decades it took for Michelle Malkin to discover that girls were cutting themselves and for Maureen Dowd to learn that men don’t particularly want to date career women.

I’m not saying that a columnist should be able to identify every porn star making a cameo in a Eminem video, but if you don’t even know who Jenna Jameson is, you do not possess the requisite information to express a meaningful opinion on modern American society.

It was clear to me that things were changing when, ten years ago, a discussion of CD-ROMs at the Computer Game Developers Conference revealed a telling fact. The number of reported CD-ROM-based software sales was 25 percent less than the number of CD-ROMs manufactured and sold. There was much discussion of various conspiracy theories on the part of the software publishers, until one bearded fellow raised his hand and asked if porn CDs were included in the reports.

As it turned out, they weren’t. And there’s your missing 25 percent, which is probably more like 35 percent of DVDs these days. America is not a Constitutional Republic, it has devolved into a pornocratic krinocracy.

Planned Parenthood should target “people of faith” to promote abortion rights and comprehensive sex education, the Episcopal Church’s first openly homosexual bishop told a gathering in the District yesterday.

“In this last election we see what the ultimate result of divorce from communities of faith will do to us,” New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson said during Planned Parenthood’s fifth annual prayer breakfast. “Our defense against religious people has to be a religious defense. … We must use people of faith to counter the faith-based arguments against us,” he said.

Is there any serious doubt that the god this male human worships is not the Creator God of the Bible, nor his Son? Many people failed to understand when I referred to homosexuality as an Apollonian death cult, but those who did have no trouble understanding why it is not at all surprising that Mrs. Robinson should come out in support of the abortionettes and their anti-social, anti-child movement.

Matt Yglesias simultaneously demonstrates his parochialism as well as his ignorance of global economics:

Speaking of which, fuck the small businessman. This is exactly the problem posed by obsessive focus on Paris Hilton. I might be an earnest, hardworking dude who works in the store. And somebody might die and give the store to me. The store may be worth millions and millions of dollars. If so, I ought to pay tax on it. Why? Because I’ve just inherited millions and millions of dollars, that’s why. That I’m earnest and hardworking, and that my riches came in the form of a valuable store rather than a heaping plate of gold matters not a whit. What about those sad folks forced to sell the family business? Don’t cry for them. Here you are, you inherit a store worth $X. You owe $Y in taxes, with Y being less than X. So you are “forced” to sell the store, and accept “only” $X-Y as your inheritance. Note that X is a figure in the millions, and Y a small proportion of X. This is a very good problem to have, abstracting away from the fact that someone you love has probably died and this is probably a bigger concern of yours that the tax bill. This is, in other words, a non-problem.

A non-problem as long as you are still living in the 19th century and assume those people running businesses worth millions and millions of dollars are obviously too stupid to move their business to Ireland or Switzerland where the inheritance tax ranges from less than half the US rate to zero.

No wonder the American left is in disarray if this guy is supposed to be one of their brighter, more functional bulbs.

Other than the obvious physical requirements. It seems to me that more and more young men are more boys than men, although I’m not sure exactly why I have that impression. Were men always afraid to speak their minds around women? I don’t actually know, although I’m under the impression that in the past they watched their language more than their thoughts.

It seems to me that the mark of a man isn’t that he’s necessarily a badass or a buttkicker, but that he does not submit to fear. I’m just thinking aloud here, not necessarily asserting anything, so what do you think?

The one thing I am sure of is that women like men better than whiny little he-bitches. This is a bit outside my area of expertise, but if I recall correctly, even Brad Pitt was supposed to be at his sexiest when he was in Fight Club. Ladies, do feel free to set me straight if I have that wrong.

Arsenal’s well-deserved 3-0 win over Blackburn Rovers in today’s FA Cup semi-final showed that the Gunners can play brilliant soccer even without Thierry Henry, but the game was also marred in the last minute by the cheapest shot I’ve seen in sports since Warren Sapp took out Chad Clifton.

Rob van Persie, the young Dutch international, had an incredible eight-minute game, scoring twice after coming on for Dennis Bergkamp in the 82nd minute to seal the win, but just as his second goal went in the net, Andy Tod, Blackburn’s captain, not only ran into him but simultaneously threw an elbow to the side of his neck. Van Persie was turning into the direction from which Tod was coming, so it was a vicious blow even by NHL standards.

Fortunately, the Arsenal striker was all right, but it was an ugly end to what was otherwise an entertaining game. One thing that I particularly liked was how after the final whistle blew and the Arsenal players were heading for the locker room, Dennis Bergkamp – who has long been my favorite player – stopped van Persie as he came off the field. (You have to keep in mind that van Persie was not only Bergkamp’s substitute today but is also considered his successor and this may be Bergkamp’s final year at Arsenal.)

Bergkamp turned the younger guy around – who was still bleeding at the mouth – and first pointed to the stands, then to the center of the field, and gave him a little push in the back. He was clearly saying something to the effect of “they’re cheering for you, kid,” Van Persie jogged out to the middle and acknowledged the roaring crowd, then, as he ran back to join the rest of the team, took his shirt off and hurled it into the stands.

An interesting juxtaposition of great sporting class and its total lack.

From the History Channel

At least in the early 1930s women were more likely to vote for the Nazis than for the Left, and on the Left the KPD appears to have been much less attractive to women than to men…. In July 1932 a higher proportion of women than men voted Nazi….

That’s a weird construction, given that 1933 was the last election and practically no one of either sex was voting for the National Socialists prior to 1930. And, as often happens with pop history, the writer fails to realize that the National Socialists were by almost every measure a left-wing party. Another article adds:

“Brustein responds that the Nazis did not emphasize their anti-Semitism during their rise in the 1920s and ’30s. “Anti-Semitism was there, but most parties played the anti-Semitic card,” he says. And how can anti-Semitism explain the fact that single women were more likely to join than married women?“

I don’t think it needs to. More likely, the appeal of the National Socialists was because its electoral program was very similar to the platform of the modern Democratic Party, which is obviously much more appealing to women than to men. I’d very much like to find the breakdown by gender of the 1932 and 1933 German elections, but I haven’t found it yet. If anyone does, please send it to me.

Finally, there is this: “Similarly there are many facts identifying females as accomplices of the National Socialistic regime, one of them being that one third of the women in Germany in fact did vote for Hitler and the NSDAP.” It’s not clear what that means since the National Socialists won 43.9 percent of the vote, so either a lot more men voted for the NSDAP in 1933 than in 1932, or the writer is speaking literally about the number of women voting, not the percentage of the voting electorate. I may have some hard totals on the election, so I’ll see if I can work out the percentages this would indicate later.

The title of this post is somewhat inaccurate, by the way, since the National Socialists always denied that they were Fascists but were admirably forthright about their socialism. Remember, the Communist Party was vehemently opposed to the Socialist Party too, that did not make either of them conservative capitalists.

UPDATE – I’m going to have to find the actual votes broken down by gender, because unless my math is wrong or the German electorate behaved very, very differently than the USA, (where 74 percent of the populace is eligible to vote and only 38.7 percent actually do) that last writer’s figure of one third – even reduced by the ineligible and eligible non-voters – would indicate that 8 million German women provided 76 percent of the National Socialist vote in 1933.