I've never understood the logic of why parents bring a young child with them to a movie. For one, the kid's obviously too young to get any value out of the movie. For another, the parents are obviously too cheap to hire a babysitter. Third, and probably what's most annoying about the situation, is that those parents must be thinking that in some way, a movie theatre is a quiet place for their young child to be in. Makes sense, right? Doesn't everyone tell you to "Shhhh!" and be quiet during a movie?
Sure, and it may be quiet - at least for first few seconds. What do you get after that? How about a thundering, ground-rattling, high-definition surround sound system blaring every bang, crash, and explosion for the next two and a half-hours at a thousand decibles!
Get a brain, people! Do your kid and the rest of us a favor and leave your child at home or next time, we'll coconut your two heads together.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Female "Independence" and Dating
I can only think of one reason and one reason only why any woman would continously brag about being independent and hold it up like it's some kind of badge of honor when she's dating. Two words: Defense Mechanism.
I'm all for women being financially, emotionally, and mentally independent, but it's like Chris Rock says about people who brag about taking care of their kids - "You're SUPPOSED to take care of your kids, THEY'RE YOUR KIDS! What do you want, a cookie?!"
Women are never supposed to be fully dependant on a guy, and truthfully, no real man would either find that attractive, or ever let that happen. He would support her in her own identity and her own pursuits. But if this is so obvious, why continuously restate it?
I asked over a dozen women what they meant by "independent" in a dating context, and they all said one thing - money. Yes, every single time. When I asked them the next question, "What symbolizes 'independence' in that context?" I got similar answers; basically a list of their possessions, or in other words, "trophies." Degree, real estate, Audi, BMW, art collection, you name it.
I concluded that a woman bragging about her independence is basically saying the following things when dating:
1) I go after trophies, and if you're lucky enough, you're about to become one of them.
2) I'm smart and strong enough to beat you at your own game.
3) My identity and self-worth is tied to the success I've achieved (just look at my car!), and I am attracted to the success that you've achieved (just look at your car!) I know this because the first things I'm going to say to people when I describe you will be what you do for a living, and what you own. That's how shallow I really am.
4) I'm always looking for more, or better, and I've got to assume that you'll always be looking for more, or better, too. Therefore at some point I know you're going to dump me for someone younger and/or better looking.
5) If (when) that happens, I refuse to be on my a$$ with nothing to show for it, so let me warn you right now over and over again that you're not going to get the best of me.
For a number of different reasons, both men and women who enter into relationships in this way are doomed to failure.
I'm all for women being financially, emotionally, and mentally independent, but it's like Chris Rock says about people who brag about taking care of their kids - "You're SUPPOSED to take care of your kids, THEY'RE YOUR KIDS! What do you want, a cookie?!"
Women are never supposed to be fully dependant on a guy, and truthfully, no real man would either find that attractive, or ever let that happen. He would support her in her own identity and her own pursuits. But if this is so obvious, why continuously restate it?
I asked over a dozen women what they meant by "independent" in a dating context, and they all said one thing - money. Yes, every single time. When I asked them the next question, "What symbolizes 'independence' in that context?" I got similar answers; basically a list of their possessions, or in other words, "trophies." Degree, real estate, Audi, BMW, art collection, you name it.
I concluded that a woman bragging about her independence is basically saying the following things when dating:
1) I go after trophies, and if you're lucky enough, you're about to become one of them.
2) I'm smart and strong enough to beat you at your own game.
3) My identity and self-worth is tied to the success I've achieved (just look at my car!), and I am attracted to the success that you've achieved (just look at your car!) I know this because the first things I'm going to say to people when I describe you will be what you do for a living, and what you own. That's how shallow I really am.
4) I'm always looking for more, or better, and I've got to assume that you'll always be looking for more, or better, too. Therefore at some point I know you're going to dump me for someone younger and/or better looking.
5) If (when) that happens, I refuse to be on my a$$ with nothing to show for it, so let me warn you right now over and over again that you're not going to get the best of me.
For a number of different reasons, both men and women who enter into relationships in this way are doomed to failure.
George Bush and WMD's
I was watching Bush's farewell address as well as some of his recent interviews with the press. It has often puzzled me why he was criticized so much for going into Iraq based on the supposed fact that Saddam had WMD's.
Everyone was saying that the war was based on a lie, but no one seems to be asking why no one else came forward with the truth at the time? If the pictures were fake, and the rumors were lies, why didn't any other intelligence agency come forward with the truth to rebutt Bush's position?
One has to ask who could have come forward, and why would they.
Everyone was saying that the war was based on a lie, but no one seems to be asking why no one else came forward with the truth at the time? If the pictures were fake, and the rumors were lies, why didn't any other intelligence agency come forward with the truth to rebutt Bush's position?
One has to ask who could have come forward, and why would they.
Why Most Men Are Wimps
Most men nowdays are wimps because we no longer have some rite of passage into adulthood. Before we had to overcome some test of ourselves to prove our self-worth. Within that test was our self-confidence, the exposure of our limits, and in total, our manhood. Now we're coddled and indemnified at every turn. Survival is now shopping, competition is now leisure, sport is now merely entertainment.
Women grow through connection, men grow through adversity. With the exception of perhaps a career in sales or entrepreneurship, what "rite of passage" does a guy have now?
Women grow through connection, men grow through adversity. With the exception of perhaps a career in sales or entrepreneurship, what "rite of passage" does a guy have now?
Friday, January 16, 2009
The Problem With Internet Dating Sites, Part I
Let me sum up 99.9% of the female dating profiles on any website:
"Tired of the bar scene, want to meet someone real. Money is not as important as honesty, integrity, and ambition is. I never settle and truly want and deserve the best."
"Tired of the bar scene." Which part? Guys hitting on you, or the wrong guys hitting on you? Too fat, too ugly, too horny, too drunk? Hate to break it to you, but that "nice guy" you find online is the same guy who can turn into the booze-breathed, hormone-raging imbecile that wouldn't leave you alone last night once he gets out with his buddies. Sure, he may be more church-going and less of a party animal when he's in a relationship, but seriously, how are you really going to know whether that's true by reading a profile or by having a few coffee chats at Starbucks?
"Must be real." I'm going to assume here that "real" means "congruent", or more specifically that what they say matches what they do. Fair enough - no one like's a phoney unless they're a phoney themselves, but let's start with the commonly quoted 1968 study by A. Mehrabian, which concluded that only 7 percent of an initial impression is based on what's said. 38 percent is based on style of speech and 55 percent on body language. Based on that, how can you truly know what's real or not real about somebody by reading a profile or having a few "honeymoon period" dates? You can't. The body language and congruency simply isn't there.
"I never settle and truly want and deserve the best." "I never settle." I love this one! Isn't it odd that the people you hear say that phrase most often have the crappiest dating history or currently the most drama-filled lives? It's because their standards are all out of whack. They don't know what true honesty is, integrity, ambition, or even wealth is. They could go for the millionaire only to find out that he's got 100 lawsuits for fraud right around the corner. They could go for "good looking" only to find themselves dumped for a younger, hotter version of themselves the day they get their first wrinkle. While it's true that winners are never satisfied with mediocrity, it's also true that they never mention it. The only people who repeatedly say this are those who are insecure and are trying to convince themselves of any one (or all) of these three things:
Although Internet dating sites might give you some insight into this through what someone puts in their profile, the reality is that most are simply glorified used car ads and fan mail systems who are good for a few ego boosts and that's about it. They are places where someone can check out their looks against their competition, and have 100 people pining for them after being dumped just 24hrs earlier.
Of course, there are those truly are and live what they say in their profile, and aren't disillusioned. Many are friends who continue to be in very happy and successful relationships that they found online. But for the most part, I find these are the exception rather than the rule.
Ultimately, though, and perhaps what is most important, is that Internet dating sites tend to operate under the premise that you can tell a lot about someone in an instant, and know that they are right or wrong for you in the first few seconds. I used to be one of these people who thought that way, until I realized first that I don't want to know everything about a person in those first few seconds. Later, I realized that one truly can't. That takes time, and I could be missing the next few years, or even decades, of that person's true essence and special gifts in our relationship by quickly dismissing them over a false sense of "rules" and standards. I could be missing that magic moment or new spark in month 11, or year 18, or on our 50th anniversary that I think the poet Keats was referring to when he said of Fanny Brown, "You're always new."
"Tired of the bar scene, want to meet someone real. Money is not as important as honesty, integrity, and ambition is. I never settle and truly want and deserve the best."
"Tired of the bar scene." Which part? Guys hitting on you, or the wrong guys hitting on you? Too fat, too ugly, too horny, too drunk? Hate to break it to you, but that "nice guy" you find online is the same guy who can turn into the booze-breathed, hormone-raging imbecile that wouldn't leave you alone last night once he gets out with his buddies. Sure, he may be more church-going and less of a party animal when he's in a relationship, but seriously, how are you really going to know whether that's true by reading a profile or by having a few coffee chats at Starbucks?
"Must be real." I'm going to assume here that "real" means "congruent", or more specifically that what they say matches what they do. Fair enough - no one like's a phoney unless they're a phoney themselves, but let's start with the commonly quoted 1968 study by A. Mehrabian, which concluded that only 7 percent of an initial impression is based on what's said. 38 percent is based on style of speech and 55 percent on body language. Based on that, how can you truly know what's real or not real about somebody by reading a profile or having a few "honeymoon period" dates? You can't. The body language and congruency simply isn't there.
In the Internet world and even during the honeymoon dating period, body language can't accurately be determined. There's too many factors in the way - nervousness towards a new and untried way of meeting people, meeting a total stranger, intimidation due to the "wow factor" of that other person, or simply all the things we're focusing and not focusing on thinking that this date might be a one-shot deal. For instance, constantly adjusting one's clothing - is that person vain, nervous, or self-conscious? You can't really know that, and thus, can't really know what's real or the truth. Best you can have is an educated guess.
"Money is not as important as honesty, integrity, and ambition is." How can you really tell if someone has honesty or has integrity? In a short time period, you can't. That's because you probably won't see the guy under stress or see them having to make an extremely difficult choice in adverse conditions, which are those situations where the qualities of honesty and integrity truly come forward. Instead, you'll typically accept polite as "honest", and a recent picture and accurate birthday or body description as "integrity". You'll also likely be surprised when the guy doesn't turn out like you thought or hoped he would. How many times have we heard, "I don't know what happened, he was such a nice guy"? This is why.
And what about money and ambition? In the short-term both can be validations of one other. Someone with a lot of ambition might have big dollars coming to him around the corner and on the other hand, someone might be where they are with lots of money as a result of their ambition.
"Money is not as important as honesty, integrity, and ambition is." How can you really tell if someone has honesty or has integrity? In a short time period, you can't. That's because you probably won't see the guy under stress or see them having to make an extremely difficult choice in adverse conditions, which are those situations where the qualities of honesty and integrity truly come forward. Instead, you'll typically accept polite as "honest", and a recent picture and accurate birthday or body description as "integrity". You'll also likely be surprised when the guy doesn't turn out like you thought or hoped he would. How many times have we heard, "I don't know what happened, he was such a nice guy"? This is why.
And what about money and ambition? In the short-term both can be validations of one other. Someone with a lot of ambition might have big dollars coming to him around the corner and on the other hand, someone might be where they are with lots of money as a result of their ambition.
Perhaps, but these can also be very misleading. Serial entrepreneurs, those with true ambition, may have gone broke or bankrupt a number of times, or they may appear by all accounts to be successful, yet are about to go broke. You just don't know in the short-term.
Have you really defined what "ambition" is for yourself? Is it simply energy, or passion for a project, or a basic desire to get ahead? What do they do when they've gotten there? How many times does a girl finally go out with a guy who's been chasing her for months, only to see him slow down and deflate into a couch potato once he's won "the prize"? Ambition, like integrity and honesty, is yet again one of those traits that you can only determine after a long period of time, and typically only after some sort of test of stress or adversity.
"I never settle and truly want and deserve the best." "I never settle." I love this one! Isn't it odd that the people you hear say that phrase most often have the crappiest dating history or currently the most drama-filled lives? It's because their standards are all out of whack. They don't know what true honesty is, integrity, ambition, or even wealth is. They could go for the millionaire only to find out that he's got 100 lawsuits for fraud right around the corner. They could go for "good looking" only to find themselves dumped for a younger, hotter version of themselves the day they get their first wrinkle. While it's true that winners are never satisfied with mediocrity, it's also true that they never mention it. The only people who repeatedly say this are those who are insecure and are trying to convince themselves of any one (or all) of these three things:
1) that they're actually not a loser in spite of how they feel
2) that they don't settle in spite of what they've done
3) that they know no other way to date other than to be egotistical and superficial about it.
They may in fact want and deserve the best, but they don't know what the best actually is when it comes to love and relationships. Women and guys who say that often seem to think that they've found the best guy/girl when they have them, but neglect to realize that they've simply got a snapshot of somebody - a Polaroid of where they are in a particular point of time in their lives and that's it. They put almost all the weight on what a person has or looks like while paying little if any attention (beyond lip service) to the characteristics underneath the image that either got them into the good situation they're in, or will get them out of a bad one.
They may in fact want and deserve the best, but they don't know what the best actually is when it comes to love and relationships. Women and guys who say that often seem to think that they've found the best guy/girl when they have them, but neglect to realize that they've simply got a snapshot of somebody - a Polaroid of where they are in a particular point of time in their lives and that's it. They put almost all the weight on what a person has or looks like while paying little if any attention (beyond lip service) to the characteristics underneath the image that either got them into the good situation they're in, or will get them out of a bad one.
Although Internet dating sites might give you some insight into this through what someone puts in their profile, the reality is that most are simply glorified used car ads and fan mail systems who are good for a few ego boosts and that's about it. They are places where someone can check out their looks against their competition, and have 100 people pining for them after being dumped just 24hrs earlier.
Of course, there are those truly are and live what they say in their profile, and aren't disillusioned. Many are friends who continue to be in very happy and successful relationships that they found online. But for the most part, I find these are the exception rather than the rule.
Ultimately, though, and perhaps what is most important, is that Internet dating sites tend to operate under the premise that you can tell a lot about someone in an instant, and know that they are right or wrong for you in the first few seconds. I used to be one of these people who thought that way, until I realized first that I don't want to know everything about a person in those first few seconds. Later, I realized that one truly can't. That takes time, and I could be missing the next few years, or even decades, of that person's true essence and special gifts in our relationship by quickly dismissing them over a false sense of "rules" and standards. I could be missing that magic moment or new spark in month 11, or year 18, or on our 50th anniversary that I think the poet Keats was referring to when he said of Fanny Brown, "You're always new."
Instead of worrying about how to meet or get to know someone quickly, instead, perhaps focus on ways to get to know someone better and use Internet dating sites for that. Use your head, go with your gut, but give them both time.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Ann Coulter "Attacks" Single Motherhood? I Don't Think So...
Although not released yet (January 16, 2009), Ann Coulter's new book, "Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America" is coming out in a flurry of controversy. With it, Coulter is being accused by the mainstream media of attacking single motherhood, allegedly blaming the offspring of single mothers for much of the murder, rape, and other crimes and social ills that currently plague our society.
Love her or hate her, there's a thing about Ann that taunts you to ask yourself, "Is what this woman saying actually true?" Part of you wants to simply dismiss her rants as marketing ploys, but there's another part that wants to hear her back it up. What surprises you about Ann in the beginning is that she does back it up - and her bite is much worse than her bark. Coulter makes sure that if you're going to have any chance of winning a battle with her on the issues at all, you'd better have some pretty strong facts in order to do it.
I'll be the first to admit that Coulter's shockjock-esque bantering, while being part of her schtick, is annoying at best. It runs a high risk of failure of simply turning people off and negating her point as she often comes across as an over-emotional, egocentric, bitter primadonna when she speaks.
When she writes, however, I believe she's brilliant and hits the nail right on the head with an intelligent, thorough, well-researched, argument.
So back to her point. When I first heard that she was attacking single mothers, I thought, "Here she goes again..." Blaming single mothers? How could she? I saw the Kathy Lee Gifford interview, the Hannity & Colmes interview, and others where Ann was challenged on her points and time and time again the same question came up from the interviewer: are you seriously blaming single mothers?
I thought the answer from her would be "no", and was waiting for her witty 1-2 counterpunch in return, but unfortunately, Ann never delivered it. She had barely little time to respond to their question in the first place and even when she did have time, most of it was used to talk about how wrong/stupid people were on another point, and how many books she's sold in the meantime.
At times she seems to try and make the point that because her books are bestsellers, people must agree with her or she's simply right. However, the reason she's sold so many books could be simply because they're entertaining. The success of Dan Brown's "The DaVinci Code" was not due to the book's facts, but instead that it held an intriguing opinion wrapped in entertainment value in quite the same way. Much like we are with Ann, in Brown's book we kept asking ourselves, "Could what this person be saying really be true?"
Perhaps her intention in straying off her point and leaving things vague is the hope that people will buy the book and go to the chapter to read what she's really saying. If so, it's a risky one. To help out, then, I'm going to offer my opinion here:
Coulter's statistics, assuming they are not misprints, speak for themselves. In 1996, 70% of juvenile inmates had been raised in a single mother or single parent environment. The courts have increasingly over the years handed down decisions which go against a two-parent or nuclear family. By stating these facts and statistics, is Coulter really attacking or blaming single mothers?
Not the way I see it. Ann's attack appears to be on the liberal thinking and governmental policies which not only support single parenthood, but praise and even worship it while seemingly condemning the institution of marriage and a two-parent family.
Raising a child on one's own is an extremely difficult task and by itself deserves to be praised, but only if done successfully. We should not be blatantly handing out money and pats on the back to those who became single parents through nothing other than their own ignorance or irresponsibility. We also shouldn't, however, be forcing single parents to stay in a bad relationship or attach to some loser just for the sake of having another parental figure in the household.
I'm all for women celebrating their independence, but only to the point that it keeps them from becoming financially and/or emotionally dependent on some loser or abuser. What I'm not for is going so far as to encourage such a degree of independence and be teaching single teenage mothers that they in fact don't need a man in their life, or more importantly their child's life because as Ann shows, over 30 years of research and facts show the opposite.
Using Hollywood award acceptance speeches as just one example, I believe Coulter is arguing that we as a society are too quick to "celebrate" single motherhood and that we also take it much too far - consequently encouraging single motherhood as a healthy form of independence, when in fact it isn't. Coulter appears to consider this view extremely selfish, ignorant, and harmful. I agree. As for her approach to discussing the issue, I couldn't disagree more.
Her January 14, 2009 article can be found on her website at http://www.anncoulter.com/. I have also included it below.
--------------------------------
From Ann Coulter's Website (http://www.anncoulter.com/) January 14, 2009:
Love her or hate her, there's a thing about Ann that taunts you to ask yourself, "Is what this woman saying actually true?" Part of you wants to simply dismiss her rants as marketing ploys, but there's another part that wants to hear her back it up. What surprises you about Ann in the beginning is that she does back it up - and her bite is much worse than her bark. Coulter makes sure that if you're going to have any chance of winning a battle with her on the issues at all, you'd better have some pretty strong facts in order to do it.
I'll be the first to admit that Coulter's shockjock-esque bantering, while being part of her schtick, is annoying at best. It runs a high risk of failure of simply turning people off and negating her point as she often comes across as an over-emotional, egocentric, bitter primadonna when she speaks.
When she writes, however, I believe she's brilliant and hits the nail right on the head with an intelligent, thorough, well-researched, argument.
So back to her point. When I first heard that she was attacking single mothers, I thought, "Here she goes again..." Blaming single mothers? How could she? I saw the Kathy Lee Gifford interview, the Hannity & Colmes interview, and others where Ann was challenged on her points and time and time again the same question came up from the interviewer: are you seriously blaming single mothers?
I thought the answer from her would be "no", and was waiting for her witty 1-2 counterpunch in return, but unfortunately, Ann never delivered it. She had barely little time to respond to their question in the first place and even when she did have time, most of it was used to talk about how wrong/stupid people were on another point, and how many books she's sold in the meantime.
At times she seems to try and make the point that because her books are bestsellers, people must agree with her or she's simply right. However, the reason she's sold so many books could be simply because they're entertaining. The success of Dan Brown's "The DaVinci Code" was not due to the book's facts, but instead that it held an intriguing opinion wrapped in entertainment value in quite the same way. Much like we are with Ann, in Brown's book we kept asking ourselves, "Could what this person be saying really be true?"
Perhaps her intention in straying off her point and leaving things vague is the hope that people will buy the book and go to the chapter to read what she's really saying. If so, it's a risky one. To help out, then, I'm going to offer my opinion here:
Coulter's statistics, assuming they are not misprints, speak for themselves. In 1996, 70% of juvenile inmates had been raised in a single mother or single parent environment. The courts have increasingly over the years handed down decisions which go against a two-parent or nuclear family. By stating these facts and statistics, is Coulter really attacking or blaming single mothers?
Not the way I see it. Ann's attack appears to be on the liberal thinking and governmental policies which not only support single parenthood, but praise and even worship it while seemingly condemning the institution of marriage and a two-parent family.
Raising a child on one's own is an extremely difficult task and by itself deserves to be praised, but only if done successfully. We should not be blatantly handing out money and pats on the back to those who became single parents through nothing other than their own ignorance or irresponsibility. We also shouldn't, however, be forcing single parents to stay in a bad relationship or attach to some loser just for the sake of having another parental figure in the household.
I'm all for women celebrating their independence, but only to the point that it keeps them from becoming financially and/or emotionally dependent on some loser or abuser. What I'm not for is going so far as to encourage such a degree of independence and be teaching single teenage mothers that they in fact don't need a man in their life, or more importantly their child's life because as Ann shows, over 30 years of research and facts show the opposite.
Using Hollywood award acceptance speeches as just one example, I believe Coulter is arguing that we as a society are too quick to "celebrate" single motherhood and that we also take it much too far - consequently encouraging single motherhood as a healthy form of independence, when in fact it isn't. Coulter appears to consider this view extremely selfish, ignorant, and harmful. I agree. As for her approach to discussing the issue, I couldn't disagree more.
Her January 14, 2009 article can be found on her website at http://www.anncoulter.com/. I have also included it below.
--------------------------------
From Ann Coulter's Website (http://www.anncoulter.com/) January 14, 2009:
... As I describe in my new book, "Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault
on America," controlling for socioeconomic status, race and place of residence,
the strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison is that he was
raised by a single parent. (The second strongest factor is owning a Dennis
Kucinich bumper sticker.)
By 1996, 70 percent of inmates in state juvenile detention centers serving
long-term sentences were raised by single mothers. Seventy percent of teenage
births, dropouts, suicides, runaways, juvenile delinquents and child murderers
involve children raised by single mothers. Girls raised without fathers are more
sexually promiscuous and more likely to end up divorced.
A 1990 study by the left-wing Progressive Policy Institute showed that,
after controlling for single motherhood, the difference in black and white crime
disappeared.
Various studies come up with slightly different numbers, but all the
figures are grim. A study cited in the far left-wing Village Voice found that
children brought up in single-mother homes "are five times more likely to commit
suicide, nine times more likely to drop out of high school, 10 times more likely
to abuse chemical substances, 14 times more likely to commit rape (for the
boys), 20 times more likely to end up in prison, and 32 times more likely to run
away from home."
With new children being born, running away, dropping out of high school and
committing murder every year, it's not a static problem to analyze. But however
the numbers are run, single motherhood is a societal nuclear bomb.
Many of these studies, for example, are from the '90s, when the percentage
of teenagers raised by single parents was lower than it is today. In 1990, 28
percent of children under 18 were being raised in one-parent homes -- mother or
father, divorced or never-married. By 2005, more than one-third of all babies
born in the U.S. were illegitimate.
That's a lot of social problems in the pipeline.
Think I'm being cruel? Imagine an America with 60 to 70 percent fewer
juvenile delinquents, teenage births, teenage suicides and runaways, and you
will appreciate what the sainted "single mothers" have accomplished. Even in
liberals' fevered nightmares, predatory mortgage dealers, oil speculators and
Ken Lay could never do as much harm to their fellow human beings as single
mothers do to their own children, to say nothing of society at large.
But the Times won't run that series because liberals adore single
motherhood and the dissolution of traditional marriage in America. They detest
the military, so they cite a few anecdotal examples of veterans who have
committed murder and hope that no one asks for details.
COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE 1130
Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
