Saturday, April 19, 2014

Never satisfied

A woman manages to turn her coach potato husband onto Cross-Fit, and is now unhappy that he is in excellent condition:
After a few months out of work, Grant became depressed and stopped even trying to look for jobs. I'd come home from work to find him playing Xbox or blankly surfing the Internet at the kitchen table, surrounded by dirty dishes. He was gaining weight, too. Even though we love fried foods, we've always made an effort to eat as little processed food as possible at home--but that changed when he was unemployed. Suddenly, he was going through entire packages of cookies and boxes of cereal.

Seeing him that way was hard. He refused to see a therapist, saying he could work through things on his own. He's never been great at discussing his emotions (even with me) especially when he's feeling down and becomes hypersensitive to criticism. For instance, when I pointed out the weight gain-he needed to buy new pants for a wedding we were attending--we ended up getting into a huge fight. He didn't understand that the weight didn't bother me as much as the changes in his personality--it was just a symptom. He seemed sluggish and despondent, not like the active, up-for-anything guy I married. I didn't love the spare tire around his midsection, but I'd still have been attracted to him if it weren't for the other stuff. And treading lightly by urging him to meet up with the guys for a pickup game or head out on a run just made him hostile, since he could clearly understand the subtext....

 Now, it's as if I'm living with an incredibly fit stranger. We barely have sex--he goes to bed at 10 so he can run or lift at 5--and his preoccupation with his body makes me uncomfortable. I feel like his diet is the most important thing in his life, and because it's "healthy," it's hard to make it sound like a problem. Every time I mention that I wish he could drop the Paleo thing for a night so we could try the raved-about mac and cheese at a new bistro, or that he could take a weeklong break from working out so we could go to the beach with my family, he flips the conversation to make it sound like I'm trying to undermine him and his happiness.

Sometimes I wonder if I might be. After all, he's always inviting me to come with him to "the Box," which I never do. I say I need to look after our daughter or that I'm busy grading papers, but truthfully, working out is not the same priority for me as it is for Grant. Seeing my husband so passionate about something that has nothing to do with me makes me feel left out. I do wonder whether I'd be so annoyed and angry if he had gotten into a more solo activity, like running or biking, and I don't think I would be. I hate that Grant has an entire social life that doesn't include me, and that he's part of a whole fitness movement that's leaving me behind.

It's an ugly feeling. I don't want to be resentful about something that makes my husband feel good--and I know we need to sort through this together. I've done some research on eating and exercise disorders in men and occasionally wonder if Grant may be too obsessive, but I think the issue is more about how his body image and workout routine is affecting us. It'd be different if he were a single guy living by himself. And then, there are the facts: He's a lot healthier, physically and mentally. His numbers at his last doctor's appointment were perfect. When he's around, he loves being a dad. Sometimes he'll take our daughter for a long bike ride on a Saturday afternoon, and I love that she and he are bonding over healthy activities. I only wish he'd put that drive back into our relationship.
Translation: his SMV has improved while hers has declined, so she wants him to reduce it in order to not feel threatened, rather than work on improving her own. This is why focusing on making women happy is a futile goal; their objectives are dynamic which means that it is an ever-receding horizon.

Friday, April 18, 2014

Better off out

This is not good news for civilization:
Men who entered into fatherhood at around age 25 saw a 68% increase of depressive symptoms over their first five years of being dads—if they lived at the same home as their children.

The study, which was published in the journal Pediatrics, looked at 10,623 young men who were participating in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. The study tracked the fathers for about 20 years, and kept score of their depression symptoms.

While fathers who didn’t share a home with their children didn’t experience the same high increase in depressive symptoms in early fatherhood, most of the fathers in the study did live with their children. Those men had lower depression symptoms before they became dads and experienced a spike in symptoms when their child was born and through the first few years.
Translation: fathers who live at home with their children and provide for them have less sex and more responsibility than fathers who abandon them and their mothers for sex with other women.

One of the biggest and most common mistakes a married woman can make is to put her children ahead of her husband. This is not only bad for the husband, it is also bad for the children due to the harm it does to the marital relationship.

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Harder divorce = more marriage

Megan McCardle doesn't think through the consequences of limiting divorce:
I can see the appeal of making marriage more difficult to get out of. My brief tour through the divorce literature indicated that ending a high-conflict marriage is better for everyone, including the kids -- despite the financial and emotional drawbacks, it really is better to have two homes, rather than one where Mom and Dad are engaged in a bitter civil war.

On the other hand, the evidence on ending low-conflict marriages -- one in which maybe one party, or both, doesn’t feel perfectly fulfilled, but they get along OK -- wasn’t so happy. Children of low-conflict marriages whose parents divorce have more difficulty adjusting than the kids of high-conflict marriages. It’s thought that the divorce comes as a shock to these kids; a relationship that seemed fine to them suddenly dissolves, which changes their ability to trust the world and other people.

These divorces aren’t necessarily so great for the adults, either. Divorce tends to be a financial disaster for all but the very rich, because it’s more expensive to support two households than one. And people who exit marriages don’t necessarily find this makes them happier. We tend to think that marriages are good, and then they go bad, and then you divorce and get happy again, but unhappiness can often be a temporary condition that later improves....

The lesson is that when you make it harder to exit, you also make people reluctant to enter. If we try to strengthen marriage by clamping down on divorce, we may find that more and more people simply refuse to get married in the first place.
It's written from the perspective of a woman who wants to retain her out. Her position makes no sense. If she were correct, marriage rates would have climbed with no-fault divorce. Instead, they have collapsed. Men aren't avoiding marriage because they are afraid of being held to their marital contract, but because they are afraid of women not being held to it.

What ultimately threatens marriage is the state's involvement in it. The best way to strengthen it is to sever all connection between the religious sacrament and the state. Let the state permit civil partnerships of one or two or ten individuals; they can use the corporate model and be subject to dissolution as per contract.

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Don't listen to the freaks

The preachers of tolerance don't actually believe in equality. They are malformed people who erroneously believe that if they can get you to accept their depravity, it will somehow heal their shattered psychologies.
A prominent advocate for transgender and women's rights in the tech world has been charged with raping her wife, The San Francisco Examiner has learned. Dana McCallum, a senior engineer at Twitter who speaks and writes about women's and transgender-rights and technology issues, was arrested Jan. 26 and booked into County Jail on suspicion of five felonies, according to the Sheriff's Department.

McCallum, 31, who was born a male, openly identifies as a female and whose legal name is Dana Contreras, was charged Jan. 29 with five felonies, including three counts of spousal rape, one count of false imprisonment and one count of domestic violence, according to the District Attorney's Office. She has since pleaded not guilty.
As any policeman can tell you, the sexual freaks are significantly overrepresented among the criminal population. They do not behave badly because they are psychologically damaged by society's rejection, they behave badly and are socially rejected because they are intrinsically psychologically abnormal.

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Alpha Mail: are gays misogynist?

 The question is asked:
Ever heard of Redstockings? They've argued precisely this, because if you're gay you're denying sexual attention to women and thus being a misogynist.


Honestly, (radical second wave and third wave) feminism has thrown gay men under the bus. Why? Feminists (of these types) argue that there is no such thing as homophobia against gay men. They argue that gay men are discriminated against because they're socially perceived as feminine... ergo, gay bashings are just the Patriarchy backfiring onto men!

Feminists really need to make up their minds... are gay men seen as women by society? Or do gay men get treated like men are and thus possess "male privilege"? Both of these statements cannot be true at the same time, yet feminists (of these kinds) simultaneously hold to both: gay men are victims of the patriarchy because they're socially perceived as and treated as women, yet apparently because of their penises they possess "male privilege."

But we don't give chivalry to gay men, and "never hit a woman" hardly saved Matthew Shepard's life. And several stereotypes of gay men may be effeminate, but several other stereotypes of gay men are in fact hypermasculine ("all gay men are sex-obsessed sexual predators" for example).

Of course feminists want to enlist gay men to fight for their cause (and take them shopping) but the simple fact is that gay men, like all kinds of gender-non-normative males (including nerdy men and camp-straight men etc.) are socially treated as a third gender.

But feminism doesn't want to accept this. If it did, its entire model of unidirectional class-based gender oppression instantly becomes untenable.

So feminism throws gay men under the bus.
All we really need to know is the First Law of the Female Imperative: do they help or hinder the free flow of resources from men to women. To which, the answer is obviously: hinder. Therefore, homosexual men are intrinsically misogynist regardless of how they regard or behave towards women.

Monday, April 14, 2014

Why N lowers MMV

This should suffice to explain to even the most thick-headed woman why men view even moderate-N women as being less marriageable:
Murdered bride Anni Dewani 'told her cousin that husband Shrien was a flop in bed' Uncle claims Anni Dewani 'sent text about honeymoon sex to cousin. It allegedly said: 'Finally did it. Not as good as my previous boyfriends'
Now, obviously there was a lot more going wrong in the Dewani household than Mr. Dewani's inability to live up to the alpha ghosts of the late Mrs. Dewani's past. But the fact that men know women are going to make those comparisons, and quite possibly sabotage their entire marital sex lives over them, presents a sufficient risk to justify nexting a woman who would otherwise be a good marital prospect.

Sunday, April 13, 2014

The cost of Grrrl Power

The GNOME foundation discovers that a devotion to the advancement of feminist propaganda can get in the way of any actual work being done:
The Foundation does not have any cash reserves right now.

Why has this happened?

The Outreach Program for Women (OPW) has proven to be extremely popular and has grown quite rapidly both in terms of the number of interns and the number of participating organizations. GNOME, as the lead organization, has been responsible for managing the finances for the entire effort. However, as the program grew, the processes did not keep up. The changes were not tracked effectively from the point when other organizations joined the OPW. This impacted not only our ability to manage the OPW administration, but also to keep up with the core financial tasks of the Foundation -- tasks which already needed the full attention of the Foundation's employees and the board.

As a result of these issues, we have only just now finalized our 2014 budget. In the meantime, we made assumptions based on previous years' incomes and expenditures, and we authorized expenditures for this year based on those assumptions. Those assumptions proved to be more optimistic than reality. In addition, while our outgoing payments to interns must be strictly timed, the incoming payments from sponsoring organizations are very fluid, thus we have had to front the costs of OPW. Fronting these costs has resulted in a budget shortfall.
Well, I think we can all agree that reaching out to girls who don't have any real interest in programming is more important than whatever it is the GNOME foundation was formed to do. Why not simply continue the vital work of the Outreach Program for Woman with their sole compensation being the ability to bask in the approval of all right-thinking individuals?

It would be unfortunate if the Open Source movement was strangled by its misguided insistence on getting more women involved. In fact, one almost wonders if Microsoft might not behind it somehow....