The Tragedy of America's Disappearing Fathers

Juan Williams wrote an excellent article for the WSJ, The Tragedy of America's Disappearing Fathers

When fatherless young people are encouraged to write about their lives, they tell heartbreaking stories about feeling like "throwaway people." In the privacy of the written page, their hard, emotional shells crack open to reveal the uncertainty that comes from not knowing if their father has any interest in them. The stories are like letters to unknown dads – some filled with imaginary scenes about what it might be like to have a dad who comes home and puts his arm around you or plays with you.

They feel like they've been thrown away, Mr. Myers says, because "they don't have a father to push them, discipline them, and they give up trying to succeed . . . they don't see themselves as wanted." A regular theme of their stories is that they feel safer in a foster care home or juvenile detention center than on the outside, because they have no father to hold together the family. There is no one at home.

The numbers are devastating:

The extent of the problem is clear. The nation's out-of-wedlock birth rate is 38%. Among white children, 28% are now born to a single mother; among Hispanic children it is 50% and reaches a chilling, disorienting peak of 71% for black children. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, nearly a quarter of America's white children (22%) do not have any male in their homes; nearly a third (31%) of Hispanic children and over half of black children (56%) are fatherless.

This represents a dramatic shift in American life. In the early 1960s, only 2.3% of white children and 24% of black children were born to a single mom. Having a dad, in short, is now a privilege, a ticket to middle-class status on par with getting into a good college.

Children need both parents. No matter the age of the child, they need a mother and a father:

The odds increase for a child's success with the psychological and financial stability rooted in having two parents. Having two parents means there is a greater likelihood that someone will read to a child as a preschooler, support him through school, and prevent him from dropping out, as well as teaching him how to compete, win and lose and get up to try again, in academics, athletics and the arts.

Add to that, children need a home where both parents are present:

Maybe most important of all is that having a dad at home is almost a certain ticket out of poverty; because about 40% of single-mother families are in poverty.

Go read the rest.

The bottom line is, a society that denigrates the importance of men's roles, particularly that of fathers, can not survive.

Let's thank every good father we know, and appreciate what we can learn from them.



Share on Facebook

The Retrosexual Manual: How To Be A Real Man

Via Brutally Honest, House of Erasthotenes celebrates The return of the real man.

I like that. At the same time, I didn't know real men had gone away, but never mind that.

Apparently someone's published a book called The Retrosexual Manual: How To Be A Real Man. The Daily Mail has details:

You have strong arms which come in handy whenever bottles need opening, cases need carrying, or a girl just feels like gazing at a strong, muscular limb.

Oh yes. I gaze at nearly every opportunity.

Among the icons listed in the article is

DCI GENE HUNT: A Regan for the modern age, singlehandedly responsible for reminding women what they're missing. All his best quotes are winners, such as: 'Don't move. You're surrounded by armed bastards!' Verily, the lord of all Retrosexual Men everywhere.

Hunt was played by Philip Glenister in the excellent BBC series Life On Mars, starring the very sexy John Simm. Here's a clip:


But back to retrosexual men, Erathosthenes asks,

What's the cause and effect there? Metaphorical? We're hungrier for a bigger car, so we're also hungrier for more manly-men, to emulate if we're male and to genetically-splice if we're female? Could be that, too.

Dr/ Joy Bliss of Maggie's Farm realizes how difficult it is for boys to become men,

Think about it: we women have far more latitude in how we can be, and in our respectable choices in life.

I agree with her. How about you, gentle readers? Do you feel that women are less restricted than men in their respectable choices in life?



Share on Facebook

A depressing state of affairs

Yesterday afternoon at about the same time I came across two very different posts on sex:

On one side, Siggy's Romantic Illusions And The Higher Self, where he explains,

With real intimacy comes a real oneness and singularity that transcends the biological imperative. With that real intimacy that transcends the biological drives, we find our higher selves. We find ways to communicate in ways outside the physical expression. We come to understand that the most powerful expressions of intimacy are outside the physical realm.

For many people, that kind of intimacy, outside the physical and biological boundaries are the real sexual attractants. Some people find their sexual attractions on a 'soullular' plane. They experience the same physical sensations and the same attractions as everyone else. For them however, the genesis of those feelings are found in the higher self and in the higher self of the other. They yearn for sexual expression, but they yearn for that in conjunction with an intimacy that is found outside the purely physical intimacies. They want a spiritual component to their union and will be satisfied with nothing less.

Siggy is talking about a higher self, real intimacy, a more perfect union.

On the other side and a generation younger, the winning essay of the Modern Love: The College Essay Contest, titled Want to Be My Boyfriend? Please Define, a thoroughly depressing account of the hook-up scene among college students.

The young woman who wrote it, Marguerite Fields, states,

I think what I have been seeking in some form from all of these men is permanence.

Sometimes I don't like them, or am scared of them, and a lot of times I'm just bored by them. But my fear or dislike or boredom never seems to diminish my underlying desire for a guy to stay, or at least to say he is going to stay, for a very long time.

She is not alone: the contest brought about hundreds of entries from college students on "their ambivalence about the no-strings-attached sexual opportunism of the hookup culture."

A young woman in college, having sexual encounters with dozens of men who are little more than strangers to her, yearns for a guy to at least say he is going to stay.

I find that extremely depressing: She wants not love,
not intimacy,
(and forget about a spiritual component to a union - that hasn't even crossed anyone's mind).

Just permanence.

How sad.

UPDATE
Porretto: Sex: The Sequel

Intercourse doesn't really make two bodies into one; except in pathological cases, the two separate soon afterward. But the interpenetration of bodies cannot be divorced from the equally urgent desire for an interpenetration of minds and souls. When we cheapen sex down to a mere satisfaction of physical desire, or worse, a slaking of need, we undermine the foundation for love. If deprived of love for long enough, we lose the capacity to love ourselves.

The "hookup culture" strains to deny these truths. But like a few others known better to our forebears than to us of 2008, they are self-evident -- and self-demonstrating. There isn't a voluptuary in the world who can escape the consequences.

The Anchoress: Progressively lonely and longing

Truly, it is an idea almost as old as civilization - monogamy, family, the unit, which blends two families and then extends out. Given the determined effort of the know-it-all boomers to "deconstruct" all of the worthless and bourgeois establishment norms that went before them - marriage and family were emphatically "out" and "repressive" - it is not surprising to see a generation unable to process the idea of commitment to anything other than "whatever there is today."

Go read every word of both posts.

And don't miss (via Neoneocon) Kay S. Hymowitz's Sex and Its Discontents, on how the "revolution" got started.

UPDATE
Obie's Sister takes a look at The Hook-Up Generation

UPDATE, Monday May 12
"Casual, careless, lighthearted and fun."

(h/t Jody)


Share on Facebook

One question for my readers,

Is there a "shortage of eligible men"? Or is it more a case of a "shortage of men that women find acceptable"?

If there is, is it mostly among an age group, or generalized?

(Yes, that's three questions, and yes, I've been reading Porretto, as always)



Share on Facebook

Message to Jeremy: Divorce Leslie

Larwyn sent this link, by TigerHawk: Message to Rupert: Marry Rachel now

If Rupert does not propose to Rachel right now, he's an idiot*.

TigerHawk is referring to Rachel Lucas's post, Her husband is a lucky man, who was reading Dr. Helen and came across this article:
Chores for two: Why men don't pitch in
Leslie Bennetts explores the role men play in housework and childrearing.

To say that Leslie Bennetts is a bitch would be an understatement. The underlying contempt and lack of respect this woman holds against her second husband is spelled out for all to see. Read

Yes, dear readers, it’s true: Maintaining some semblance of parity in your marriage requires you to deploy the same kinds of nasty tactics you swore you would never stoop to as a parent but nonetheless found yourself using the minute you actually had a kid. Bribery and punishment work; so do yelling and complaining. Threats are also effective, as long as everyone knows you mean business. With husbands, tender blandishments and nooky are particularly useful, as is the withholding of the aforementioned.

Bennetts goes on,

So why aren't women demanding something closer to parity? While many are resigned to seething in silence, the stakes are far higher than they seem to realize. When wives permit their husbands to shirk a fair share of the homemaking and parenting, not only do they themselves suffer, but chances are good that they’re also sentencing their children to a similar fate. When you have kids, everything you do teaches them how to live their own lives when they grow up. Unfortunately, all too many women are still teaching their children that "woman is the nigger of the world," as John Lennon and Yoko Ono put it so memorably in a song lyric years ago.

Oh, yeah, John and Yoko. Didn't they also say,

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can

Maybe if Leslie gave up all her posessions she'd have no housework chores. Or, if her work is so valuable that her pay justifies her agony, why not hire a cleaning service to come once or twice a week and clean the house?

But I digress. Bennetts goes on:

And what too many fathers teach their sons and daughters is that men can get away with dumping the scut work on their wives, and that women will grit their teeth and put up with it.

Dr Helen's advice is sensible:

I have some advice for your long suffering husband, Jeremy. Next time you need something fixed around the house, your wife needs help lifting something, or you need a blowjob, resort to yelling and complaining. Threats are also effective, as long as she knows you mean business. Huff and puff and complain to all of your friends about her inadequacies and let the world know what a loser she is. Then crow about your newfound equality. Finally, call yourself a hero and write a lousy piece for Men's Health or some other men's magazine about your loser of a wife and see how your married life takes off after that. For deep down, even if Jeremy won't admit it, my guess is, just like the women mentioned in the article, he is seething inside. It's no wonder he won't scrub toilets for this woman.

Francis Porretto, commenting at Dr Helen's, said,

Leslie Bennetts has undertaken the gender-war feminists' practice of "defining oppression down." She's not the first, nor is her response to "oppression" original, but she does appear to be the anchor woman on the "nasty" end of the curve.

I wonder if the idea of hiring someone to do the heavy cleaning has occurred to her. Or might that be a red herring? Might her problem simply be a need to exercise power over her husband -- the sort of domineering that causes men to leave their wives, thinking "solitude in celibacy would be better than this" --?

My advice is rather more drastic:

I have stated before in this blog that I believe that couples with underage children should not divorce except in cases of abuse (infidelity can be a form of abuse, by the way). The Bennetts article is abuse, simply put by an abusive woman against her husband, in a public venue for all to see.

Jeremy, get a divorce and hire a cleaning service.

And regain some peace in your life.

(and don't register at Perfect Match, which sponsored the article!)

UPDATE
The Anchoress: My husband is a gem, a jewel!

I suspect that when The Vagina Monologues comes to town this deeply victimized woman clamors to audition as the Special Guest Vagina: the one made of steel wool that shreds the penis and then toot-toots like a claxon horn in Rome.

Share on Facebook

Is Hitchens right?

I would like all my visitors to answer this question:

In his video, Hitchens says that "For most men, if they can't make women laugh, they're out of the evolutionary contest. They'll never going to get laid... If you can't make them laugh, you'll never have a chance."

Is he right?

Leave an anwer in the comments, and bee-have. I'll be back later in the day.

UPDATE
Sense of humor: Essential
Funny women

More:
The Uglies
Question of the day
Amused Cynic



Share on Facebook

"What do you see as the nature of a man?"

One of the best things about blogging is the excellent people you come in contact with. As I have repeatedly said, Siggy, who I have never met and don't even know what he looks like, has been a most supportive friend of my blogging and podcasting. Shane Borgess of (link has sound) Political Vindication and Political Vindication Radio also is another great guy I would have never come across if it weren't for blogging and am honored to count him as a friend.

(You can see that Shane is very handsome. If you want to know what Siggy looks like, ask him - don't ask me.)

Yesterday Siggy and Shane discussed how we create men and women in our society. Shane asked Siggy the question, "What do you see as the nature of a man?"

This is not a trivial question. The answer to how we see as the nature of a man defines how we as a society raise our childen, behave in every relationship (be it familial, professional, or sexual), and what we expect from other societies.

Siggy explained that men want to protect and solve problems. Women want to communicate: with great nuance when they raise children, and in a protective way. Shane said, "Men want to solve problems, women want to talk about them". Shane also saw independence as another factor in men's nature.

Do men want monogamy? What are the conditions for monogamy? Do men want to be idealized by their wives?

Is there such a thing as love as first sight?

You must listen to the entire podcast.

My special thanks to Shane and Siggy for having this wonderful conversation.

UPDATE
Husband of the year



Share on Facebook

In this morning's podcast: How we create men and women in the US

UPDATE
You can listen to the podcast here
How we create men and women in the US and the effect of relationships between parents, children, and between the sexes. Siggy, Happy Catholic and Shane of Political Vindication talk about it today at 11AM Eastern.

The chat room's open by 10:45 and the call-in number is (646) 652-2639.

Join us!

On SuperTuesday's 11AM Eastern podcast: Relationships

Tomorrow is SuperTuesday, caucus and primary day in 24 states, so for a change of pace we' ll talk about relationships in the morning podcast.

The title of the podcast is Gender Peculiarities, because it was Siggy's idea, and we're starting off with his post Gender Peculiarities And Understanding The Dance.

Heck, we might even talk about tango.

Chat will start at 10:45AM, and the call-in number is (646) 652-2639. Join us!




Share on Facebook

Slate's unwarranted gloom and doom

Slate's William Saletan says "Happiness sucks". Here's how he puts it:
A study suggests extreme happiness may be bad for you

Findings:: 1) "The highest levels of income, education and political participation were reported not by the most satisfied individuals, but by moderately satisfied individuals." 2) Extremely happy people "earned significantly less money" and earned lower school grades than moderately happy people. 3) They "may not live as long," either. Theories: 1) Happiness makes you complacent and kills your drive. 2) It makes you slow to adapt. 3) It makes you too optimistic and insufficiently vigilant about your health. 4) It may overstimulate your cardiovascular system. Researchers' conclusions: 1) "Happiness may need to be moderated for success." 2) "Extremely high levels of happiness might not be a desirable goal." Human Nature's conclusions: 1) Success may need to be moderated for happiness. 2) Extremely high levels of success might not be a desirable goal.

I cliked on the link to the article and found otherwise.

Here we have a bunch of academics in Virginia, Michigan and Illinois looking at data from the World Values Survey, whatever that may be, and then analyzing "the behaviors and attitudes of 193 undergraduate students at Illinois", and then jumping to conclussions as to how happy we all should be. Or, in their own words, "How happy is happy enough".

Not surprisngly at all, they found that among 193 undergrads,

Those classified as very happy scored significantly higher on things like gregariousness, close friendships, self-confidence, energy and time spent dating.

No kidding, dude! Their findings confirm what most of us regard as obvious,

All in all, Diener said, the evidence indicates that happiness is a worthy goal for those who lack it, but the endless pursuit of even more happiness for the already happy may be counterproductive.

Or, as the saying goes, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

How the guy from Slate jumped from that to saying "Extremely high levels of success might not be a desirable goal" is not clear. Maybe he should have first asked Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey and 191 others from the Forbes 400 what they think before reaching that conclusion.



Share on Facebook

The "breathing" Constitution, the Russians bust the Brits, and other items

Here's what the the Huckster said, in his own words:


Fred, I'm happy to say, disagrees

I do not believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document. I am committed to appointing strict constructionist judges to the bench if I am elected President, strict constructionists who believe the Constitution has a fixed meaning that can be applied to cases that come before the courts today. They do NOT believe the Constitution is a “living, breathing document,” whose meaning, constantly changing with the sifting sands of our culture, can be determined and applied by unelected judges.

--------------------------------------------------------------
The British Council offices in Saint Petersburg and Yekaterinburg, Russia, have been closed because the Russians claim that they're operating illegally and have accused the council of violating Russian tax rules, but here's the real reason

The UK wants Russia to hand over businessman Andrei Lugovoi, whom UK investigators suspect of murdering Mr Litvinenko - he died after being given a fatal dose of radioactive polonium 210.

Russia refused to extradite Mr Lugovoi, now a member of the Russian parliament, so Britain expelled four Russian diplomats - Moscow then expelled four British diplomats.

Russian officials have told the BBC the action against the British Council was a retaliatory measure.

As the NYT puts it, What is clear is that the Kremlin has no tolerance for any organization outside of its control.
--------------------------------------------------------------
While the Madrid 3/11/4 bombers are sentenced, in Barcelona the police arrests 14 Islamist suspects.

But if you listen to the media, you'd think there is no Islamic fundamentalism.
--------------------------------------------------------------
75% of Baghdad Secure-- Up From 8% One Year Ago. Additonally,

** 75% of Baghdad secure- up from 8% last year
** UN announces political and economic progress
** 5 US Brigades will return home by July (Equal to Surge Number)
** 5 More US Brigades may come home by end of 2008
** Iraqi security plan to take control of all 18 provinces by end of 2008

--------------------------------------------------------------
A couple of weeks ago The Anchoress posted on The Assassination Obsessives; today I received a post on Racial Sensitivity and Your President
--------------------------------------------------------------
Via Maria, Dr. Sowell writes about Primary Dilemmas:

What is wrong with this year's candidates?

The short answer is that most of the Republicans are questionable and all three leading Democrats are dangerous.
...
While Barack Obama and John Edwards have been irresponsible demagogues, the Clintons have a record of lawless and ruthless corruption that goes back not only to their White House days in the 1990s but even back to their time in the governors' mansion in Arkansas.

Go read it all.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Via Maria,
Men and women, explained.

More blogging later.



Share on Facebook

Looking for Mr. Wonderful? Go to Amazon!

Via Jay Tea at Wizbang, who warns,

(Note: the link is very, VERY NSFW -- Not Safe For Women. Any woman who sees it could be utterly RUINED FOREVER. And men? No one has ever died from the sudden destruction of every molecule of testosterone in their body, but 1) why take the chance? and B) would life really be worth living afterwards?)

a pernicious, exploitive, obscene form of expression:

"bad boys turned good"

He cooks while you blog.

Cool.

And more:

"I know. Let's take you shoe shopping!"

If you think Mr. Wonderful doesn't exist, fret no more: He's at Amazon:

Mr. Wonderful has been carefully developed with today's modern woman in mind. He is complete with good looks, sense of style, sensitivity, charm, and is genuinely sincere. The perfect gift for any woman, whether single or married. Some of Mr. Wonderful's comments include: - "Thinking of you is the best part of my whole day." - "This evening, let's just lie in bed and talk all night." - "You're perfect just the way you are, I wouldn't change one thing."

Of course Ms Wonderful's out there, too:

14 Phrases Include: - Don't feel bad honey, i forgot it was our anniversary too! - You don't need a glass, just go ahead and drink right out of the carton. - Your new secretary is cute! I bet she's smart too! - Oh... your watching a ballgame. Just stay right there on the couch and I'll whip up some snacks. - I'll finish cleaning out the garage honey, your friends are waiting for you to play golf. - You're going out with the boys tonight? You've worked hard... Enjoy yourself! - A new reversible drill, oh honey it's just what i needed! - Are you sure it's ok to wash this shirt? You've only worn it for a couple of days. - Don't worry about taking the trash out. I can use the exercise. - It really doesn't matter if you leave the toilet seat up, it makes it easier to clean. - You're right, we don't need directions, maybe you'll find a short cut.

In other relationship news, now that you know where to find Mr./Ms Wonderful, go to Laurie's blog and find out What men want to know.



Share on Facebook

Push presents? Plweeez!

The latest in golddigger demands? A push present:
A Bundle of Joy Isn't Enough?

This bonus goes by various names. Some call it the "baby mama gift." Others refer to it as the "baby bauble.' But it's most popularly known as the "push present."

That's "push" as in, "I the mother, having been through the wringer and pushed out this blessed event, hereby claim my reward." Or "push" as in, "I've delivered something special and now I'm pushing you, my husband/boyfriend, to follow suit."

How very mercenary.

I'm not alone in thinking this is mercenary:

The popularity of push presents has generated a backlash among some couples, who decry the implicit materialism.

"This isn't the time to give a $200 piece of jewelry," said Rhonda Grote, president of ThinkThoughtful.com, an online gift consulting company in Bradenton, Fla. "I do not think that because a woman has had a baby she requires a Tiffany & Company item. She requires help, love and emotional support."

Ms. Grote suggested that new fathers should instead consider performing domestic chores, hiring a cleaning service, or otherwise provide extra assistance for the new mother.

For the record, when our son was born The Husband showed up with flowers at the hospital, and helped around the house once we were home. I also hired a cleaning lady.

I do not exaggerate when I say the most wonderful gift of all is our son.

Update
There are better ways to keep mama happy.
"Indeed".

Update, Sunday 9 December:
Welcome, Instapundit readers! If you have a chance, don't miss this week's podcast on marriage, childbirth, sex and relationships.



Share on Facebook

Not-remote control

I have lived all my life scrupulously avoiding trying to explain why people do things: I focus on what they are doing.

Trying to figure out what people are actually doing is difficult enough for me. Simple person that I am, if it quacks, waddles, has a flat beak and looks like a duck, I accept that it's a duck and proceed accordingly.

I know people who would analyze whether the duck is an ugly swan, or whether it wants to make you think it's a duck but isn't, or whether it's a duck who's struggling to get its inner sheep to come out to play. While pondering these scenarios might be interesting, for the greater part they are a huge waste of time: you still have a duck.

Beyond a certain point, I stop looking into motivation, psychology or idiosyncrasies and simply try to accept what is there as best I can. Needless to say, mine is a very simplistic approach, as you surely noticed from this post last year.

Having said this, at times I succumb to the temptation of trying to explain why some people do some things. Recently I've been thinking about the issue of control.

A couple of weeks ago I posted the opening to the Kenneth Branagh film of Much Ado About Nothing, which starts with,

Sigh no more, ladies, sigh no more,
Men were deceivers ever,
One foot in sea and one on shore,
To one thing constant never:
Then sigh not so, but let them go,
And be you blithe and bonny,
Converting all your sounds of woe
Into Hey nonny, nonny.
Sing no more ditties, sing no moe,
Of dumps so dull and heavy;
The fraud of men was ever so,
Since summer first was leafy:
Then sigh not so, but let them go,
And be you blithe and bonny,
Converting all your sounds of woe
Into Hey nonny, nonny.

At that time a woman friend (an old friend from pre-blogging days) had been watching the movie and we conversed about whether Shakespeare shortchanges men ("Men were deceivers ever… The fraud of men was ever so"), and whether Shakespeare offers valuable advice.

We both agreed that the advice is priceless, and worth living by. She wished she had learned of it earlier.

But we agreed for different reasons: she agreed because she has been treated badly by the men in her life, who indeed were deceivers ever. I have lived a much more protected life and my experience has been much better, and as I am an optimist and have been very independent from a very early age (I graduated high school at age sixteen by completing all the requisite courses because I didn't like my all-girls' school), I'm all for being blithe and bonny and letting go of sighs and woes, and avoiding hanging one’s life on someone else's whims and wishes.

My friend, whose second husband had just left her, also talked about The Rules. The Rules essentially says that women should live the best lives they can and let men chase them.

Sounds good to me. I've been married for decades so I wouldn't know whether The Rules work in today's convoluted courtship capers. The Rules has been accused of being manipulative but I would wager that the fact still remains that men still like to chase women and women still want to be chased.

The problem comes up when one is trying to control the other.

A lot of women want to dominate everyone around them. They are driven mostly by insecurity but also by anger, and sometimes the wish for power. Most men actively resent domineering women and can be driven to all sorts of crazy behavior out of spite. Some men want to dominate, too. While independent women like myself are not interested in domineering men, some domineering men see this as a bull sees a red cape and charge ahead.

Whether it's on a personal relationship, a professional situation, or just general everyday interaction, nothing puts me off more than a guy who’s trying to control me.

It seems to me, however, that the more appealing men are those who allow women to be all they are without trying to control them, which makes the woman more willing to surrender at the right time. The least controlling the guy, the better.

Why do some guys have this urge to control, then? Is it insecurity, anger, the desire for power over others, as it is in women, or is there more to it? Why do some guys seem to charge full speed ahead near independent women?

Yesterday I was talking to a male friend, who explained that independent women sometimes scare and anger men. Frustrated men need to compete and dominate: "some men need to dominate first before they can share. Others, better adjusted, are not threatened by those kinds of things," my friend explained, "It's pretty straightforward."

So I ask you, dear readers, what is your opinion?


Share on Facebook

Le Divorce

Maverick French President Nicolas Sarkozy and his beautiful wife Cecilia are doing a most American thing: something so American the Americans themselves haven't caught up yet.

They are divorcing while he is in office.

Rather than remain in a marriage of convenience for the sake of Appereances, the way Bill and Hillary, and Mitterand, and Chirac, and so many others in power have, when their marriage ended, the Sarkos are ending it "by mutual consent."

Sarko has a reputation as a ladies' man, and Cecilia ran off with her boyfriend two years ago. For a while there they did the French thing and got back together. Now they are divorcing.

The French are indignant that the Sarkos are being honest with themselves and with the public:

Noël Mamère, France's other bushy mustached American hating globophobe (who spends his time arranging illegal marriages for criminals), declares that "It's time to close the book on the Americanisation of French public life".

How French.


Share on Facebook

Luke, I am your father

Deep-voiced men have more kids, study shows.

A bunch of Harvard/Mc Master/Fla. State scientists figured a nifty way to go on a junket to Tanzania: Go looking for "one of the last true hunter-gatherer cultures", record the guys saying "Hujambo" (Hello), and then check out who has the most offspring. The deep-voiced guys do, at least in that neck of the woods (savanna?).

From there the researchers jumped to a conclusion that every Patrick Stewart fan already knew: Women prefer men with deep voices.

In case you didn't know already, yes, I certainly do.

"In previous studies, they have shown that women find deeper male voices to be more attractive, judging them to be more dominant, older, healthier and more masculine sounding."

Spend thousands of dollars, travel across the world, bother the natives, and reach that conclusion. Sweet.

I thought everybody knew that men with deeper voices are more masculine sounding.

But then, you know what they say about men with deep voices.

The researchers would have saved the airfare to Africa if they had called The Anchoress and me. We would have told them that

baritones won out over tenors.

One particular baritone comes to mind.

On the downside, the researchers also claim that

Men, on the other hand, find higher-pitch voices in women more attractive, subordinate, feminine, healthier and younger sounding.

That probably means two things,

• Hillary's screeching may not be putting people off
• I probably need to raise my pitch to get more podcast listeners

On the other hand, when it comes to the podcasts, Siggy's on the baritone range.

But in more serious matters, Patrick Stewart's playing Macbeth in London. I think he looks better without a mustache, but I'm hoping the production moves to Broadway. Patrick Stewart is a force of nature on stage.

And for a bald guy in his sixties, he's hot. Very.

It's all in the voice, isn't it?


Technorati: Patrick Stewart, Bryn Terfel
Share on Facebook

The most valuable advice you'll ever get, no matter your size

Becoming Lydia

This post contains a review of Becoming Jane
SPOILERS INCLUDED

Yesterday the guys were out of town so I went to see the ultimate chick flick, Becoming Jane.

Becoming Jane tells the story of Jane Austen's ill-fated romance with the impecunious and dishonorable Tom Lefroy. I'm sure I'm not giving anything away by stating that the romance was ill-fated, since most of the readers of this blog know that Austen is one of literature's most famous old maids.

Austen's real life was quite different from the Becoming Jane version, most notably that to the best of my knowledge Austen never did elope with anyone. For all I know she might have; I'm not an Austen scholar.

The film's dramatic story centers about this elopement, while failing to convey that only a despicable character would have urged an honorable woman to elope with him. In modern-day terms it would have been the equivalent of having your boyfriend want to be your pimp, only that in our day we seemed to have lost the moral outrage over that since we've come a long way in losing our morals.

Therefore this anachronism will probably go unnoticed, just as is having Jane dance at a ball while not wearing gloves.

While the character of Mr. Lefroy is supposed to be dashing, appealing and sexy, to my jaded old eyes he just wasn't all that interesting. Mr. Wisly, played by James Fox, was a lot more appealing in that he was modest, kind, and truly in love with Jane. Money aside, he's the kind of guy I would have been looking at, plus I thought he was better looking than Lefroy. He wasn't into sports and didn't dance well, which added to his appeal.

Other than that, it is a very pretty corset movie. Anne Hathaway actually does a nice job, the actors are terrific (James Cromwell plays her father - does that make Jane Austen Jack Bauer's half-sister?), the antiques lovely, and the locations beautiful. It is a chick flick true and true.

I would like to watch this movie with my mother, Lydia. Years ago we watched together Sense and Sensibility and had an amazing conversation.

My mother Lydia is the youngest of ten children, and is ten years younger than her youngest brother. She's still a beautiful woman and as a young girl was truly very pretty. She and her siblings were born into great comfort since her father was a man of money and influence but by no means she would have been considered an heiress, so she graduated from college and went to work in the late 1940s.

Sometime during that time she had been dating a handsome guy, "J", who was a real party guy, very popular, a great dancer, and very fond of her. "J" didn't seem to have been a hard-working guy in his profession but was a lot of fun. Her sisters (she had two much older sisters who never married) disapproved of this man, but she didn't quite drop the guy, didn't quite take him too seriously. All the same, she went on living her life independently from him and enjoying herself.

Apparently out of the blue "J" suddenly married a well-known society girl, the only child of a very rich man. While my two oldest aunts were scandalized over the surprise wedding, Lydia didn't think anything of it and wished them well.

A year or so later the guy turned up at Lydia's workplace just as she was leaving for the evening, and asked her for a cup of coffee. With his being a married man, she insisted on a very public locale on a congested street, so no one could say that she was having a secret rendezvous with a married man. He then proceeded to tell her the sad story that his wife was barren, and proposed that Lydia become his mistress and bear his children.

Mind you, divorce was legal in Puerto Rico at that time. In fact, another one of her sisters was divorced.

You don't know Lydia, but she can, when provoked, rip you with words while using the most meticulously polite, soft words, all within the boundaries of the strictest etiquette. Her former boyfriend got the full extent of her message and never approached her again.

Or so she thought.

A couple of years after that Lydia met my father, who fell in love at first sight with her, and (yet again) my aunts didn't approve of him either. My father at that point had been married, widowed, married and divorced and was estranged from his second son (to this day I have never met my stepbrother). They had a whirlwind romance and married at a small chapel in the countryside.

Fast-forward to a few years ago when my mom and I are watching Sense and Sensibility and as we get to the part where Mr. Willoughby watches the countryside wedding from his horse, she turns around and says, "After the movie's done, I'll tell you something you don't know yet."

At my mother's wedding, unknown to her but in full view of others, "J" had been sitting outside the church in his convertible, watching and waiting.

He drove away, alone.

Will have to watch Becoming Jane with Lydia, sometime.

How feminist am I?

I was just at Memeorandum and saw that Eugene Volokh is pondering a quiz he took, Are you a feminist?, and got a 95% score.

There are several statements with which I strongly agree:
"Women should be economically and socially independent. They shouldn't rely on men to take care of them." I suspect that men actually like that.
"Women should have the right to choose any path in life - from being a stay at home mom to a Fortune 500 CEO." Just don't expect that you'll be able to do both simultaneously. Know your commitments.
"Women should be encouraged to pursue education as much as men are." Oh yes. Right now it's almost getting to the point that men should be encouraged to pursue education as much as women.
"You would support a woman for president (if you agreed with her politics)." Jean Kirkpatrick, where are you when we need you.

I strongly agree with this statement: "Men and women should be held to the same sexual standards." The statement following it, "If men can sleep around without judgment, women should be able to as well," instead should have been "promiscuity is bad for both genders," in this the age of AIDS, chlamydia and antibiotic resistant venereal diseases (call me old fashioned, I still call them venereal diseases).

I strongly agree with "Women should accept their bodies as they are. Women should not have to conform to wacky beauty ideals," but Eugene raises a good point. He said,

I answered "not sure," because even setting aside health issues (women and men shouldn't accept unhealthy bodies if they can make them healthy) the fact is that men care about women's beauty, as best I can tell likely for biological reasons and not just social ones, and women ignore that at their peril.

Of course, by definition women shouldn't have to conform to wacky beauty ideals. And in a better world inhabited by people who are biologically and genetically different from humans women wouldn't have to conform to any beauty ideals.

In today's world, though, I don't think it's quite accurate to say that "Women should accept their bodies as they are." Some attempts to change one's body are likely counterproductive or on balance harmful. But others (whether dying graying hair, removing hair from certain places, using effective makeup under certain circumstances, mild dieting or exercise for esthetic reasons and not just health reasons, and so on) are probably wise ideas for many women who care about the things that many women understandably care about.

I have certainly posted enough about manicures and exercise class that regular readers of this blog would include me in the latter part. My method of weight control is to simply go to the gym for an extra 1/2 hour and cut down on butter if my skirts or slacks start getting tight (I don't own elastic-waisted skirts or trousers). Whether that means that I'm not "accepting my body as it is", I leave for you to decide. I prefer to think of it as not accepting the new extra pounds accruing on the already-accepted body.

Additionally, how you present yourself to others (whether you are a man or a woman) does matter not only because of aesthetic reasons but because it speaks to others as to what you think of yourself. If you look like you don't think enough of yourself to be well groomed, clean, and neatly dressed, others will notice.

As for fashion, know your style and buy what looks good on you.

As for wacky beauty ideals, I'm totally against tattoos, piercings other than 1 per ear, non-reconstructive breast augmentation surgery, Nancy Pelosi-like facelifts and the such. Neo-Neocon has pondered this subject at greater depth than I.

Then there's the "agree", with a proviso:
"There is no such thing as a "man's job." It is wrong for men to be given preference for any job position, even if women traditionally aren't in that field."
There are many jobs where size is might. For instance, firemen. Firemen have to carry 25+ lbs of equipment, which many women can do with no problem. The problem comes when you have to carry the equipment, and have to carry a person. I'm 5'10", and, while I'm not fat, it takes a strong person with good balance to carry me and their gear safely out of the house. So, if the fireman's a woman who can do it and has meet all the physical requirements for the job, I have no problem with it. If the woman gets a job as some kind of quota/preference project that excepts her from the rigorous requirements, then no.
(Oops, I forgot the NFL linemen.)

"A woman should be able to marry and have kids with anyone she wants - including another woman." A woman should, as long as the other party is in full knowledge and consents. Parenting should not be foisted on some unsuspecting guy simply because the woman wanted a sperm donor and didn't tell him she stopped taking the pill.

While I believe that every child needs a parent of each gender, I have seen children adopted by a gay couple who are very happy to be in a loving and stable home instead of shipped from foster home to foster home.

Dr. Helen took the quiz, and she raises the issue of responsibility:

The idea of equality is not as simple as this quiz would have us believe, for in order to be truly equal, women must understand that they too, have the responsibility to see that equality extends both ways.

Nowhere is that more important than in parenting.

Now comes the "disagrees":
"Women should take an equal role in dating. Women should ask out people they are interested in and take their turn in paying." The fact is that women shouldn't because most men don't like it. But then, I haven't been on a date since Jimmy Carter was president, so what do I know.

"Women should have legal, easy access to all types of birth control - including the morning after pill." I'm OK with the morning-after pill. As long as you don't consider abortion "all types of birth control", then I have no problem.

These answers make me a 75% feminist:

You Are 75% Feminist

You are certainly a feminist - whether you know it or not.You believe in gender equality, at least most of the time. You also believe there are a few exceptions.

Are You a Feminist

Eric, however, sees the issue from a whole different perspective...


Share on Facebook

It will never happen:

Updated
I'm opening a new category today: "It'll never happen".

This category will include quotes that will never, ever cross the lips of a straight married man speaking to his wife.

The first two:

"I know what we can do next: Let's take you shoe shopping!"

"Is that the only store we're going to?"

Feel free to add your own (and keep it clean).

Update
Baron Bodissey:

"You were much prettier when you were younger."

Obviously the Baron values his life.

Sigmund, Carl and Alfred:

"Sure, I'd LOVE to go to the Ice Capades!"

"I've said it before, I'll say it again- indigo is YOUR color!!"

"You know, we'd have a lot more fun if we brought your mother along"

"Sweety, would you please hold the TV remote?"

"Wow- those Manolo's really are worth the money!"

"You know, I have idea. Why not clean out the garage and turn it into a craft center. After we set that up, we could get a coordinated garage storage system, maybe in the that pale aubergine color you like so much."

"Can we talk? You really don't listen to me anymore and that's starting to hurt my feelings."

"You know, Oprah said...."

"I don't care what Mary says about Jenny Craig. She's still chunky."

Hmmm... Siggy shares my dislike of ice skating, crafts, and Oprah....

And don't miss the comments section!

Update
A gentleman who doesn't want to be named emailed,

Hon, why don't you watch some more HGTV?

Those words will never be uttered at casa de Fausta.

Francis Porretto:

"Yes, I know there's lipstick on my collar, dear. What do you think of the shade?"

"You know, you really don't have enough shoes. There's a sale at Nordstrom's just now. Busy?"

"If you need more closet space, we can always convert the garage. I don't really need all those power tools."

(In reply to the most annoying question my wife asks me -- and she asks it repeatedly) "For dinner? How about gazpacho, leeks vinaigrette with shrimp, marinated zucchini, a bottle of Cotes du Rhone Rouge '59, and for dessert maybe an orange mousse?"

Keep them coming!



Share on Facebook