Older Men, Reproduction, and Resentment

Sunday, April 5, 2009

It’s a beautiful day in New York so I’m not going to write a long (or, many will argue, well thought-out) post for this issue, but I will just say I am consistently amazed at the resentment among privileged, educated women at men generally, and, I’m guessing, at their husbands specifically.

Reading the New York Times Magazine and a piece within by Lisa Belkin, essentially calling for men to be riven by the same age and time pressure as women when in comes to reproduction. She cites several studies that promote the idea that older men have children with more problems – lower IQs, autism, etc. Assuming that the studies rigorously controlled for other factors (which is always a legitimate concern in studies of this kind) like environment and mothers’ age, correlation doesn’t imply causation.

It seems more likely to me that older dads are simply too tired to supply the extra stimulation to boost their childrens’ IQs by two or three points.

In any case, Belkin goes off on an embittered riff about men having “sell by” dates and hoping that women will now begin to judge them in the same way women are judged.

Good luck, sister.

And while you’re at it, quit complaining. The choices of the modern woman are what women have been fighting for for decades, right? Furthermore, she isn’t really at war with men or the culture, she’s at war with biology, but doesn’t seem to realize it.

Reproduction is the purpose of life. If you don’t want to have kids, don’t have them. But if you do, quit complaining. The world has had enough of these latter-day feminists whining about the burdens of motherhood. She writes of the stereotype of “women eager to settle down and men as reluctant” as though their were no truth in it; as though women are not the primary drivers of our reproductive dyad. It’s just silly.

Lisa, women – you want babies and are anatomically constructed to grow and nurture them. Get used to it already. In fact, revel in it. It’s the point of your existence – not, and this is true of men as well, whatever pathetic career you pursue until you die and everyone forgets you ever existed.

Even if it turns out to be true that sperm loses some potency as men age, it does not change the sexual dynamic. Men can reproduce well beyond the age when women can. Fecundity is sexually attractive. Ipso facto, men are attractive to the opposite sex for longer than women are. That’s why women go for the “silver-haired sex symbols,” and why old ladies can’t get a date.

What can you do? Life sucks.

One can only imagine what its like to live with a woman like this. Carefully charting up chores and duties to make sure they’re split 50/50 and resenting it the whole way; seething about breastfeeding and having the primary role as the caregiver because she is “mommy.”

Eeesh. I pity her poor husband.

Advertisements

Infuriating

Friday, January 23, 2009

Everything I read in the paper this morning is infuriating to me.

David Brooks writes of the pork laden stimulus bill coming out the House. I need to read more about it, but it seems like a disgraceful piece of Congressional crap. Obama must veto and veto again until they get it right.

Also on the op-ed page, Robert Zoellick wants more money for developing countries. Why? So it can be pissed away into the Swiss bank account of the son of some tyrant? So he can drive a Mercedes and wear a gold watch? How many years has the world been pouring money into Africa, for instance? Where is the real, lasting improvement?

Then, inside, I read about a youth detention center that guards essentially ran as a criminal racket. A boy died and now his mother is suing the city for $20 million. That’s my money. I don’t want this woman (and her ambulance chaser) to get rich because of these jackasses.

Further in, a woman named Susan Dominus writes a column about Caroline Kennedy’s failed bid for the Senate. Her point seems to be that CK deserved a shot (even though she was the wrong woman) because it would have demonstrated that women who have been out of the workplace to raise kids can still do the job. T.S., honey. How about giving me a shot at the Senate seat? Because I work, I don’t deserve it? This bit about women not getting opportunities in the workplace after the kids is so tired and vaginocentric that it’s offensive. Hey, I’d love a high paying job that I’m not trained for and haven’t given any thought to in 20 years (Sarah Palin, anyone?). Isn’t making money to support children beneficial to society? Didn’t I learn valuable managerial skills? (Btw, did you notice Paterson actually appointed a qualified person to the job?…and she has a vagina!) I bet there are a lot of working women who found CK’s chutzpah off-putting.

Wait a sec, I have an idea.

I write a blog. I want to be appointed to Susan Dominus’s job. I’ve never been a reporter, per se, but I’ve done a lot of similar work in the writing type field. I know I can do a great job. And hey, she’s a woman. Shouldn’t there be more men writing her column?

Sorry. There’s more, but I’ve run out of gas. Maybe I’m just in a bad mood, but these people are destroying my sense of hope.


The Historical Bible

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Wonderful Nova episode last night on PBS about trying to connect archaeological findings with the history of the Bible.

This is not an area where I feel well versed, but the show was eye-opening. Among biblical scholars, historians, and archaeologists, there seems to be a general consensus that the Israelites were originally Canaanites (that seems politically expedient, too) and that a small group emerged from Egypt and fused with these Canaanites in the central highlands (what is now the Westbank) to create the Jewish people.

The story of Exodus was likely brought by this small group. There is some evidence that indicates these migrants worshiped a god with the name Yahweh.

This took place between roughly 1300 and 1000 BCE.

Fascinating stuff. And, naturally, subject to some dispute. For my money, this kind of scholarship, divorced from the prerogatives of belief, is essential for human cultural evolution. The Bible is a complex and unmatched tapestry of myth and history. It is not, by any stretch, the word of God. The more we learn, the clearer that becomes.

The episode will be available on the PBS website later today. Here is a supporting interview from the site with Carol Meyers, an archeologist and professor of religion at Duke University.

Worth watching.


Walking in New York City

Friday, August 22, 2008

I have one supernatural ability. Known to only a few close friends and my family, but revealed to you now. Whenever I am walking on the streets of New York City, I am able to attract, like gravity, people who are walking in front of me.

As you might guess, this power is more than a little frustrating, but works, like gravity, without exception. The old, the obese, the infirm, the tourists, and everyone else all drift directly into my path as I try to pass them. What makes them do so? I have long wondered, but now accept this power as a simple metaphysical fact. The people in New York City are just going to be in my way.

They can walk straight, but cannot resist the strength of my gravitational pull. It’s as though they sense me coming up behind them and say to themselves, “oh, look, here he comes, I’m going to get in his way and make sure that he has to stop, slow down, or, at least, change direction.” I’ve come to realize that they are helpless to resist. And I have accepted my power and hope, one day, to channel it for good.

I certainly will never knock anyone over, however tempting that might be. No, there is a reason for this power and I must find it. So get in my way New York. Together we can get to the root of a supernatural mystery.

P.S. I meant to write about this last week when I read this brilliant op-ed piece by David Rakoff. I felt that he might understand my plight.


Political Correctness and The Campus Rape Myth

Monday, June 23, 2008

Heather MacDonald of City Journal wrote a compelling piece that shoots a hole in the accepted wisdom that one quarter (25%) of all college girls will be raped or be the targets of attempted rape by the end of their college years. She writes:

If the one-in-four statistic is correct—it is sometimes modified to “one-in-five to one-in-four”—campus rape represents a crime wave of unprecedented proportions. No crime, much less one as serious as rape, has a victimization rate remotely approaching 20 or 25 percent, even over many years. The 2006 violent crime rate in Detroit, one of the most violent cities in America, was 2,400 murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults per 100,000 inhabitants—a rate of 2.4 percent. The one-in-four statistic would mean that every year, millions of young women graduate who have suffered the most terrifying assault, short of murder, that a woman can experience. Such a crime wave would require nothing less than a state of emergency—Take Back the Night rallies and 24-hour hotlines would hardly be adequate to counter this tsunami of sexual violence. Admissions policies letting in tens of thousands of vicious criminals would require a complete revision, perhaps banning boys entirely. The nation’s nearly 10 million female undergrads would need to take the most stringent safety precautions. Certainly, they would have to alter their sexual behavior radically to avoid falling prey to the rape epidemic.

The reality, she explains, is that this statistic is a myth promulgated by a campus rape industry that offers these bogus statistics and a serious dose of feminist victimology to cowed administrators in order to continue to garner funding for their projects. The studies suffer from seriously flawed methodology, and an inherent political bias against men.

I have heard this statistic going back to when I was in college and I remember thinking then that it was impossible. It would mean, likely, that one in every four men (assuming it wasn’t just a few bad apples) that I knew was a rapist. Maybe me. Maybe my best friend. Maybe the guy down the hall, or his best friend. Then, as now, I attributed the statistic, as MacDonald does, to the workings of political correctness gone insanely awry.

Political correctness increasingly dominates college campuses and curriculums in such a way that it stifles open and truthful discourse. Each substratum of cultural definition fragments the campus into ever-smaller factions that cannot be offended. Furthermore, the ambiguity of a lot of these new fields of study (porn studies, anyone?) allows for weak standards of scholarship to gain acceptance. It is a frightening state of affairs, and it seems to be getting worse.

Funnily enough, MacDonald’s article also covers the sex-positive movement on campuses and contrasts the two sharply to expose the hypocrisy and hollowness of the modern university education.

With such nonsense filling the heads of our brightest youth, is it any wonder that America is on the decline?


Prehistoric Tribe in the Amazon

Friday, May 30, 2008

This fascinating photo is published as part of a series by a group called Survival International to support the claim that there are uncontacted tribes living in the Amazon rainforest. If accurate, you’re looking at mankind 10,000 years ago. Apparently, they have had no direct contact with the modern world. Truly astounding. They’re shooting their bow and arrows at the airplane!