There's A Dude In There I Just Know It

Iran's president says he has a wife. I say Prove it!

H/T Instapundit who is not married to a man

Thong-Induced Injuries Deserves Class Action Status

Some things are inevitable, you just wonder why it took so long:

As she was attempting to put on a Victoria's Secret thong, a Los Angeles woman claims that a decorative metallic piece flew off the garment and struck her in the eye, causing injuries and a new product liability lawsuit against the underwear giant. Macrida Patterson, 52, alleges that she was hurt last May by a defective "low-rise v-string" from the Victoria's Secret "Sexy Little Thing" line, according to a lawsuit filed last week in Los Angeles Superior Court. A copy of her June 9 complaint, which does not specify monetary damages, can be found below. Patterson's lawyer, Jason Buccat, told TSG that a "design problem" caused the decorative piece to come loose and strike Patterson in the eye, causing damage to her cornea. He added that the eye injury, which caused Patterson to miss a few days of work, will be "affecting her the rest of her life."

Most women I know have been injured by thongs. Besides the physical damage, there's the humiliation of knowing that she's willfully put a clothing garment in her butt crack ostensibly to avoid a lesser disaster: the dreaded panty lines. Men wouldn't wear a bra. Men wouldn't wear high heels. Men wouldn't wear panty hose. And men certainly wouldn't wear thongs. It's a conspiracy to create a perpetual state of discomfort and misery in the fairer sex.

This lawsuit deserves a lot more attention. Women of the world unite! Bring Victoria's Secret down for being the purveyors of a clothing product that has complete disregard for human health and dignity.


Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Pro-Life Pharmacies

It might be legal, but is it right? In answering the question for themselves, some pharmacists have refused to fill prescriptions of birth control pills or morning after pills. I am really torn about this whole thing, actually. While I'm all for people not violating their consciences, I just think there are better ways to deal with this than refusing service. For a pharmacist who doesn't want to fill a morning after pill prescription, why can't he just have his co-worker do it? Why the need to lecture the woman?

This whole issue brings to mind the Muslim taxi drivers refusing to pick up someone who has been drinking, is drinking, or carrying alcohol or others not taking seeing eye dogs. It's legal. If they don't like to pick up all people, even those they disagree with, pick another freaking profession. My sentiments go the same direction about persnickity pharmacists.

However, it seems to me that an Ob/Gyn is well within his or her rights to refuse to perform an abortion. In fact, few people get the specialized training for them, so forcing a doctor to do this procedure could, in fact, be harmful to the woman wanting one.

The free market has a solution--pro-life pharmacies:

When DMC Pharmacy opens this summer on Route 50 in Chantilly, the shelves will be stocked with allergy remedies, pain relievers, antiseptic ointments and almost everything else sold in any drugstore. But anyone who wants condoms, birth control pills or the Plan B emergency contraceptive will be turned away.

That's because the drugstore, located in a typical shopping plaza featuring a Ruby Tuesday, a Papa John's and a Kmart, will be a "pro-life pharmacy" -- meaning, among other things, that it will eschew all contraceptives.

So, pharmacists who work here can work with a free conscience. Hmmmm..... I seem to remember Catholic hospitals being forced to dispense certain drugs and perform certain procedures, including abortions. In fact, a Catholic hospital in Colorado was sued by a "transgender" woman for not allowing the surgery and the hospital eventually relented. That just happened in March. This seems to violate the separation of church and state, but then, the hospital isn't a church, per se. It's a charity.

A pharmacy is a private business so they can do whatever they want, right? Substitute people seeking birth control drugs, for say, HIV drugs. Say the pharmacy decides to not sell cholesterol lowering drugs because fat people aren't "honoring the temple". Really, many medications are needed because of some stupid lifestyle choice. Stopping at the sexual vices seems rather limiting.

What do you think?

Pharmacies should be able to withhold medication they find objectionable:
	Agree
	Disagree
pollcode.com free polls

Hymen Re-Creation: An Act of Liberation or Oppression?

So, you're a Western girl, which is to say, that you're one of the 90% of girls who isn't a virgin when they get married. Only problem is that you're going to the altar with Mohammed, who lost his virginity a few years back too, but against all logic, wants to have one of the 10% of Western Muslim girls who is still a virgin (that number is probably higher, this is for the sake of argument). He wants proof. He wants blood. And the courts in France, when he doesn't get what he wants on the wedding night, he gets an annulment and the court gives it to him:

The furor followed the revelation two weeks ago that a court in the northern city of Lille had annulled the 2006 marriage of two French Muslims after the groom discovered his bride was not the virgin she had claimed to be.

The domestic saga has gripped the nation. The bridegroom, an unidentified engineer in his 30s, left the nuptial bed and announced to the still-partying wedding guests that his bride had lied about her past. She was delivered that night to her parents' doorstep.

The next day, he asked a lawyer to annul the marriage. The bride, then a nursing student in her 20s, confessed the truth to the court and agreed to an annulment.

In its ruling, there was no mention of religion. Rather, it cited breach of contract, concluding that he had married her after "she was presented to him as single and chaste."

No mention of religion, but it's all about religion: specifically the misogyny and lower-class status of women in the Muslim religion. Her only value is sexual and as a uterus willing to produce fruit from an unsullied garden. And of course, should the woman be involved with a more strident believer, her very life is at stake:

Surgeons who perform the procedure said they were empowering their patients by giving them a viable future and preventing them from being abused - or even killed - by their fathers or brothers.

"Who am I to judge?" asked Marc Abecassis, the plastic surgeon who restored the Montpellier student's hymen. "I have colleagues in the United States whose patients do this as a Valentine's present to their husbands. What I do is different. This is not for amusement. My patients don't have a choice if they want to find serenity - and husbands."

A specialist in what he calls "intimate" surgery, including penile enhancement, Abecassis says he performs two to four hymen restorations a week.

So, Muslim women cannot stand for themselves and secular, French law won't stand for them either.

It is politically incorrect to say that the practitioners of Islam are close-minded, double-standard wielding throw-backs. This, to me, is not about extolling the benefits of virginity, which, I fully support. This is about parity and freedom and equality for all people no matter their gender.

This case highlights the fact that the European Muslims don't assimilate. They don't participate fully in the culture (and in France, there are many reasons for this). They are like welfare sucking, violent Amish except they inhabit the cities. The backwardness is extreme even by Amish standards and yet Western elites in this century can, with a straight face, speak of liberating women by recreating hymens.

The whole of Western culture is being oppressed to satisfy a Muslim man's insecurity. I call bullshit.

H/T Rorschach

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Women and Farting

Over at FoxNews there's a very funny article titled "15 Reasons Why She's Not In The Mood". Here's #2:

She's feels gassy.

That's right. Women toot too. And whether she sounds like a trumpet or is being held hostage by a battle of bad gas, she's feeling like a walking fart pillow. Even when she wants your touch, if her cherry bomb self feels more like a bloated whale than babe, nobody is seeing any action. This is definitely one of those proceed-at-your-own-risk situations.

Women and gas. It's an unmentionable. And yet, and I know this is shocking, women fart. Most women, though, would prefer that you didn't know this.

I'll use me as an example as embarrassing as this will be. When I was pregnant with the twins, after a night hanging out with our best friends, I bent over to tie my shoes and accidentally tooted. It was audible. The room was silent. Everyone heard it and reflexively turned my direction. It was like time slowed down. My friend Jay crashed in with conversation like nothing had happened, but it had happened and there was no turning back and if it hadn't been me, I would have been laughing and they probably did as soon as I left the house. Now, I know for a fact that had one of the guys farted either silently or audibly, everyone would have been howling in protest and laughter both and he wouldn't be embarrassed at all.

Would being gassy stop a man from sex? Um, I don't think so. Would the fear of being squished, lest a fart escape interfere with a man's sex drive? I can't imagine it. It does with women. And face it men, you don't really like your woman farting, either. It isn't ladylike.

The biological differences start early: my baby daughter burst into tears at two weeks old when she heard her father burp for the first time. My baby son, at about 8 months, bugged out his eyes in surprise and then laughed uproariously the first time he connected his farting with his body. At three, he already tries to burp as many times in a row as possible--cheered on by his older siblings, of course.

I guess we aren't really equal, after all. We will know women have equal status when they can fart with impunity. Or maybe, women will be equal when men are just as embarrassed about farting as women are. Gender unfairness marches on.*

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

*Yes, I'm joking.

Feminism's Fallout: Part II

Yesterday, I wrote about feminism's unintended consequences--namely that women end up feeling compelled to make one choice or else they betray the movement's ideals. That choice, to forgo having children in order to make their career mark, denudes women of their biology and deprives them of a choice.

Before I get to feminism's deleterious affects on men, I'd like to write a bit about the victim-mentality that has seeped into the DNA of even the most powerful of Western women. I am, of course, alluding to Hillary Clinton. Peggy Noonan wrote a must-read piece about great women leaders and how they never made excuses or blamed prejudice for their place in the world. Noonan says:

It is sissy. It is blame-gaming, whining, a way of not taking responsibility, of not seeing your flaws and addressing them. You want to say "Girl, butch up, you are playing in the leagues, they get bruised in the leagues, they break each other's bones, they like to hit you low and hear the crack, it's like that for the boys and for the girls."

And because the charge of sexism is all of the above, it is, ultimately, undermining of the position of women. Or rather it would be if its source were not someone broadly understood by friend and foe alike to be willing to say anything to gain advantage.

First, I'd like to say how pleased I am that Peggy Noonan reads my posts seeing as how "butch up" was the phrase that got me in trouble with the menfolk (well, some of them). It's nice to know that I'm on her radar. Second, to Ms. Noonan's point: Hillary Clinton embodies the problem with the women's movement. She was a party to her husband's victimizing of women and turns around now, to decry her own victimization. By whom? She does need to butch up. She has the benefit of being treated just like a man. She is not being condescended to. She is not being patronized. No, she is in a fight for the most powerful office in the land and she does women no favors when she weeps in self-pity and cries sexism when she's in a tight spot.

Eh, I'm not going to get to men again, today. I'm going to just stay with the victim mentality. It is tiresome and ubiquitous and it is holding women back. A woman will not ever become president if she plays the poor little girl. A woman will not receive respect at work or at home playing the victim. Even Jesus chided the martyr Martha and that was in a decidedly paternalistic environment.

Women who carry their victim status as a prized possession limit their world. Let me just be clear here: it's stomach turning to see anyone throw a protracted pity party. Who ever said life was easy? Women who want parity in what they describe as the "man's world" need to stop making excuses. They need to embrace equality. That means when a woman makes an accusation that sounds outrageous, the women who hear it will slow down, wait and reserve judgment because that's what a reasoned person, male or female, does. When they jump to the woman's defense because she has the benefit of ovaries, they make women look foolish.

I'm as eager as the next woman to see a great woman leader emerge in America. I don't see how it's going to happen when women continue to see themselves as victims. When Nancy Pelosi surrounds herself with her grandchildren and claims the power of her ovaries first and the power of her ideas second, women are bound to be viewed as ninnies.

Does this seem counter to what I wrote in my last post, where I wrote that fully buying feminist dogma limits a woman's choices--specifically motherhood? Well, here's the deal: a strong woman is a strong woman. The whole notion that a woman is weak by being a mother insults mothers. Conversely, a woman is not innately superior because she can birth. That belief is as sexist as believing that men are superior because they have testes.

Leadership means having bigger ideas, more internal fortitude, further foresight, deeper wisdom. Any person who exhibits these traits will have followers. Viewing oneself as a victim runs directly counter to being a worthy leader.

Feminism ceases to be relevant because to be a feminist is to be a victim. Any self-respecting woman wants no part of the victim talk. They want to be victors in all their endeavors. Success means being the best at whatever path one chooses. Real women wait for the post-feminist world where people are valued for their character and their accomplishments. Scratch that. They aren't waiting, they're created that world now. Feminists are being left behind.

Feminism's Fallout

I've written before that feminists act as though their beliefs have no real-world consequences. Abortion harms no one. Neither mother nor potential child feels the results of the decision, when it's patently obvious there are negative consequences. Having potential life snuffed out is a consequence. And mothers, who choose to have a child later, realize with disturbing clarity what the loss really meant.

Abortion is just one thing. The diminishing of men to promote women has been another. It seems that bring women to "equal" has been achieved to the detriment of men. But that's not what I want to talk about today.

Children of feminists are growing up and reporting what feminism looked like in practice. Some of the pictures aren't pretty as Dr. Helen notes this article about the daughter of Alice Walker writer of the book The Color Purple:

You see, my mum taught me that children enslave women. I grew up believing that children are millstones around your neck, and the idea that motherhood can make you blissfully happy is a complete fairytale.

In fact, having a child has been the most rewarding experience of my life. Far from 'enslaving' me, three-and-a-half-year-old Tenzin has opened my world. My only regret is that I discovered the joys of motherhood so late - I have been trying for a second child for two years, but so far with no luck.

I was raised to believe that women need men like a fish needs a bicycle. But I strongly feel children need two parents and the thought of raising Tenzin without my partner, Glen, 52, would be terrifying.

***********

Although I believe that an abortion was the right decision for me then, the aftermath haunted me for decades. It ate away at my self-confidence and, until I had Tenzin, I was terrified that I'd never be able to have a baby because of what I had done to the child I had destroyed. For feminists to say that abortion carries no consequences is simply wrong.

**************

Then I meet women in their 40s who are devastated because they spent two decades working on a PhD or becoming a partner in a law firm, and they missed out on having a family. Thanks to the feminist movement, they discounted their biological clocks. They've missed the opportunity and they're bereft.

Feminism has betrayed an entire generation of women into childlessness. It is devastating.

But far from taking responsibility for any of this, the leaders of the women's movement close ranks against anyone who dares to question them - as I have learned to my cost. I don't want to hurt my mother, but I cannot stay silent. I believe feminism is an experiment, and all experiments need to be assessed on their results. Then, when you see huge mistakes have been paid, you need to make alterations.

I suspect that more stories like this will be written. Women have many choices now, being a parent is just one of many. Women can find out, after having a child, that the child is not just a choice but a revelation.

What once was self-evident: that motherhood is a gift uniquely given to women, that it is a blessing to be a part of creating life, that giving birth transforms a person (or can), that no other earthly achievement parallels the potential world-changing benefit of a child, seems lost on women.

A deep ambivalence has taken hold Western women and men. To question our own existence and purpose so fundamentally leads to places like where Margaret Cho finds herself. For all her proclamations about "not being a breeder", I sense sadness and grief over the loss of her relationship and the potential child that could come of it. For all her worldly success, time runs short for her to know what it means to mother. And while that might be the best choice for her, she'll never know for sure, will she? (More about Margaret by Cassy Fiano.)

That's the thing about taking a risk like motherhood. Even getting pregnant and having an abortion, a woman can't retreat and go back. A woman is a creative vessel. That makes her uniquely vulnerable. The feminists focus on that part of womanhood to the exclusion of the other: that motherhood makes a woman powerful beyond her own comprehension. That power is terrifying which is why so many women run from it.

We've all heard the saying that "the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world". Ironically, feminists forgo rulership to be bit players on the world stage. Their artistic contributions will fade in memory. In Alice Walker's case, though, her gifts will carry on because she became "enslaved" by motherhood. Her child is an artist. And the blood that runs through her daughter's veins now runs through her grandchild's. She would forgo this piece of immortality for her own passing glory? Well, she gets her reward and it will only last as long as she walks the earth. Lucky for her, she made the mistake of having a baby. With another generation, there is hope.

One more thing. The feminists have enslaved themselves with a false dichotomy: that you can either contribute externally and make your mark on the world or you can "waste" your potential and turn inward to raise children. It is impossible to do both. Yet there is much evidence to the contrary. It might not be possible to do it all at once, but it is possible to do both. Unfortunately, many women are waking up to this reality too late and biology reigns. Feminism has robbed many women of their choices. How ironic is that?

Women Say No To Science and Yes To Gay Porn

Hey, I could be a headline writer for The New York Times. I'm just that good. Well, what do you know? Women are free. Finally, after years of oppression, women are making their choices, even really smart, scientifically gifted women, and choosing what researchers think they shouldn't like: "soft sciences". Oh, and some women are turned on by gay porn and they're (shhhhh) heterosexual and female. Can a woman be any more free?

I don't think so.

Women are free and yet they prefer, for reasons researchers cannot fathom (oxytocin, brain differences, biology?) professions that were once and still are, the domain of....women. Shit. That just sucks. Women should be donning goggles and peering through microscopes with all the fervor of the typical knobby headed man-geek. And some are doing just that--just not enough to make everyone happy. Huh. Imagine, a woman claiming her right to choose and she's not choosing feminist enough, but feminism is all about choice. Oh, the irony:

The results were striking. The lower numbers of women in IT careers weren't explained by work-family pressures, since the study found computer careers made no greater time demands than those in the control group. Ability wasn't the reason, since the women in both groups had substantial math backgrounds. There was, however, a significant difference in one area: what the men and women valued in their work.

Rosenbloom and his colleagues used a standard personality-inventory test to measure people's preferences for different kinds of work. In general, Rosenbloom's study found, men and women who enjoyed the explicit manipulation of tools or machines were more likely to choose IT careers - and it was mostly men who scored high in this area. Meanwhile, people who enjoyed working with others were less likely to choose IT careers. Women, on average, were more likely to score high in this arena.

Personal preference, Rosenbloom and his group concluded, was the single largest determinative factor in whether women went into IT. They calculated that preference accounted for about two-thirds of the gender imbalance in the field. The study was published in November in the Journal of Economic Psychology.

It may seem like a cliche - or rank sexism - to say women like to work with people, and men prefer to work with things. Rosenbloom acknowledges that, but says that whether due to socialization or "more basic differences," the genders on average demonstrate different vocational interests.

"It sounds like stereotypes," he said in an interview, "but these stereotypes have a germ of truth."

I'll just speak for myself here. I'm a sucker for aptitude/personality/psychological testing and have taken many, many of them. One of the best is called Johnson-O'Conner an aptitude assessment. That means, not only do they study personality, they study a persons talents--such as fine motor, gross motor, music memory, spacial reasoning, verbal reasoning, etc. Well, the kind mentor who funded this testing for me was deeply dismayed at my results. He was an engineer and prided himself in his mathematical ability. Lo and behold, I scored higher than him in both higher mathematical ability and spacial reasoning. My aptitudes skewed toward engineering.....until my personality was factored in. That threw a monkey wrench in the works. I was so people-oriented, so verbal (I know, who would have thought it?), so excessively so, that no engineering job wouldn't work for me because the isolation and task-orientation, verses people-nature of the work, would make me crazy. In short, I'd get bored.

Alas, I ended up in alternative medicine, not unlike the women in the study. While I'm pretty good at reading an x-ray thanks to my spacial ability, my satisfaction comes from helping people. I know, I'm a disappointment to women.

Now, let's talk about the poor fellas for a minute. Dr. Helen notes that while women have more choices, the nerdy dudes might have less:

So men who are skilled at math may have less flexibility to branch out and go into other areas that involve dealing with others. If women must be equal in terms of pursuing hard sciences, wouldn't it also be fair that men should have to be equal to women in terms of verbal skills so that they too, could have more job flexibility?

But that's just it. I don't think everyone needs to be stroking out about women in hard sciences. Women choose. Men choose. And while there probably aren't as many, there are some amazingly verbal men who are scientists, I have a reader (you know who you are Kevin), who is a technological genius while possessing the verbal skills of a politician. To say that he enjoys a rewarding career and that the world is his oyster is an understatement. Should there be all sorts of research as to why most poor men are not as verbal and don't enter other professions like teaching, say (and there are amazing exceptions here, too)? Oh, pish-posh. People choose. There are biological reasons for this. We can beat the discrimination drum into eternity but estrogen and testosterone do change brains and therefore, change career choices. That's just life.

Is it possible to acknowledge that men and women are different and it's okay? And that individually, people can choose to be whatever they choose to be. And there will always be exceptions.

Oh, and Rand Sindberg says this in his snarkily titled post, "Math is Hard" (very funny, Rand):

Even if there is tremendous variation among individuals within genders (which there clearly is) it doesn't follow that there won't be average differences in traits between genders. For instance, when it comes to math, what Larry Summers noted (and lost his job over after some of the mature, rational, scientific women present got the vapors and had to hie to their fainting couches) was that in fact men have a much greater standard deviation than women. They have both more geniuses, and more morons, when it comes to higher mathematics, whereas women have more of a tendency to stay near the mean. And there are brilliant (individual) woman mathematicians and hard scientists. But that doesn't mean that we can therefore conclude that there are no statistical differences in these traits between men and women. And the fact that there are allows us to draw no conclusions about any particular man or woman (if I call Ms. Barnett illogical, it is because she conveys illogic, and has nothing to do with her genital configuration.) It remains perfectly reasonable, on a statistical basis, to make some broad statements about the genders ("men are like this and women are like that") without having to infer that every man is like this and every woman is like that.

Indeed. The man is correct. Using myself as an example yet again. Among women, I am in the higher 90th percentile for engineering. Super. But when men are added to the mix, my abilities suddenly get more average--somewhere in the 60%. So, that means that I'm better than the average guy engineering-talent wise, but not much. So there are gender factors here, too. Now, maybe I work my ass off and outperform my co-workers due to sheer sweat. That happens, too, but an equally hard-working, more gifted person, male or female, will have an easier time of it--at least as an engineer.

Oh, this is such painful stuff, unless, like Rand says, you look at each person as an individual. And that's the key. There will be gender trends, but in real life, it matters not. Forget skin color and gonads, what are you good at and more important, what do you want to do? Thankfully, we all have choices. Yes, women have choices now and they're choosing. The feminists just need to suck it up and accept that this is what success looks like.

Remember Crystal Magnum?

Duke. Rape. Stripper. False. Accusation.

Remember? Yeah, well this lovely piece of humanity received her college degree in, wait for it, Police Psychology. She should be in jail for wrecking lives and wreaking havoc on our justice system.

For the record, things are still whack in Durhum and KC Johnson is still on the job which is why he's still on my blog roll. Congressional sub-committees discuss the erosion of public confidence in the Federal Justice System. Hmmm.....now why would anyone lose faith?

We Find What We Are Looking For

Dr. Helen highlights some sexist dating advice. I think the commenters have it right. Most self-help books are aimed at women and as such, have a female bias, because most men don't read self-help books (usually).

Aside from sexist books, as a general principle, like attracts like. Bitter attracts bitter. Angry attracts angry. Happy attracts happy. Ambitious attracts ambitious. On and on it goes. So, for better or for worse, the person a person is in a relationship with is a reflection of that person on some level. Usually, the people share some fundamental beliefs about the world. But people do change, and I suspect, that this is where difficulties in relationships can arise.

As far as dating the divorced, Roger L. Simon had the best advice in the comments:

“Frankly, it’s self-evident to me that women are the more selfish of the sexes.”

Frankly, it’s self-evident to me [who else?] that human beings are human beings.

Leaving that behind, as a twice divorced man with children who dated a fair number of terrific and some not so terrific women, both divorced and single, I know I did one thing right: I didn’t waste a single second reading a self-help book of any kind. I just used common sense and didn’t make assumptions about anybody.

The problem as I see it is that common sense ain't so common and people assume because it's easier than looking in the mirror.

H/T Conservative Grapevine

Domestic Goddess, I Am

NOT.

Every once in a while the cooking bug bites and I get industrious. I make a mean lasagna, or rather, I can make one should I ever get the urge to make one. Last night, for reasons I can't fathom, the mood hit. The kids were getting the standard mac-n-cheese with all the trimmings, so I was in the kitchen anyway, why the hell not?

I'll tell you why the hell not. Lasagna, while easy, is not simple to make. It's the time factor that's annoying and about half way into it I remembered--oh yeah, it's the one hour of prep....argh! The load was lightened by a chat with a fellow blogger who was slowly getting himself drunk and philosophizing on why women had it easier because of our biological imperative. Essentially, if I understand correctly, we women are forced down the birth canal of life and that determines our mission whether we ever accomplish anything else or not. So, it's easy being a woman. We can be fuck ups in every other way, but if we're a good mother, all is forgiven. Our lives have had meaning. Interesting.

I'm not sure I buy his premise, because having fulfilled my biological imperative a couple times over, I still feel like I'm searching for ways to make my mark on the world and progeny doesn't fill the bill. Any crack whore can birth a child. Most kids grow up to be far more successful than their parents involvement would have predicted. And some kids who have everything turn out to be weasels. So, yeah, a mother is important, but to me, there is more to life for a woman than just mothering. And the mothering sword cuts both ways. If the kids turn out great, people figure they should. If the kids turn out bad, it will be the mother's fault.

And certain expectations come with mothering: like cooking. And by that count, I'm an abysmal failure. Except when I decide to cook, like last night. The aroma of sautéed garlic and onions wafting through the house. Mmmmmm..... I should sauté every night for the smell. Want to know how I made it? I can't really do a recipe because when I cook, I mangle recipes beyond recognition so they're my own, but I can give you a general idea of what I do....

1. Sauté garlic, four or five cloves, and half a chopped onion in a tablespoon of butter. Ground pepper to taste.

2. Add in as much ground beef as you like. Some like more saucy lasagna. Some like more meaty. Men tend to like meat. Load it up, ladies! Add salt and more ground pepper.

3. Add a bottle of spaghetti sauce. Now, I like a couple different sauces--Kroger's store brand actually has the most authentic, Italian red sauce. I know. It's weird, but it's really good. (They don't use too much sugar, which other brands tend to do.) I also like the organic version of Prego's mushroom sauce. People can be so snobbish in this area. Whatever. Most people who have high-falutin' ideas about red sauce don't know real Italians. The Kroger brand actually tastes most like Steve's grandma's sauce and she was from Italy and a fantastic cook, but I digress.

4. Cook the lasagna noodles. (Not too long.) Favorite noodles right now: Target's organic brand. Wow. Good stuff, but not all Targets carry it, unfortunately.

5. Get the ricotta (none of the low-fat stuff, are you kidding me? You want low-fat, you don't eat lasagna, okay?) out of the fridge and stir in some oregano and basil. Doesn't have to be fresh. It's nice if it is, but lets not get too anal. It's easier to work with when the mix is at room temp.

6. Grate the mozzarella. Don't tell me you buy the stuff grated. I don't know what they do to make it last without growing stuff on it, but it's not good. The big block is cheaper and make the kids grate it. They love to do it anyway. Now, here's how I trick ya. I buy one small block of really good mozzarella. That's the stuff that goes on top. The regular, cheapo brand goes in the middle. You don't even know the difference.

7. Put it all together. Start with the meat sauce and put it on the bottom of the glass dish. Next, put on the noodles, then the ricotta mixture, then the mozzarella, then the meat sauce and again with the pasta. Do this again and end with the good mozzarella on top. Now, if you like cheesier lasagna, you can put grated Parmesan on top of the ricotta at each level and then on top with the mozzarella.

Put in the oven for about 30 minutes at 375. The whole thing shouldn't take long because everything is warm, still. Lasagna is one of those things that tastes even better on day two. So sometimes, I just put one together, refrigerate it, and cook it a day or two later.

I'll talk more about lucky domestic goddesses later. For now, I'm sharing my flash of brilliance. Watch it people, it's like a shooting star. There and gone.

Breast Is Best.....But Holy Mother of Madonna Wean The Kid Before Puberty

Well, then. One of my loyal readers sent me this link about, wait for it, an eight year old who still breast feeds. Go watch it and then come back for my nourishing commentary.

OH. HELL. NO.

Lest you think I'm a repressed Western, bottle Nazi, let me assure you: I believe breast is best. My own ta-ta's bear the side-effects of nursing all three of my children for 18 months, two years and two and half years respectively. They all essentially weaned with a bit of encouragement from me. But they all were weaned in a timely manner.

Here's a tip: When the kid can ask mom to lay off the broccoli because it's changing the "nose" and "finish" of the milk, it's time for table food and maybe some good stuff from the Rhone region.

Has the world gone completely mad? And did you see the freaking dad? He nurses too? Avert your eyes Christian people because can I hear a WTF? Thank you. That little bit of sharing was so damn disturbing. Dude was not talking about a little yum yum to go with some some. Oh no, he needed emotional and physical sustenance too, and who was his crazy ass wife to deny him? That was rhetorical because she didn't.

Somewhere between the women who wouldn't let a baby touch her nipple so she can keep her perfect tits perfect and the eight year old suckling there's a balance. I dunno. You'd think a sensible woman could find it.

And while we're on the topic, I want to talk about women whipping their boobs out to nurse their kids. Full frontal disclosure again: I've publicly nursed. That is, I have nursed in public, but I don't think anyone ever noticed or saw boobage. It's called discretion. Now some repressed people don't even like the idea of a woman with child in public. Tough nuts repressed people. When a baby is hungry, there is no easier method of feeding than breast feeding. And I know women who were all judgmental until they birthed their own kid and had a choice between a disgusting public restroom and discrete public nursing. Guess what they chose?

However, some of you women, you know who you are, get a charge out of freaking people out. You linger. You flop it all over. You let it hang out while you're searching for your child's melon and orifice. Matching them up seems to take an extraordinarily long time. Your neighbors avert their eyes. Polite company focus intently on their PDAs. Other family members try to not throw up. Come on! Have some respect. If you're going to nurse in public, at least figure out how to do it without being a soft porn flick.

My rant is over. So, of course, I want your opinion. What do you think?

Age a kid should be weaned by:
	3 months
	6 months
	one year
	18 months
	2 years
	3 years
	4 years
	as long as the kid and mom want
pollcode.com free polls

New York Interferes With Manly Behavior

Ultimate fighters in New York fight for their right to pulverize one another:

Mr. Serra, a native of Long Island — whose last fight, in Montreal (which he lost and still wears the bloodied eye to prove it), was the most attended Ultimate Fighting event in the company’s history — said that he wants mixed martial arts in New York for one simple reason:

I fought in Canada two weeks ago versus a Canadian. So that big 22,000-people crowd was booing my name. How would you feel about that? It was awful. If I fought the same guy in Madison Square Garden things could’ve been different.

Joining Mr. Serra and another tough guy, Matt Hamill, of Utica, Mr. Epstein opined on the virtues of the new incarnation of Ultimate Fighting and its warriors.

He said things have changed since posters advertising the Ultimate Fighting matches read, “There Are No Rules.”

The early days of Ultimate Fighting featured more of a “freak show and a spectacle,” said Mr. Serra, a former welterweight champion.

But new ownership brought new rules, regulations, extensive drug-testing policies and safety measures that banned extremely dangerous moves and maneuvers, he said.

Mr. Epstein described the fighters as “smart guys, articulate guys, college graduates, helping in their community and making a living in the U.F.C., too.”

To me, it's just one more way that New York creates a hostile business environment. That state should be doing all it can to promote companies doing business there. Instead, they are riding their moral high horse into the barbed wire fence of no revenue.

A Code For Women: Women Need To "Femme Up"

Rachel Lucas wrote a post in response to my post about manly men. As always, she made eminently sensible points and I encourage you to go read the whole thing--every last little word. She brings forth the idea that women don't have a code like men do and that we all know a good man when we see one. She says:

So there’s really not a lot of mystery about what everyone agrees a “real” man is. We all know “real” men are:

Mentally, emotionally, and intellectually strong, even if not physically (crippled and elderly men can still be “real” men). Hardworking, honorable, honest, dutiful, protective of family and country. Brave, courageous, rational, reasonable, kindhearted, and respectful. Knowledgeable about how to survive in rough times and how to solve problems. And so on.

And then she says this, which is also spot on:

What I started wanting to know when I was about 16 was just how in the hell any of those things were (or should be) exclusive to men. I realized even then that in fact, they are not. All adults should have every one of those personality and character traits as a matter of course.

So then I started wondering why anyone bothered with the phrase “real man” at all. Don’t they just mean “real adult”? As a young girl, shouldn’t I strive to be exactly the kind of person I kept hearing a “real man” would be? I thought so, and I still do. Maybe that’s why you never hear me whining about how my butt looks in these jeans or crying that no one pays enough attention to me. Who gives a crap? I don’t need any reassurances about silly shit because apparently, I am a “real man”, secure in my own “manliness”. Even though I’m a woman.

Now, what the fuck? Why can’t I just say I’m a “real woman”? Because no one ever talks about that. Except in the context of how “real women” have curves and “real women” don’t look like Heidi Klum. Of course, of course it always comes back to looks and sex when you’re talking about women.

She reminds me of a few things. Most readers know that I was essentially a tomboy growing up. I loved sports and played with the boys all the way through chiropractic college. Most of my closest friends are men and always have been. My interests are considered more manly and blah, blah, blah....I've posted on this before. And here's why I enjoy the company of men:

(By the way, I think this is the core behind the phenomenon of some women (like me) who much prefer the company of men over that of other women. We say it’s because men are funnier, more reasonable, less complicated, whatever. But when you get right down to it, the real point is that women like me identify with men more because we strive to be the kind of person who, if we were male, would be called a “REAL man”. We appreciate their code because as women, we have no code of our own, at least not one that has any meaning or worth.)

So why don't women have a code, too? Women sure as hell need one. And I think there is a complicated list of expectations for a good woman but it is qualitatively different then men. At the minimum, you have the character requirements that men have and what Rachel described above. I think of Army wives (and husbands) when I think about that. They are living sacrificial, loyal, lives, too. In a sense, they take on the code when their spouses take on the code. They are choosing a way of life that is duty and honor-bound.

And many people aren't going to like this, but dang if Proverbs 31 didn't rattle around in my brain a bit when thinking about a virtuous woman. Basically, she cares for her family and works hard and is well-known and makes money, too. She also seems to have a flair for real estate. But the overall point seems to be that she is good by serving her spouse, serving her children, working and being dedicated to her job, and she cares for the less fortunate.

Maybe part of the problem with coming up with a Woman's Code is that part of what is essentially female, motherhood, is diminished today. I understand women choosing to forgo motherhood. But there is, in a good woman's character, the ability to mother, to care for others. Now, sometimes this nurturing ability is overstated or misused or a woman just ain't the motherly type. But a loving mother is a beautiful thing to behold, I feel. To see a woman changed and mature into this giving role is as inspiring to me as seeing a person in uniform. The underlying character is the same--giving and selflessly serving another. The thing is, just like manly men have been devalued, so have mothers.

Oh hell, since I'm wading into shark-infested waters again, I might as well go all the way. There are many selfish, bitchy women who just don't want the burden of caring for their husbands or their children or, really, anyone, besides themselves. Mind you, the unmanly man and the unwomanly woman share one trait: selfishness. For women, there is an expectation of caring and kindness in their communication and action. I don't know that men have that expectation. There is an expectation that she'll be sexy enough to marry but not slutty. Like the Usher song says, "We like a lady on the street and a freak in the bed." I don't think men have that expectation, either. There is an expectation (sometimes) that she'd be willing to sacrifice career advancement to birth and mother. So, women have the character expectations of a good man, but because they have a different physical role, they possess a uterus, there are also mothering and womanly expectations. I don't think that's so wrong, really. If a woman chooses to become a mother, I don't think it's too much to ask for her to be a character-filled, serving one. (And this list of what makes a good mother could fill many books, and over the years, has. Holy crap! Good luck measuring up these days. The bar is high.)

A guy commenting on a post some time ago said he wanted a woman like this: companionable, available, and agreeable. So in the relationship role, a man wants a friend, a lover and someone who isn't too difficult. That sounds reasonable enough. Is that much of a code? It certainly isn't a set of rules or anything. But isn't it just like a good man? You know a good woman when you see one.

Rachel is right about being a good, solid, grown up adult. A good man or woman possesses the same character traits even if the roles change and morph due to need or circumstance or desire. I suggest reading all the comments. A couple men made a list of what a good woman looks like and they are all worthwhile thoughts.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

American Up!

Who wants to hear someone bitch about his (or her) life? No one except a highly compensated professional who is getting something out of the exchange. Otherwise, after a certain point, no one gives a flip about your sad sack life. Everyone has his story. Everyone has one.

That is not to say that past grievances don't affect the present. They do. Our traumas and experiences shape who we are today, but they don't have to define who we are or who we become in a bad way. That is to say, just because someone wronged us, we are not excused for holding on to our victim status and victimizing others. We choose now how life goes.

Oh, wah! Yesterday, I ruffled some men feathers when I suggested that men need to toughen up, "butch" up, man up. However you want to say it. I like real men. I am all for men being men. And I am all for women letting men be men and not diminishing them for their manliness. How in Sam Hill did my post get turned into some paeon to turning back the clock to another generation when men were men and "women knew their place"? The post wasn't about money. It wasn't about women going back to the kitchen. It wasn't about men being aggressive, abusive assholes and that's what makes a man. It wasn't about women being subservient haus fraus cranking out fifteen kids to prove their feminine worth. What the post was about is simply that I wondered if an unintended consequence of women in the work world was that men felt that their worth was diminished. I was posing a question, not saying that I believed that. And I do feel that men need to take pride in their career (and if, DJ, the career is staying home and caring for the kids and running the house, so be it). Have some self-respect, is all.

And let me make this plain: I recognize that women, and the feminist movement in particular, has made men wrong. From elementary school through to adult life, men are treated like stupid children. The aggressive, kick-butt nature of a man is diminished and mocked in our society. I don't watch sitcoms for that reason. They are frigging insulting to both men and women. But the men are made to look like utter fools. It's disrespectful.

Now, today, I was going to do a post going after the women who diminish men and feel entirely justified in doing so, but I think this issue transcends gender. These days, men and women, black and white, straight and gay, rich and poor seem to want to take on the mantle of victim status. So taking on the role of victim, the male commenters believe they would have great lives, if they weren't ruined by the evil woman. Here's the thing: It might well be true, but what purpose is served by becoming a cynical jackass who feels entitled to treat the next woman like all women are horrible. The complaining men don't realize they're proving my point about men needing to man up.

The Jeremiah Wright debacle has scraped the same victimhood scab off race relations. It is not enough now to have equal rights. Blacks are better. And yet, like the feminists, the preachers of hate, encourage the continued victim status while simultaneously aggrandizing themselves because being black or possessing ovaries is innately better.

And this is the point that GayPatriot was making and I agree:

Let me get this straight (excuse the insulting word, by the way). Gay activists are up in arms because NC Governor Mike Easley used the word “pansy.”

Well, God help us all. If Gay Americans don’t learn to get a tougher skin…their heads are going to be lopped off even easier than straight Americans when the Islamists are in power in Western Europe.

For all of the wailing from the Left over their claimed “non-issues” like flag-burning, wearing the flag on your chest, and supporting the troops — Pansygate makes the Gay Left look even more ridiculous and irrelevant than ever.

If Gay American activists were constantly up in arms about the worldwide threat to our community by an organized group of murderous Islamists, I might have more sympathy to those “completely offended” by Gov. Easley’s “pansy”.

I am not. Grow up, and get over the victimization mentality, folks.

It is absolutely disturbing that every class of Americans now views themselves as a victim to someone. And that victimhood entitles the victim to special rights, remember. I mean, that's what this is all about.

The victim is perpetually above criticism, reproof, comment. The victim deserves to be coddled, cared for and supported. The victim is at the helpless whims of the big evil bogeyman, bogeywoman, bogey society, bogey government. But the most important thing of all: the victim cannot possibly be expected to change or take charge of his or her own life. And by claiming and maintaining victimhood, the person is safe. His or her life will never change. How can it? The only person who can make a person's life better is himself. When he (or she) gives the power away to other people, the other gender, the government, etc. he gets the satisfaction of being able to blame ad infinutum someone else. That's some hollow satisfaction.

The sick thing is, I'm afraid way to0 many American citizens are more interested in externalizing the responsibility and being able to blame and being a victim than are interested in seeing themselves as powerful and agents for change in their own lives. It's pathetic. And it's un-American.

Where is that independent, conquering spirit? Where is that noble virtue? Where is that common decency? THAT is the American way. This philosophy plays out personally. Damn skippy that the personal is the political. There are still many, many strong-minded, hard-working, independent Americans who embrace the freedom and the responsibility that comes with it to make their lives look the way they want them.

A nation of victims won't last long. And while wimpy Americans fuss and fight over their skin color, gonads and victim status, they ignore a true existential crisis. Maybe I shouldn't have said we need to "man up", maybe I should have kept it more general: We need to American up.

Oh, and don't worry, I'll talk about women soon.

Men Need To Butch Up--UPDATED & UPDATED AGAIN

Men. What the world needs more of is manly men. I've blogged about this before, but it's worth repeating. A girlfriend of mine told me that her three best girlfriends all have husbands that stay home while their wives work and the men sit around complaining about their wives. That just seems wrong somehow.

This post is going to be so politically incorrect that a good chunk of even my most traditional readers might not like it, but I'm kinda thinking out loud here for a minute. Do you guys think that by women entering the workforce, that women have had the same effect on the man's role as say welfare has?

I mean, a generation ago, a man wouldn't look down on his woman for not working outside the home. Taking care of the house; cooking, cleaning, caring for the children and basically being the center of the home was what a woman did. It was enough. No one would consider her to be slacking. In this generation, women suffer a vague, and sometimes, explicit, unease about doing that job. She is viewed as not pulling her weight because she's just a housewife.

And it's not just women judging women. Men, too, want their women to work to take the pressure off. A man is simply not interested in carrying all the financial weight and why should he have to? Women are equal now. Equal means doing the same thing--working and living like a man. Feminism means, and it's men that I've seen to be the biggest feminists, being a good man and bring home the bacon, frying it up in a pan and doing it again and again.

But it seems like an unintended consequence has been resentment. Women have excelled in the workplace. They can take care of themselves. They do leave their babies to work. Meanwhile, some men (not all, of course) have gone the other way. They no longer work as hard because they just don't have to. On the one hand, they don't have the financial pressure of their father's generation, but they also don't have the self-respect, work-ethic and noble purpose of their father's generation either.

It seems to me that a man needs to be needed and when that feedback loop is cut either by the government, or even by a working woman, he can (not always) lose his drive and desire to work and succeed.

Societally, it seems like men don't value or seem to be valued for manliness. A strong, hard-working, driven guy has been replaced with a soft, unmotivated, aimless man who can't make a declarative sentence or find the will to do what needs to be done. Basically, too many men have become pansies. Gay men need to butch up, too.

Somewhere between the hypermasculinity of Islamofascism and the gang culture on one hand and the effete softness of the bitchy out-of-work, tears in his beer dude on the other, there's a balance. To me, the honor, strength and drive shown by men who've been through military training serves as a good model of manly behavior.

I'm not suggesting that women should leave the workforce. I'm not suggesting that fantastic strides haven't been made in equality for men and women (I hate double negatives). Actually, I think that battle has been largely won. What I am suggesting is that maybe, by not feeling needed, men have been demoralized and some have given up. Some men have chosen the easy route just out of lack of character. And some men have taken on the message that men don't matter, that men aren't needed.

Men matter. And strong, hard-working men are needed. Men need to butch up.

UPDATED: Reader Wayne reminded me of Kim DuToit's essay The Pussification of the Western Male. It's a worthwhile read and I'm glad Wayne brought it to my attention again. Here's a taste:

Speaking of rap music, do you want to know why more White boys buy that crap than Black boys do? You know why rape is such a problem on college campuses? Why binge drinking is a problem among college freshmen?

It’s a reaction: a reaction against being pussified. And I understand it, completely. Young males are aggressive, they do fight amongst themselves, they are destructive, and all this does happen for a purpose.

Because only the strong men propagate.

And women know it. You want to know why I know this to be true? Because powerful men still attract women. Women, even liberal women, swooned over George Bush in a naval aviator’s uniform. Donald Trump still gets access to some of the most beautiful pussy available, despite looking like a medieval gargoyle. Donald Rumsfeld, if he wanted to, could fuck 90% of all women over 50 if he wanted to, and a goodly portion of younger ones too.

Amen, Kim.

UPDATE AGAIN:

Cassy Fiano has some stiff words for any limp men:

As I've said before, I think you see an overwhelming number of real men flocking to military or law enforcement lifestyles. And there's a reason -- the values I listed above are instrinsic to being a real man, and also to succeeding in the military. And, as I've said before, this is a large part of why so many women pine over having a military man for their own. There's a reason women swoon over An Officer and a Gentleman. Being in the military (or law enforcement) means you're signing up for so much more than just a job -- it's a lifestyle, a mindset.

An anonymous commenter said this:

Isn't it important to distinguish between "powerful men" who have money and/or status, and "powerful men" who have traditional male virtues like courage and self-reliance but may not be in roles viewed as high-status by society? (Some men of course may fall in both categories.)

Any woman who values money over male virtue deserves what she gets. I think many men wrongly believe that it's only money that matters to women. And to some, I suppose that's true. But I'm sick of men condemning women to superficiality when many women just want a strong, decent, hard-working man who is very good at what he does professionally and can man up personally. Some women limit themselves because they make good money and feel they need a man to make more than they do in order to respect him. That can be short-sighted. A confident man won't give a shit how much the woman makes. He won't feel small because she is successful. He will know who he is and what he's made of.

There are rich men and men of modest means who embody what it means to be a real man. And there are rich men and men of modest means who are insecure, wimpy, over-compensating assholes. In my experience money has had little to do with it.

Dr. Helen has a strong opinion about this and well wow! I did not view this post as male-bashing in any way, shape or form. In fact, I felt this post promoted just the kind of man many men are afraid of being for fear of being being viewed as too aggressive. Dr. Helen says this:

I have a different take on things. Say that a man works hard, and "acts like a man," rarely complaining and doing "man things." What is his reward? In your mind, it is self-worth. This is nonsense. Self-worth comes from working hard and being rewarded. Today, that man is regarded as a "chump." If a man works hard to get ahead, he puts it all at risk by having a family, in a society that says that his working means that he is now responsible for everything in a way that a woman will never be--if that man gets divorced. If he has kids, he is now responsible for their standard of living no matter what. No matter if he gets sick, no matter if his ex-wife is a spendthrift, no matter if his pay goes down, no matter what. The state puts him into indentured servitude to a family that no longer wants him as a member or wants him for four weekends a month. His life is toast, unless...he never "butches up" as you suggest. Your strategy can end in early death and a lifetime of servitude. "Soft and aimless" often ends with freedom. Which would you choose?

I would choose strong, manly and free, if it came to that. A man has to trade his masculinity, his virtue, his honor to protect himself against the possibility of getting fucked over in a divorce? First, let's hope he made a good choice in his life mate. Second, cold and calculating tends to draw cold and calculating. What a cynical way to live.

So this is where modern gender wars get us: women become more manly to protect against becoming a burdened haus frau and men stay home to protect against being an "indentured servant" after a potential divorce. What a disgusting mess.

Sex Is Sacred

I should be in bed, but a rant is bubbling and I want to post it before heading to the land of nod. This is what currently disturbs me in our Sex In The City society: Sex is treated with contempt.

The change occurred back when birth control became ubiquitous. Women could have sex as easily and without consequence as men and so women took on the behavior of the most hound-doggish men. It has not been good for either men or women.

Oh, usually, when this topic comes up, the discussion turns toward STDs or unwanted pregnancies or abortion. And those are important discussions and a terrible side-effect of sexual promiscuity. But there is a more day-to-day effect of promiscuity: the devaluing of sex itself to the point that it's purpose beyond reproduction is distorted beyond recognition.

Sex is not just to make babies. Sex is not just for physical pleasure. Sex is a sacred gift between two people.

Here's an irony that I've noticed: the women who put out the most seem to like sex the least. You read that right. Because sex matters so little to them, they use sex as a tool to get a man to like them or they use sex to have physical touch or they use sex for attention. The point is, they use sex. And then, when there is no more use for sex, they stop giving it up. That's right. They don't like it or value it that much anyway. They give it to anyone and everyone. And, imagine their eventual husband's shock when it stops being given. "But we had so much sex before we got married!" Uh huh. I have a newsflash. She didn't like it then, either. She was using sex to use you. And, it worked.

No one values anything that comes cheap. Why do men and women give away the gift of their body and soul as if it is worth nothing?

Sexual intercourse is more than a physical coupling. It is a powerful union, a special gift. DNA is exchanged during sex. Both people are literally changed by the experience. And this is awesome. When someone has multiple partners, gives the gift too soon and to a stranger even, a barrier goes up emotionally. How can it not? A person has to divest himself of emotional vulnerability in an act that succeeds based on making oneself vulnerable. Long term, I believe that this behavior is incredibly damaging to the heart and spirit of a person. The emotional distance becomes a habit. This is not so easy to turn off once in a loving, committed relationship.

A guy friend of mine told me that he couldn't understand why a woman would give up sex soon. He could see absolutely no benefit to her by doing that. And yet, women do this all the time these days. They are lonely or horny or believe that to "get" or "keep" a man, that's what is necessary. But what kind of man does this woman want to "get" or "keep"?

Maybe it seems like I'm being too hard on women and not holding men responsible. Maybe. But let's face it, women are the gatekeepers. And when they keep the gates swung wide open for anyone and everyone, it devalues the commodity. And that's where were at societally. When something becomes cheap and ubiquitous, it loses it's value. Loose women are a dime a dozen. Why do women complain about men not committing again?

Men are responsible, too. By treating every woman as a two-bit whore, they value all women less. And eventually, they bring that attitude to the woman they eventually commit to. How can they not? It used to be that hound dog men were looked down upon. But now, a man who views sex as something special and is choosy about how he shares it is scorned as prudish and backward. Or, his sexuality is questioned.

The gender wars keep waging in part because sex is so misused and abused. A lifetime of intimate betrayals causes a man or woman to distrust and despise the opposite sex. These hurts and wounds scar a person's soul. And like a physical scar, the person's heart becomes less flexible, less functional and rather ugly. A person may even get to the point of forgiveness for past sexual hurts, but the memories will affect the present. And very often, the person saddles his or her true love with side-effects of those memories.

I guess I just wish, very much, that people would consider their ways and keep, ever present in their minds, the partner of the future that they will love with their whole heart. Eventually, hopefully, a soul mate will come along. This person will be so special and wonderful and incredible that anything less than everything will feel like not enough. The problem will be that along the way, too much was given away, treated with contempt and diminished. A tentative, self-protective barrier will have to be either broken down or navigated around in the relationship. Sex will have been a tool used by and against a person instead of being a sacred gift to give someone.

Does this sound old-fashioned? Probably so. It certainly isn't third-wave feminist ideology. And it certainly isn't a modern notion. That's really too bad. Sex can be used as a sacred power to bind. Today, too often, it's being used as a power to destroy.

White Men Can't Jump and They Just Can't Win

Nora Ephron has her granny panties in a bundle. I'll nutshell it for you (pardon the pun): white men suck. They are what is wrong with the world. Women, on the other hand, are awesome. Just ask Nora. Bleh.

Cassy Fiano rants:

And what's interesting is how Ephron sneers at the "suffering" white men receive at the hands of mean women, and points out how these white men are "somehow" able to rise above affirmative action, feminism, and the myriad of benefits handed to minorities simply for... being a minority. The difference, my dear Nora, is that most white men don't see themselves as victims. A lot -- but not all -- of minorities, feminists, and liberals do. Therefore, when white men are presented with overwhelming obstacles, they find a way to overcome them. A lot of people who are women and/or minorities do this, too, but it doesn't fit into the "WHITE MEN IN POWER!!" screed.

Women are angry, because men are stooopid and they still get all the power. Really? Rachel Lucas has another winner of a lady bitching about men, specifically her husband, which is so nice. I'm sure that's helping their marital relations.

You know, men don't talk about this bullshit much. I mean, what can they do? If they are white and own testes, that pretty much disqualifies them from noting that these women are resentful shrews intent on gaining power by making sure someone loses power.

The last thing we need is another class of victim, but sometimes I can see why men would want to band together and form a group to fight the matriarchy. Damn, they're annoying.

H/T Dr. Helen

Go Danica Go!

Does it make me sexist that I'm psyched that a woman won an Indy race?

Danica Patrick became the first female winner in IndyCar history Sunday, taking the Indy Japan 300 after the top contenders were forced to pit for fuel in the final laps.

And yet, I wouldn't feel psyched if Hillary Clinton won the presidency. So, maybe not.

Great Bloggers Who Happen To Have Ovaries

Cassy Fiano notes another MSM piece complaining about the mistreatment of women--in the blogosphere. This topic has risen before. Basically, I think it's BS. But I love this from Ezra Klein:

Ezra Klein agreed with Amy about the ghettoization of female voices, noting that while male political bloggers are known as "political" bloggers, women are more often known as "feminist" bloggers. "There's this rich and broad feminist blogosphere, which is heavily female and very political, but considered a different sort of animal. Is Jill Filipovic a political blogger? Ann Friedman?" he says. Male bloggers are seen as talking about politics with a universal point of view, but when we women bring our perspective to the field, it's seen as as a minority opinion.

Women's voices are ghettoized? Oh, for the love of peanut butter cookies. The melodrama! I'm ghettoized. Most of my friends hate politics, so if I'm ghettoized and marginalized, it's because they don't want to read politics "shit". And you know what I say to them? Too damn bad! I like politics, but I digress.

Back to the poor, baby, women. My blogroll is full of fantastic bloggers, some of whom are men, some of whom are women. But you know what? If I prefer a male blogger, because he is smarter, funnier, has a more unique take, tough bananas, ladies! Am I a misogynist? Yes, I know. I'm a conservative woman, I'm inherently self-hating, sex-hating, woman-hating, and oppressed. For all that, I'm remarkably happy. Go figure.

Just to spread the love, I'm going to list my favorite ten bloggers who happen to be women:

10. Sisters of A Different Order

9. Michelle Malkin

8. Dr. Pat Santy

7. Gina Cobb

6. Cassy Fiano

5. Ann Althouse

4. Betsy Newmark

3. Maxed Out Mama

2. The Anchoress

1. Rachel Lucas

Oh crap! I just realized that I couldn't keep it to ten. So here are some other women bloggers I make sure and read: E.M. Zanotti, LaShawn Barber, Dr. Helen Smith, Fausta, Beth at Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Mary Katherine Ham, and on and on....

But really, the ladies on this list are fantastic because of their brains, not their ovaries. I'll give the last word to Cassy:

I've never had one single person tell me my opinion had less merit because I'm a woman, or that I wasn't as good as the guy bloggers out there. I've seen no evidence of a "boy's club" in the blogosphere; in fact, every single male blogger I have had any kind of communication with whatsoever has been gracious, helpful, and more than willing to assist me in building my blogging career.
••••••
I don't know where feminists got this idea that all male-dominated careers were unfair to women unless there are an exactly equal number of women participating in these careers, but it's ridiculous. They need to get over the bean-counting. Living in a state of perpetual outrage or victimhood will get you nowhere.

So, Miss Megan, as long as you live in a mindset where Poor Little Female Bloggers can't make it in the Mean Old Boys' Club, then that's exactly what it will always be for you. Meanwhile, those of us who realize that we can make it if we're willing to work hard enough are too busy enjoying our careers as bloggers to worry about the ratio of male vs. female bloggers. Whining about female voices being silenced when it's not even remotely the truth just makes you look insecure and idiotic.

Grow up, and instead of blaming the mean 'ole misogynistic men for your failures, take responsibility for yourself. Start living in the real world. There are a wealth of intelligent, unique, thoughtful voices out there, both male and female. You don't have to be a brain surgeon to see that

Amen, sister.