Posts on advertising, art, politics, video games, gender issues, and deep philosophical mind-benders. Note: I allow for free speech in my comment section. I want you to speak your mind, even if I disagree, but I will delete excessive profanity, bigotry, or calls to violence.
I define chivalry as the cultural expectation that men selflessly serve women. On the surface, chivalry seems innocuous. Opening doors, vacating bus seats, and such. But then the demands become greater.
Men expected to pay for every date, regardless of circumstances. Men expected to let women win on the athletic field, in places of employment, and academia. Men being the only gender required to sign up for Selective Service. Men receiving no support from numerous social programs, despite being disproportionately affected by many of society's greatest ills. Men expected to put themselves in horrifying danger to rescue women. Women & Children First, anyone?
I can only think of two things that may justify chivalry:
1. Women are objectively superior to men, and it should be the natural role of the male to selflessly sacrifice on her behalf. I don't believe this. Do you?
2. Women are weak and helpless, and men need to be on constant alert to save her. I don't believe this. Do you?
Chivalry, taken to its logical end, is the sacrifice of male lives for the benefit of the female. And by the way, that's EXACTLY what happened in traditional societies. From men getting forced into battle, to dying in dangerous jobs, the cornerstone of traditional society was a male corpse. Traditional society was a really bad deal for men and not very good for women either. It has also proven incapable of withstanding the assaults of cultural relativism and cultural marxism.
It's time for chivalry to go away entirely. Let's value both female and male lives equally. Let's not demand sacrifice of an entire gender for the whims of another. Let's allow everyone the opportunity to strive on the behalf of themselves and those they love.
Note: For more on the issue of "the disposable male" watch this video by the Canadian thinker GirlWritesWhat:
There comes a time in life when a man might be considering marriage. Given that this is an emotional time, he may not be prepared to logically think through all the ramifications. Marriage is a financial, social, and (in most cases) religious contract. It is wise and prudent to understand the facts about this contract, just as you would want to understand any other contract.
1. If you are a man, there is a greater than 50% chance your wife will divorce you. Most often, because she is "dissatisfied."
3. Upon divorce, regardless of circumstances, your wife is overwhelmingly likely to get alimony.
Read more about the joys of alimony on points 8, 9, 10, and 11 here.
4. "Divorce Fantasies" are a wildly popular form of female entertainment.
Remember how popular "Eat, Pray, Love" was? Still is? What is that book about? A woman, "dissatisfied" with her kind, loving, and prosperous husband, divorces him and proceeds to go on a magical mystery tour of the world. Sounds fabulous! There have been many other fictional or semi-autobiographical books and movies about fabulous divorces. It's a common trope in female-oriented entertainment. So is it any wonder that some women start to want to make it their reality? Here's one woman who writes about her own personal divorce fantasy. Here's another woman who threw away a loving marriage to a good man in order to "find herself." And here's another woman who reports on all the women who wish their kind, caring, and responsible husbands would cheat on them, thus justifying a fabulous divorce.
5. Expert interviewed by CBS claims that 60% of wives will cheat on their husbands.
7. Marriage is the only contract where one party can unilaterally break it without penalty.
The innovation of no-fault divorce makes the contractual aspects of marriage meaningless. Would you start a business with a person who could back out at any time with no penalty?
Conclusion: Just don't.
Would you jump out of an airplane wearing a parachute that had a greater than 50% chance of failing? Would you stick your hand in a backpack that was over 50% likely to be infested by poisonous spiders? I'm sorry to be blunt, but you need to consider these things before you get married. I wish you the best, whatever your decision.
Addendum 1: A Message To Women
I am well-aware that there are plenty of "good women" out there. Good for them, and I wish them the best, but men have no way of sorting them out from the rabble. I am also aware that some women get bamboozled by cads, and some husbands are abusive and adulterous. However, women are the only gender granted protection from these circumstances in the current status quo. Marriage is dying as a social institution, and will continue to, until these issues start to be addressed.
Addendum 2: Hey men, you want to get even more discouraged?
"Advertising ministers to the spiritual side of trade. It is great power that has been entrusted to your keeping which charges you with the high responsibility of inspiring and ennobling the commercial world. It is all part of the greater work of the regeneration and redemption of mankind." ~Calvin Coolidge
(Hat tip to my former colleague Seisa Deilemann for posting on her FB page.)
Unless you happen to have been in a coma the last couple of months, you have no doubt heard that issues involving women's reproductive rights are causing a tizzy in DC and around the nation. I'm not going to go into blow-by-blow detail of the current to-do, except to say I am a big advocate of contraception and protected sex. I do question why we should all be paying for a private individual's choice but that's just me.
Completely lost in the hullabaloo is any acknowledgement or recognition that men, in 21st century USA, have basically no reproductive rights. Nor are there any widespread efforts to provide men with rights. Here's a rundown of rights, options, and responsibilities, by gender:
Females:
1. Women are presented with multiple varieties of contraceptives and methods of birth control. Daily pills, shots, IUDs, Plan B, diaphragms, condoms, and all kinds of other stuff. Women have lots of options. All accompanied by benefits and drawbacks. They also have the nuclear option of a hysterectomy and the old-school method of contraception called abstinence.
2. Should unprotected sex occur or contraceptives fail and a woman conceives, she is presented with these options: get an abortion, or carry the baby to term.
3. Should she keep the baby to term, she is again presented with a variety of options: keep the baby, give the baby up for adoption, or abandon the baby at a hospital, no questions asked.
4. Should a woman tragically be raped and impregnated, she has the option of carrying the baby to term, taking Plan B, or undergoing an abortion.
5. Should a woman who is underage tragically be seduced and impregnated by an adult male (statutory rape) she has the option of carrying the baby to term, taking Plan B, or undergoing an abortion.
6. Upon birthing a baby, every woman has access to an extensive social safety net and a brutal child custody system eager to extract funds from any man she declares is the father. Whether he actually is the father or not.
7. Numerous governmental organizations and legislation like Obamacare provide women with subsidized access to birth control options.
1. Men have three birth control options: Condoms, vasectomies, and abstinence.
2. Should unprotected sex occur or contraceptives fail and a woman conceives, a man loses all decisionmaking ability over the status of the baby from then on.
4. If a man wants to keep the baby and the woman wants an abortion, tough luck. If a man doesn't want to be a father and the woman wants to keep the baby, tough luck. If the man wants to keep the baby and the woman wants to give it up for adoption, tough luck.
Given that a majority of men support a woman's right to have reproductive options, it would be really nice to see some reciprocity from women. But besides a rare woman here and there (such as the one mentioned below) we hear basically nothing from individual women or women's groups. Despite their constant claims to support "equality for all."
So in the end, we are faced with the fact that most "pro-choice" advocates are only pro- woman's choice. And when organizations advocate for their own rights while abandoning or repressing other people's rights, what do we call that? Supremacism.
For more on these topics, watch this video from the wonderful Canadian thinker GirlWritesWhat:
Millions of fabulous, strong, and independent single women have a problem: They can't find a man to marry. Numerous blogs and articles have been popping up all over the place on this troubling issue.
"Where Have The Good Men Gone?" This infamous article by Kay Hymowitz (which I reviewed here) purports to explain why so many modern, perfect, goddess-like females are loathe to sully themselves with their lowly male counterparts.
Some choice quotes:
Today, most men in their 20s hang out in a novel sort of limbo, a hybrid state of semi-hormonal adolescence and responsible self-reliance. This "pre-adulthood" has much to recommend it, especially for the college-educated. But it's time to state what has become obvious to legions of frustrated young women: It doesn't bring out the best in men.
Really? And what makes "frustrated young women" the best judge of "the best in men" ???
for these women, one key question won't go away: Where have the good men gone? Their male peers often come across as aging frat boys, maladroit geeks or grubby slackers—a gender gap neatly crystallized by the director Judd Apatow in his hit 2007 movie "Knocked Up."
Hmm, it seems that Judd Apatow movies are now an infallible cultural Rosetta Stone. Who knew?
Relatively affluent, free of family responsibilities, and entertained by an array of media devoted to his every pleasure, the single young man can live in pig heaven—and often does. Women put up with him for a while, but then in fear and disgust either give up on any idea of a husband and kids or just go to a sperm bank and get the DNA without the troublesome man.
Oh, I get it. It all makes sense now. Single women are all strong, independent, and fabulous. She has a right to live her life as she sees fit, and not settle for less than her knight in shining armor. On the other hand, single men are lazy, boorish, and shiftless. We exist only to please and serve women. So we'd better become that knight in shining armor for her, or our lives are meaningless, for we are not a "good man."
"All The Single Ladies." Kate Bolick's rationalization of why she's still single. Some choice quotes:
as women have climbed ever higher (in educational and economic success), men have been falling behind. We’ve arrived at the top of the staircase, finally ready to start our lives, only to discover a cavernous room at the tail end of a party, most of the men gone already, some having never shown up—and those who remain are leering by the cheese table, or are, you know, the ones you don’t want to go out with.
How DARE men have the temerity to not be at the same level of staircase! Those worthless bums!
the decline of males has obviously been bad news for men—and bad news for marriage. For all the changes the institution has undergone, American women as a whole have never been confronted with such a radically shrinking pool of what are traditionally considered to be “marriageable” men—those who are better educated and earn more than they do. So women are now contending with what we might call the new scarcity. Even as women have seen their range of options broaden in recent years—for instance, expanding the kind of men it’s culturally acceptable to be with, and making it okay not to marry at all—the new scarcity disrupts what economists call the “marriage market” in a way that in fact narrows the available choices, making a good man harder to find than ever.
Once again, a "good man" is defined as a man who is more affluent than his spouse. We are walking wallets, and if our wallets are not fatter than a particular woman's, we are unworthy.
My spotty anecdotal findings have revealed that, yes, in many cases, the more successful a man is (or thinks he is), the less interested he is in commitment.
Perish the thought! You mean men are capable of making their own decisions? This must be stopped! She wants to commit, so us men should just get on our knees and obey. However, by the end of the article the author has made peace with her decision to stay single rather than lower her lofty standards.
What strikes me in both of these articles is the unapologetic evaluation of men as dehumanized utilities meant to please women. For decades, men have been getting scolded for supposedly treating women as sex objects. So I find it telling that it is now perfectly acceptable for women to treat men as status objects. Secondly, neither one of the authors bothered to try to see things from the male perspective. Nor did they even, you know, talk to a man and ask his opinion.
Happily, the cacophony of male-bashing, hypocrisy, and propaganda is countered by a fair number of folks who "get it." Among them is the wonderful writer and blogger Suzanne Venker. Recently, Venker wrote the article "Marriage: What's In It For Men?" She makes several cogent points to diagnose the problem. Suzanne Venker was kind enough to quote yours truly as one male opinion on why men aren't getting married.
“From a man’s perspective, men take on an untenable risk. The culture of male disposability runs deep — some say even at the level of our DNA.” Because of this, he says, “Men are making a lifelong commitment to eschew marriage, cohabitation, and even dating in some cases. We do so for all the reasons you can guess, and more. As far as I am concerned, this is the wisest lifestyle decision for men in the United States at this point in time. And I say so as a conservative/libertarian who fully acknowledges the power of a functioning nuclear family.”
Every man who is single-by-choice has his reasons. But I would suggest a fair number of men would cite at least one of the following:
We have been told by society how horrible men are since the day we were born. We figure if every woman is unfathomably superior to us, and better off without us, we might as well plan a fulfilling life without women.
3.
We have greater priorities in life right now than marriage and children.
Maybe, just maybe, men are strong and independent too. Maybe we have our own reasons to not make ourselves a success utility to please women. But no matter what we think. We have been deemed unworthy, sexist, immature, lazy, and shiftless. So we'd better run out of our hovels and propose to the first single woman we meet. But not before we magically transform ourselves into an educated, affluent, and handsome professional. She deserves it!
Note to all the single ladies:
If you are a woman who wants to marry, I think that's great and I wish you the best. However, I humbly submit that popular culture is not giving you very good advice on how to find the right person. You need to be willing to evaluate yourself honestly. Look at the men you find to be desirable marriage material. Evaluate what they want in life, and what they want in a woman. Ask yourself "What do I have to offer that man as a mate?" If you do not feel you're going to fetch the man you feel you deserve, then work on yourself. And, I hate to say it, but your options are limited to the men who are available, interested in you, and willing to marry. By the way, I give all of this advice to men too so I'm not trying to be a churl.
On the other hand, you could join some of the writers above and try berating your dream man into wanting to marry you. But I think we both know that's not going to work.
Though I am not a father myself, I am a person who feels that the role of "father" in our society deserves respect. I am also a person who supports tolerance and acceptance for all people, regardless of their gender, nationality, or religion. For these two reasons, I am deeply disturbed at the following passage from the article referenced above:
The Sitch: You've accepted a sleepover invite for your daughter, not realizing that only her pal's divorced dad will be home. You're not OK with it. What to do?
The Solution: "Call and say 'I'm sorry, and this is about me and not you, but I just don't feel comfortable with a man supervising an overnighter,' " says Paone. Offer to host the girls at your place instead, if you can, or ask to turn the sleepover into a "late-over," where your daughter stays only till bedtime. In the future, always ask who'll be on duty before you say yes to a sleepover.
So, here's "The Sitch" - This article coldly slaps "divorced dads," fathers, and men in general as assumed child molesters. I honestly wonder if you would publish an article that stated the above but instead of men, referenced a particular race or nationality:
"You've accepted a sleepover invite, not realizing that only her pal's (racial minority) will be home..."
"'I'm sorry, and this is about me, but I just don't feel comfortable with a (religious minority) supervising an overnighter..."
Fathers in general, and especially divorced fathers, get a lot of grief. They are not treated fairly in family court or in the court of public opinion. Suffice to say, it does not help when CNN Living casually labels them all child molesters.
My suggestion for "The Solution" - At the very least, I believe that CNN should publish a sincere apology to divorced fathers, fathers, and men in general. But perhaps CNN Living should also consider doing a story on the reality of female child abusers, or the struggles that dedicated "divorced dads" face. Better yet, why not do both?
This video has become quite the viral phenomenon in the past few days. In it, a charismatic and good-looking young man offers us a spoken word performance on why he "hates religion but loves Jesus." This performer seems like a very well-meaning, talented, and intelligent person. I don't disagree with everything that he says. But in the end, his argument is self-contradictory and makes him guilty of the same selective Christianity he accuses others of.
If one believes in the Bible, one must also believe that the Bible represents absolute truth. Among the principle teachings of the Bible is that 1. God is omnipotent 2. Jesus is the Son of God 3. Through Jesus and the Holy Spirit, God enkindles the faith of Christians to ensure that "Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven." If God is an omnipotent deity that has daily communion with his flock, it follows that the structure and actions of Christianity are in accordance with his Will. Therefore, He must be evaluated in light of what Christian believers and institutions do in the world.
Essentially, this young man is saying he hates Christianity but loves Christ. And I don't think that makes any sense, because who else is more responsible for Christianity than God through Christ? If you'll allow me a bit of psychoanalysis, I feel that this young man is reacting to the cognitive dissonance he feels when he sees the hypocrisy and illogical beliefs inherent in Christianity and religion in general. However, instead of that inspiring him to find a more intellectually consistent worldview, he is picking and choosing what he wants to believe about his professed faith.
Awww! What a sweet and romantic ballad! Right? Hmmm. Let's look at the lyrics. Saying I love you Is not the words I want to hear from you It's not that I want you not to say But if you only knewHow easy it would be to show me how you feel More than words is all you have to do to make it real Then you wouldn't have to say that you love me, yeah 'Cos I'd already knowWhat would you do if my heart was torn in two? More than words to show you feel That your love for me is real What would you say if I took those words away? Then you couldn't make things new Just by saying, "I love you"Now that I've tried to Talk to you and make you understand All you have to do is close your eyes And just reach out your hand and touch me Hold me close don't ever let me goSummary: It's not enough for you to say you love me. I'm dumping your sorry ass unless you touch me and hold me close right NOW.Santa Claus Is Coming To Town Happy Holidays! Here's the lyrics: You better watch out You better not cry Better not pout I'm telling you why Santa Claus is coming to town He's making a list And checking it twice; Gonna find out Who's naughty and nice Santa Claus is coming to town He sees you when you're sleeping He knows when you're awake He knows if you've been bad or good So be good for goodness sake! Summary: Santa sees everything you do. He is JUDGING you, and he's coming to your house. So you'd better watch out, don't f'ing cry, and OBEY!!!!! The Police - Every Breath You Take Such emotion. Such dedication. Here's the lyrics: Every breath you take Every move you make Every bond you break Every step you take I'll be watching youEvery single day Every word you say Every game you play Every night you stay I'll be watching youOh can't you see You belong to me How my poor heart aches With every step you takeEvery move you make Every vow you break Every smile you fake Every claim you stake I'll be watching youSince you've gone I've been lost without a trace I dream at night, I can only see your face I look around but it's you I can't replace I feel so cold and I long for your embrace I keep calling baby, baby please...Oh can't you see You belong to me How my poor heart aches With every step you takeSummary: This must be another one from Santa. You belong to him. He's watching every move you make and every breath you take. Spandau Ballet "True"How classy! Such a soulful tune. Let's look at the lyrics: So true....... Funny how it seems..... Always in time, but never in line for dreams. Head over heels, when toe to toe, This is the sound of my soul. (This is the sound)I bought a ticket to the world, But now I've come back again. Why do I find it hard to write the next line? When I want the truth to be said....... Ah Ah Ah Ah Ah I know this much is true. Ah Ah Ah Ah Ah I know this much is true.With a thrill in my head and a pill on my tongue, Dissolve the nerves that have just begun. Listening to Marvin all night long. This is the sound of my soul. (This is the sound)Summary: I tried to forget about it, but I am completely obsessed with someone. I'm so crazy I can barely speak, despite the drugs I'm taking.-------I'm sure there are many more songs like this, so this blog might get a sequel soon.
Before I decided to go into advertising, I studied formal logic, rhetoric, and debate in college. It turns out this is a terrific background for a copywriter and an ad professional, because I actually use my training nearly every day on the job. How many Philosophy majors can say that!?!?!? However, I have often caught myself drinking the hype that the ad industry serves in 40 oz bottles. Diligently reading Bob Hoffman has helped put me back on the straight and narrow.Bob Hoffman is an ad agency owner and a popular advertising blogger at The Ad Contrarian. He is known for his hilarious skewering of the BS that inundates the advertising industry. Over the years, he has become my favorite advertising blogger because of his ability to think critically. Critical thinking and logic are two faculties in short supply in our industry, and Bob is always a refreshing read. So I was very happy to see his new book for sale. This book is an edited collection of posts from his blog. Bob Hoffman's perspective is terrific because he continually digs into various heaping piles of advertising hype to discover nuggets of truth. And if he doesn't find any, he's not afraid to say how bad it stinks. There's not much specific to say about his book, because it's collected from his blog. If you like his blog, you'll like the book. And even if you've read every post on his blog, you should still buy the book. Because he's been writing that great blog for free, and at least deserves some beer money for the effort.
Update: The Ad Contrarian was nice enough to link to my blog here.
A recent article on Jezebel.com focused on a woman who admitted taking advantage of men for free meals at expensive restaurants. The article chided her for dishonesty, but then rationalized it with some ad hominem attacks on men. Perhaps she should be looked down on for dishonesty. But that's not what is vexing me about this article. For the life of me, I cannot think of one earthly reason why a man should be spending money on a woman for a first date.
I'm almost 33 years old. I've been on dozens of first dates. And I have NEVER spent more than ten dollars. It has not stopped me from having great experiences with cool ladies. The majority of my male friends would say the same.Men, why are you dropping Benjamins on first dates? There is no good reason to do it. And lots of reasons not to.1. Money can buy attention, but not respect.If you spend $$$ on a woman for the "privilege" of her company, she'll enjoy hanging out with you. She might even like you. I would enjoy hanging out with a woman who spent money on me, and you can bet I would try to find reasons to like her. But that doesn't mean I would take her seriously as a romantic option.You cannot buy respect from a woman. Men have a deep need to be respected by their partners, and worthwhile women want a partner they can respect. If $$$ is an expectation up front in the relationship, find another girl. Period.2. Equality.This is 2011. If men and women are equal, there is no reason why women are entitled to special treatment from you. If any woman tries to cajole or shame you into spending $$$ I encourage you to say "No, because I believe in equality for women."
3. If you ask her out, you should pay. But...One female response I hear quite often on this issue is "The person who asks should be the person who pays." And this makes sense. But the vast majority of my first dates came from informal agreements to get together. No event or dollar amount is agreed on beforehand. So that is still no reason for men to spend big money on dates. And there are a few women who initiate costly dates, then are surprised when the man doesn't pay for her share. That's just silly.4. Money is not you.If the purpose of dating is to get to know each other, then do that. That doesn't cost money. It does take creativity and personality. If you are creative and have a personality, why are you dropping Benjamins in the first place? If you don't have a personality, use your money to get a life and then look for a girlfriend. Furthermore, if the girl actually wants to get to know you, she's not going to want a $$$$$$$$ date.
If you want to treat the woman to something nice on subsequent dates, that's fine. But don't do it unless you have evidence she actually cares about you. Addendum:
A "Sugar Daddy" arrangement would be an exception to these points, but I'm not going to go there.
