In Defense Of 'Crazy' Stay At Home Moms

We all know the trope of the 'crazy' suburban mom; you know,  the one who screams at her kids and husband all day despite being medicated to the gills with pharmacological agents and vodka coolers and while I have done my share of sneering at them to myself and others (shitty behaviour around kids is hard not to sneer at) I have been thinking a lot about these women and what might be at the root of the problem and I think that "they're just crazy" isn't fair and what really may be going on is totally not their fault but actually the fault of the way we engineered post-industrialization/post-agricultural societies.

If you travel back in time to say 50,000 years ago, what was the life of a mother like? Were they alone, separated into individual houses, or together as a community, dealing with everyone's' kids all at once?

It was the latter.

Assuming we all agree on this point, (and how can't we; I'm always right after all, right C-man? fuma!) what can we take from this? Well, it logically follows that evolving to raise kids in a community would lead women of future generations to basically needing said communities for support and ultimately, optimal mental health. So, separating into houses all along a street and living in their own little worlds with their kids and hubbies (when home from work) could possibly be setting them up for failure. Living contrary to ones' nature is a recipe for mental illness, right?

If we think about the nature of women, are they more oriented towards being solitary or in groups? I think we all know the answer. They are definitely wired towards being hive minded. Men are generally the more solitary creatures. So, in the interest of fairness here, is it really any wonder that once they are separated into individual homes alone with their kid(s) all day that they go "crazy?" They are living without the social support networks they evolved to need!

I always think/talk about how the way this culture is engineered is really bad for men, but I am starting to consider the possibility that it's bad for women as well. It's bad for all of us, I think. One day I'll stop being so lazy and really dig into this idea and post a detailed, cogent, thought out piece about it. I really think there's a lot about the way we are living that we need to rethink. I'm just so lazy.....damn culture's fault!

Travel Back in Time and SLAP THE SHIT OUT OF MYSELF

This is a snippet of a "love letter" (blargh) I wrote for an ex girlfriend years back. It's.....I mean.....Jesus Christ. See for yourself:

It is an impoverished existence, one that is without you in it, and I must now redouble my energies and refocus so that I may live this new leg of the journey that is my life to its absolute fullest capacity, in perhaps a vain but surely blissful endeavour to make up for the dark half of this, mine imperfect and tumultuous life. I look forward to an illuminated, enlightened, and surely more rewarding second half.

May your love ever shine brightly down upon me, and may it always light my way.

Someone needs to invent a time machine so literally everyone on Earth can travel back to the moment I started to write that letter and SLAP THE SHIT OUT OF ME.

Disgusting. 

Top Ten Divorce Lawyer Dirty Tricks

Top Ten Tricks of Scumbags Known as “Family Law Attorneys”

1. The bankruptcy trick.

Here is how it works……. In the property division portion of the trial, the “wife” and her life sucking leach will let you keep most of your stuff. You know, your classic cars and motorcycles, toys, property in your family for years, etc. {don’t worry, she’ll throw out all the smaller mementos of your life, in violation of the temporary order, to make the math easier} In exchange, you have to pay the princess a cash settlement based on splitting all the bills due minus the assets each person takes. Sounds fair, right? --deleted-- NO! What happens is that, shortly after the divorce, pumpkin declares bankruptcy. Now guess who is responsible for ALL the bills. Yes, you. The nice part is that if you declare bankruptcy to get rid of those marital bills, your ex sweetheart’s cash payout is not subject to the bankruptcy proceedings. Your credit is now --deleted--ed and you will have to pay her the cash the judge promised her. They will seize property (including bank accounts), garnish wages, etc. in order to help out the former Mrs. X.

Solution: What you need to do is make sure that you put on the record, say to the judge during the trial, “Your Honor, I stipulate to the property division as put forth by Ms. _______ ,and her counsel, with the following caveat: In the event that a party declares bankruptcy within ten years of the divorce, that party shall not be entitled to any cash settlement from the other and any payments made as part of a cash equalization payment shall be returned by order of the court.” Then smile and shut up. If they pull this on you, you need to have this on the record. The judge can agree with this or not, her attorney will flip out that you are on to this trick and certainly protest. Let him make an ass of himself or herself. When they finish, simply state that “to do otherwise is to open the door for a future civil case of unjust enrichment and I realize the court is busy and may not wish to reopen this matter, under relief from judgment statutes, at a later time.”


2. The “Magical Order” trick.

You’ll like this one. You go to court and get basically what you want, justice. Then a week or so later you get a copy of the proposed order. Well, holy --deleted--, the order has things that were never discussed or ordered or has it just plain wrong. This is definitely NOT what the judge ordered. How did this mistake happen? It isn’t a mistake. The other attorney knows that these things are usually rubber stamped by a judge’s secretary and they aren’t going through the transcripts to see if the lawyer accurately wrote down what the judge ordered. The judge has lots of cases to handle. In most cases, he will not remember, and will take the “scumbag attorney” at his word.

Solution:A week before the hearing, or trial, submit a “request for audio recording” of the action. If it is denied, and it is a one party consent state, tape the thing yourself secretly. Once they know you are on to this trick, by your request for a recorded hearing, they will be more “careful” when they word the order. When you get the proposed order, review it immediately. You generally have five days to object before it is made final. If it is wrong, make sure you object. If your objections are overruled, let them know that “the audiotape I possess clearly shows the order is wrong.” Threaten to contact your States attorney ethics board if you are being ignored. Be nice at first. Never lose your temper.


3. The Disappearing mail trick.

You can trust the one who agreed to “better or worse, richer or poorer, sickness and health”, right. No. You can’t. You get something in the mail that says basically “hey, you failed to show up for _______ (mediation, court hearing, required appointment, etc.). Since you didn’t care enough to show, we bent you over the bench in effigy and ass raped you. Have a nice day and --deleted-- off.” You think “well, I never got a notice of that”. How could I get the ass rape letter and not the initial notice ? It just can’t be. Sure it can. Little miss innocent simply knew when the original notice was mailed and had someone (bad boy, player, thug) intercept your mail. What? That’s not fair. Doesn’t matter. What does matter is that she got a default judgment, or something else to her benefit, because you didn’t show. And now the judge thinks you don’t care. He will not likely believe someone tampered with your mail and you probably cannot prove it anyhow. And now he is pissed off at you.

Solution: Get a post office box. Send registered letters, return receipt requested, to the court, child support agency, ex’s attorney if she is represented (or her if she isn’t yet) and EVERYBODY ELSE INVOLVED that formally notifies them of this change. Do not say why as it makes you look like a whiner. Just do it. Do it as soon as the action is filed. Check this PO Box every day.

About This Elliot Rodgers Thing. Look, It's Not Misogyny or 'Rape Culture' That's To Blame

There has been a ton of talk online since the shooting happened and most of it is centred around misogyny, rape culture and guys feeling entitled to sex with girls who are not interested in them. The mainstream media, bloggers, etc have been postulating about this stuff and the answers they put forth are almost always missing the point. It's really, really, REALLY simple and it's not about hating women or seeing them as objects.

It's ignorance of human biology.

We men (and women, but the focus for now is on men) all have a biologically imposed need for sex and the objects of said need are going to be largely the same (ie, 'hot girls') as the 'hot ones' are the ones that bear the indicators of good genetic material. You know, youth, symmetry, health, hip to waist ratio, etc*(see below). These guys don't lust after these girls because they think of them as objects that they have a right to; they lust after them because millennia of evolutionary imperatives compel them to. This is exactly the same type of compulsion that drives women to want to feel safe and protected with their man. Are these women viewing men as security objects? Oh, what's that? "That's different?" Okay, explain how without just implying that sex is somehow less valid a need than security.

Hmmm...silence. Odd.

Want a hint? Either we all view one another as objects (because we ALL want certain things from someone else) or none of us do and it's all a part of life. You don't get to pick and choose which needs are 'okay' and which needs are 'objectifying' people. Doing that is simply sexism; ironically the very charge you're levying against the guys for wanting sex (which you do too, right?).

Look, snarkiness aside, all guys want sex; the only difference is the Elliot Rodgers' of the world never get their urges satiated. Year after year of this resulting in them becoming enraged after years of frustration is understandable and NOT a symptom of rampant misogyny. It's simply frustrated biological urges manifesting in a terrible, terrible way.

The real answer is not gun control, blogging about rape culture or any of that other nonsense: It's education, better communication in our society regarding sex and relationships, a removal of the stigma against male sex toys and legalized and affordable prostitution for guys who cannot get laid but really need to. You'll never get rid of the urges, nor can you change the fact that some guys will never get said urges satiated. So what you do is allow them to legally and safely satiate those urges, thereby allowing it to be done without harming another person.

You'll never get guys to stop lusting after women. And to think if you just educate them about "women not being objects" they will stop feeling this way is really missing the point. If you think you can condition this into them then logically you could condition the girls to be into the guys they aren't into, right? I mean, men aren't objects and maybe that nerd is an excellent person- if only she could get past her culturally induced ideas about what is attractive, right?

Oh, what's that? Suddenly biology is a factor?

Make up your damn minds!

I'll end this with this thought: Even if he did view women as "objects" how did those women view him? As nothing. would you rather be sexualized or totally ignored?

*Right here is where the 'women as objects crowd' will get all excited and say "see! he's talking about them like they are objects as well." Here's something you all need to hear, so listen up: People have physical characteristics and it is these characteristics upon which they are judged by men when it comes to sexuality. This is much in the same way as THOSE SAME GIRLS JUDGE THE GUYS AS NOT BEING 'WORTHY' OF SEX. Either both sides are objectifying the other, or neither is. Pick one but stop putting the onus on the guys only. As i pointed out above, if you want to talk about sexism, it's actually here in this area, and it's against men. Women categorize men all day long but anytime they feel like a guy might be categorizing them suddenly there's an epidemic of men viewing women like they are pieces of non sentient meat.

Women Should Be Treated Like Corporations

I know how that may sound, but bear with me here.

There are a bunch of women out there vying for your investment (emotional, time, and yes, even money) and just like real companies, not all are solid investments. When you invest in stock you do an inventory of the companies' history (business dealings and practices, financials, etc) the current price at which their shares are being traded and you make an educated guess as to how their future will play out. If it seems favourable, you invest. If it does not, you don't. Simple. No guarantees (you can still lose everything) but you're not just dumping your eggs into the first basket that comes along. You are investing in the one that is least likely to cause you to lose everything/most likely to pay off. 

This is exactly how you should treat women. You don't just throw your currency (love) into the first thing that comes your way (or every thing that ever comes your way). Not all are deserving of it and you will get burned. Invest in the best ones only, and reduce your risk. 

On Guys Being "In Trouble" and Being Servants: Observations at Birthday Party

*This was written a few weeks ago*

So this weekend I attended a birthday party. There were several couples there and I noticed a disturbing trend. You know the classic relationship dynamic (especially these days) where they are out in public and somehow, the guy always ends up "in trouble?" He usually says something she doesn't like (often a joke) and he gets "the look?" Then they have that awkward whispered conversation, or that even worse nonverbal one, either way it's in public so they're trying to do it discreetly but holding back so they aren't really saying anything?

Well, there was a lot of that going on at this party. The guy would get "in trouble" (usually the "look") and then awkwardly try to explain himself to her but without fully having the actual conversation because there were people around. Then, if they think there's no one looking, the guys will often kiss her and talk to her with that annoying babying voice, trying to soothe her and get back in her good graces.

Every single time there was an issue, it was the girl getting annoyed at the guy, and almost always over a joke or just something he said. Well, the thing I really noticed more so now than ever before was the fact that these guys will often look at the woman after making a joke to make sure that he's not getting "the look."

It's almost like they are kids dealing with a humourless mommy.

The other thing I noticed was that whenever something needed to be grabbed from the car, another room, or even 5 feet away, it seems to always be the guy that has to do it. The most painful one was my cousin forgetting her camera in the car and instead of going to get it she said to her fiance (oh, the camera is still in the car." His response? "Well you know where the car is." Right on brother......oh wait, except for the fact that he said it in a voice that betrayed the fact that not only was he joking, but he was doing it overtly so, in an effort to let her know that he didn't really mean it. What was her reaction? A dirty look, followed by him saying "of course I'll go get it".....which he did, right away.

Bunch of pandering, snivelling, grovelling little manslaves. Do they have no self respect?

Alcohol, Sex, Consent, Rape and Contradictions

So as you all know there's been a lot of talk about drunk sex lately and it seems that there's a push to consider consensual sex while drunk to actually be sex under duress. Which, unless I am missing something here, logically places alcohol on equal footing with "roofies."

Assuming we accept that premise, I would go on to point out that girls don't really believe this themselves. An overstatement? Perhaps, but on some level at least, they make the distinction between alcohol and roofies without realizing it themselves. I say this because they:

a) Aren't asking for alcohol to stop being served/sold without a prescription ("roofies" are prescription only, not sold at bars but, following their logic, if it has the same effect, what's the difference?)

b) Willingly avail themselves of this free flowing alcohol (but not ingesting "roofies")

Am I wrong in thinking that perhaps this is indicative of an underlying contradiction in this new way of thinking?

P.S. I've certainly heard this said before but it bears repeating: If they aren't responsible for having sex while intoxicated then why are people who drive drunk responsible for their actions? Which is it, ladies? Do drunk people have agency over themselves and their own actions or no? Or maybe an even better one is a guy cheating while drunk. Are they prepared to let him off the hook? Oh, they aren't? Okay, let's see them explain that without a major contradiction or invoking special pleading.

EDIT:  I want to make clear right now that in NO WAY would I advocate someone plying someone with booze, getting them blackout drunk and having sex with them. I am merely talking about the usual "go out, have 3-4 drinks, end up with someone" thing that is now coming under fire.