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. 

Is All Offense Equal?

If one person is offended by something another person does and asks them to stop doing it but the second person says they are offended by the first person's attempt to control them is the second person's offense as legitimate as the first person's?

I have been thinking about this intermittently for over a year as it happened to me at work with a former coworker- she interrupted a conversation I was having to ask that I stop swearing (she was of the Muslim faith and very conservative) as it offended her. I was mixed on this as on the one hand it's not a big deal to try and reign it in a bit if it makes her more comfortable but on the other hand now I have someone trying to control my language- even when I am talking to someone else.

I ruminated on this for a while and then I asked her "If my swearing offends you it is right for me to stop it, yes?" She agreed and then I asked her "Okay now say I am offended at your attempt to control my speech- should you now respect my offense and stop trying to control what I say?" Her answer, which pops into my mind every once in a while and gets me thinking about this again was.....*interesting.* She simply said "No, it's not the same thing."

Hmmmm......

So I ask you: Is all offense equal or are there levels of offense? A secondary question I guess would be is being offended the fault of a third party or a function of your own psychology and therefore cannot be pinned on someone else?

Common Parenting Mistake I See Everywhere

Taking a child expressing (clumsily; they're learning) their emotional reaction to something you say/do as "attitude" or "talking back," getting upset about it (ego) and then coming down overly hard (only making things worse).

For example, you tell your five year old that they need to finish their dinner before they can watch TV. They respond by telling you that you're "mean." You then get angry and come down on them (*how dare you speak to me that way* type of response, often followed by a threat or punishment).

A better response would be taking the time to explain your rationale for making them eat first before TV.

Kids need to know there's a beneficial reason for us stopping them from doing things otherwise they take it as nothing but authoritarian dominance and that sort of perceived dynamic never ends well.

I know we're often frustrated or tired and no one is perfect but trying to minimize this sort of thing is better for both parties in both the short and long term.

"Why won't he open up to me? I just want him to share his emotions and thoughts."

The cultural narrative regarding this of course being that women are empathetic and men are trained to be cold and un-emotional and if only they would open up they would realize the women who love them would be there for them in an unbelievably satisfying way and their mental health (and relationships) would improve.


So simple, so obvious and so correct. Right?


Wrong.


They might not realize it but their biological imperative is to test for weakness/vulnerability (it all boils down to child rearing, resource acquisition and protection) and they can't do this if the guy is holding back. Will he be strong, dependable and successful? Will he protect her and the children as well as provide for them? She isn't sure and so something feels "off" to her. What this culture seems to have forgotten/wanted to deny as of late is how much our biology controls us.


Guys, she isn't saying this because she cares and wants to help (she may believe this.....or not). It's so that she can more accurately screen you as a mate/potential father.

Why Advertising is Anti Male

It's because, despite all of the pro-female messaging in today's culture, women (deep down) still feel inferior to men. The advertiser's role here is to make women feel good about themselves, so that they think that good feeling comes from the product, when in fact it's because they witnessed women getting one over on their superiors. It wouldn't work with men because we don't see ourselves as inferior to women, so if men were hitting women, or women were clumsily falling around, that wouldn't make men feel good, it would just be awkward. Men love women, women hate men, and advertisers know this all too well, and have to use it to sell products from mops to frozen foods.

If women didn't feel inferior to men, this simply wouldn't work, and they would refuse to buy the product. With men, you have to show them what the product is, how it works, why it's better than others on the market, and why they need it. With women you don't need to do any of that, you just have to show men being clumsy, and women being "sassy" and "empowered", then show the brand name, and like braindead zombie-sheep, they flock to buy the product.

Let kids take risks. Let them fail. Let them get hurt. End Helicopter Parenting!

If you practice doing things in the face of possible danger as a child (sports, skateboarding, climbing trees, wrestling, etc), you become almost fearless as an adult which aids you in almost any realm (business, dating etc.). Let your kids take risks!

My ex wife HATES the way I let our daughter take risks. She HATES the way I don't coddle her when she is hurt (there's a difference between hurt and HURT, mothers) and instead insists she "mans up" so to speak. She HATES the way I let her fail over and over and over and don't lie and say everything she does is "good enough." Well in twenty years she'll be happy with who our daughter has become even if she won't have enough insight to understand how she became so. 

There's a difference between being hard and your kids/having expectations for them and being an unfeeling dick. I love the shit out of her and hug her every day. Doesn't mean the world needs to stop when she stubs a toe.

If you want your children to be self actualized, confident, powerful, contented, centered and engaged (with the world) adults..........when they are kids LET THEM BE KIDS. Helicopter parenting is the worst thing to happen to childhood since media reports of kidnappings became so prevalent (actually there's a casual relationship there which the media should have to answer for). It may sound stupid but there's a direct correlation between tree climbing and playfighting (risk taking and "violence") and adult success. Every time you tell them to stop because they "could get hurt" you're reducing their chances of succeeding later in life. Which of course you will blame them for in twenty years, adding to the damage you already caused. 

LET YOUR KIDS BE KIDS.