Alpha VS Beta: In which the authoress is pissed off and has Mormon flashbacks.

You know, I'm admittedly not a feminist. I am fond of saying that I love feminism, but hate feminists. The basic idea of women and men being equals is fine with me. It's how that idea gets corrupted that pisses me off. Case in point, the Alpha VS Beta philosophy.
Now, I gave this stuff a chance a while back. It was fine for a while, then it went bad. Live and learn.

While browsing Exmormon.org’s forum again, I found a link to this gem: LDS Alpha.
Now, I get it. Like I said, I have had this point of view explained to me. It’s very convincing when explained to you by someone who approaches it from the same point of view as a missionary: emphasize the good parts and leave out the horse pucky so you can stumble all over it yourself much later. It’s a good method, in a way; it allows you to feel like an idiot for believing it in the first place without having it pointed out to you.

There’s couple of things that I would, in all fairness, consider valid on this guy's blog. For instance, I totally agree that men will marry a hot woman regardless of her intelligence or personality. Of course, then they’ll whine that she’s dumb and has no personality later, and chicks like me will laugh. Hysterically. We will also make fun of these guys. Mercilessly. We’ll also never date them ourselves, because they’re morons--and who wants to be with a moron?
(The fact that the post I just linked to was written by some other Mormon guy and then posted on the LDS Alpha blog is intentional. I said it was on his blog. I never said it was content that he’d written himself that was valid.)

In this case, I ran across a recent post of LDSA’s that made me stop and re-read it. Then I laughed, a little hesitantly, and read it again. Then I sighed heavily and let the rage rise. So let’s examine this little gem, shall we?

So, you asked her out and she said, “Yes.” Now what? Most guys follow a set routine on a first date that marks them as total Beta chumps. On average girls go on more dates than guys so, they go on the same routine over and over and over. Guys who avoid these major mistakes are ahead of 95% of all other guys in the world.

...Really. I can understand the idea behind “Do something different,” but the “Beta chumps” bullcrap is ominous.

The first mistake is dinner. DO NOT TAKE HER TO A NICE DINNER! DO NOT PAY FOR IT! Guys think that they should show off their ability to choose some trendy place to eat. They then want to show off their ability to provide by paying. Guys remember: Beta Provider=Chump. Paying for girls and throwing money around only marks you as Beta.

DO NOT DATE THIS MAN! DO NOT PASS UP THE CHANCE TO KICK HIM IN THE BALLS!
Women think that men should show off their ability to not be assholes by actually paying for the food when they ask a woman out to dinner. Guys, remember: Not Being An Asshole = Second Date. Paying for the dinner marks you as someone that doesn’t have the intelligence of a particularly idiotic piece of cheese.
(And it doesn’t have to be trendy or expensive, but apparently no one told this guy. But if possible, it should not be any place that has a drive-thru. Ever.)

In the modern world younger women earn far more money than men. This means that she can afford to eat and does not need to rely on you for food.

Interesting. Because speaking as a younger woman, you can shove that theory right up your lying ass. I barely make more money than a 19 year old Mormon Missionary. I could have more of a cash flow if I hustled pool. How many “younger women” actually make more than their male counterparts? The answer is very, very few--on account of very few people in their 20s have high-level jobs. And where is this magical land of freakish weirdness where men in their 20s and 30s are only allowed to work minimum wage, no matter what?

This leads to the second mistake. DO NOT TALK ABOUT YOUR JOB! Guys want to show off about their great job and career ambitions. Many guys think that by showing that they can provide for a girl that this will make a girl attracted to them. Again, big mistake! Girls are not ATTRACTED to Betas! By trying to show how well you provide, you will just mark yourself as Beta and kill a girl’s attraction to you. This means that you will have failed in your purpose for a first date.

I can agree with this one, but only partly. I don’t want to hear about the guy’s job because it’s a freakin’ first date. If I am on a date with someone, I don’t care if he’s a CEO or a drives a garbage truck.
But if you’re in the mood to look for someone for a long-term relationship, you do want to have it at least rattling around in the back of your mind that this guy isn’t going to be asking to borrow money to pay off the very understanding but nonetheless menacing bookie waiting out in the alley amongst the many hard and pointy objects. That doesn’t make him a Beta. It makes him able to get and keep a job, which is--and I know this must be shocking--a good quality.

DO NOT ASK HER TO TALK ABOUT HERSELF! Girls get asked the same questions on first dates over and over and over. Do not ask, “So, where did you go to school?” She gets asked this constantly. Do not ask her about her paper pushing job. Either, she will not want to talk about it and then you will have made her close up. Or even worse she will talk a ton about it and make herself seem of really high status, which will lower you in her eyes. Do not ask her to talk about her family. Do not try to build a real deep connection. She will just see that you are trying to build an artificial connection with her. This will mark you as Beta and kill attraction.

You’re right. Don’t ask me where I went to school. Ask me what books I like. Hell, you probably met me in a library anyway. This will lead to movies, and if you’re really looking to score points, it will lead to a potentially humorous discussion of why we’re all here.
(Answer: because God has a phenomenally bad sense of humor/hates us and wanted to see how we’d all treat each other if he made a world full of Alpha males and made normal people deal with them.)
I partly agree with the idea about trying to build a deep connection first off. Artificial connections do come off as desperate and clingy. But a real connection, well. Nothing wrong with having a little meaningful conversation.

DO NOT TAKE HER TO THE MOVIES! Lots of guys do the dinner and a movie thing. Girls go on this date all the time. Going to the movies will just mark you as another boring first date just like all of the other first dates that she has ever been on. At the movies you can’t interact and Demonstrate Higher Value (DHV). All you do is sit there and put your arm around her. Maybe you can get a little kino going, but that is it.

Unless I actually wanted to see that movie, but hey, be inconsiderate. Here’s a thought, get a DVD of something you know I want to see and sit through it with me after helping me cook something. Hint: I dig Rambo movies, love Practical Magic, and seriously liked Lethal Weapon.
And as for “kino,” I’m going to assume he meant “kink.” Yeah baby, nothing like getting pawed in a movie theater to make me all hot. And by hot, I mean steamed. Steamed and violent. It’s not like you were using that eye, so don’t be upset when I decide that it looks better as my new keychain.

DO NOT LET THE DATE BECOME NON SEXUAL! If you get bogged down in conversation about a girl’s life or her family, the date can become non sexual. This will set you up for the path to the friend zone. The friend zone is a place that no guys ever escape. Keep sexual tension in the date. Sexual tension is good, comfort is bad.

I can make almost anything sexual in my head. We can talk about my life. Seriously. And if the friend zone was something that no guys ever escaped, women would never end up being interested in their male friends--which has happened to me three times--at least with the unmarried ones.
And a guy who is obsessed with keeping the sexual tension in the date is a guy that I will find creepy and avoid. Look, maybe I’m in the minority here, but a guy that I find sexy is generally a guy that I find sexy no matter what. So...shut up. I want to be comfortable. I want to know that the guy I’m on a date with is someone that I can relax around. Someone who isn’t obsessed with keeping up the sexual tension because he thinks that a date is some kind of psychotic competition.

DO NOT DRAG THE DATE OUT! Some guys will use a first date to keep the girl with him for a long time. Especially, if the date is not going too well guys will want to keep it going in the hopes of redeeming himself. If the date is not going well, end it! All that you will do is to dig a greater hole for yourself and make it impossible that she will ever consider going out with you again.

Actually, I agree with this one. But WHY is this not just common sense? Who thinks that a date going badly means that they should try harder? Apparently, crazy people.

It's strange to me to read that blog. When I describe an "Alpha male," I'm thinking of well-spoken, intelligent men who are very capable. They may fix their own cars, etc, as opposed to constant (as in, really unhealthy fixation with) videogames and mental mind-games. They know who they are and they don't lie to themselves or others about this. They tell the truth, know the difference between right and wrong, stay loyal, are mature, kind, and dependable--basically, the type of guy that you look at and go, "That's a durn good man." That type of "manliness" just sort of rolls off of them like fog. This of course varies from man to man, but is unmistakable.

When this guy describes his version of an Alpha male, he's describing what I would refer to as a Beta. The need for constant stroking of the ego is something I associate with a person who is actually quite self-loathing and riddled with anxiety.

Here's an example:
I remember befriending a guy slightly younger than me who demonstrated Beta (my definition) qualities. If someone disagreed with him, he would actively attack them, ripping away at their self esteem in any way he could. Everything was about him trying to convince himself that he was better than everyone else in every way. To him, every woman out there (that he felt he could easily bully) was his inferior, and he treated me accordingly. I found out much later that a mutual friend had been made subject to his abuse, and that she had actually told him that he was going to lose not only her friendship, but also mine if he didn’t change.
This friendship did indeed come to an abrupt end when I realized how just much he was willing to blatantly lie to me in order to hide that he was basically the total opposite of the person I thought he was. That, my friends, is a Beta. But by LDS-A’s standards, he would be an Alpha--and I would be some weak-minded little shrew who passed up on a “real man.”
What is fascinating in terms of my ex-friend is that I sincerely do not think that he is actually capable of change, and probably doesn’t think that he did anything wrong by being untrustworthy and hateful. But that’s a Beta for you.

The fact that LDS-A is a Mormon just makes it more irritating to me. It's like he took the Mormon tendency to be pompous and treat women as lesser, then deliberately sought out a set of ideals that revolve around being pompous. He then, as so many men who fall prey to this kind of thinking do, tries to justify it by claiming that this ideal is not only extremely attractive, but masculine. Sorry, dude. Couldn’t be farther from the truth.
Someone needs a ClueBrick©.

Late Post: Unarmed? I'm OK with that.

While talking to a friend of mine, the topic came up that some libertarians are upset about the possibility that Bin Laden may have been unarmed at the time he was shot.

Quite frankly, I think that it’s a ridiculous thing to be upset about. Sure, I’m against people being gunned down. But in the case of a terrorist, I am totally fine with members of our fine military strolling in and shooting them.
Because you know the great thing about unarmed terrorists? You can make them dead. Then you can make them more dead, in case they weren’t dead enough. And you can do it without dodging return fire. Which really just makes it easier for everyone.
Except them. But they don’t count, ‘cause they’re jerks. And I for one do not count jerks as members of humanity. Especially murderous jerks who think that killing people in the name of their whacked out religion is totally fine.

And as for that Sharia-compliant funeral which may or may not have been Sharia-compliant, depending on which pissed-off person you talk to, I have varying opinions.

On the one hand, respect for other religions was at least attempted to be carried out in the burial. And I’m cool with that.
On the other hand, it was freakin’ Bin Laden. And if his corpse had been pissed on, toasted gently over a bonfire, and then fed to pigs, I’d be cool with that too.

I mean, his followers will probably just attack us regardless of what happened, because that’s how they react to pretty much anything. Radical Islam is a tuba that only plays one note, and that note has bombs strapped to it and is waving a charred American flag.
Peppy.

What’s irritating me most about this entire situation is more how the White House went, “We’re going to release the photos,” and then went, “Psych!” And before that, the left was just starting to go into full-on orgasmic shrieks of glee with wonder at how Obama had apparently been the one to bring down Bin Laden. Needless to say, their attitude has escalated.
I guess the logic there is that it happened during his administration, therefore it was a direct result of him being in office.
Well, foam platform flipflops finally went out of fashion (partly) during Bush’s administration, but I don’t credit him with that service to humanity.

I mean look, yes, Obama is the president right now, and therefore would have signed off on action being taken to actually shoot Bin Laden. Which is great, and personally I’m shocked that he signed off on it at all, since a little part of me figured it would never happen. But the information leading to him being able to sign off on the operation in the first place would have come from the “torture” methods* from the Bush administration.
*Yes, waterboarding is terrifying. It’s uncomfortable. It’s psychologically startling, to put it mildly. But it isn’t quite the same as, say, putting a blowtorch to someone’s skin or digging out their eyeball. I can think up better torture methods while waiting in line for the ladies’ room than waterboarding. Actually, I can think up better torture methods while just angry in general than waterboarding. Al Qaeda would recruit me if I didn’t have a vagina. Or, you know, hate them.


But when you get right down to it, observing little facts like that would get in the way of hero worship. And I guess no one wants that.

Read All About It!

Hello, fellow PMS'ers. A couple of weeks back Mary and I decided to add a new feature to the blog. Since the beginning of the blog we have been concerned with what people are (or are not) reading. If you remember, Mary did a lovely piece on the growing problem of lackofbooksitis.

I encourage you to check it out, if you haven't. You can find it right here:

How Not to be an Illiterate Idiot

So in the vein of helping people with this dreadful problem we have come up with a solution: we will be adding somewhat regular book reviews of what we have been reading. Ideally I would like to include fiction and nonfiction, but honestly, I don't read nonfiction as much as I should either. The reviews will include a short overview of the plot (not revealing the ending), a short review of the strengths and pitfalls of the book with our general opinions, and will include a link where the book can be purchased.

This being said, we do suggest that you go directly to your local library as soon as you can. A library card is a much more economical way to go, and most of the time the librarians will be willing to help get you started on your literary journey.

This effort will be limited, of course, to our own preferences in literature. Also, some books that everyone should read will likely be excluded. Not because we haven't read them, but because it has been years since we have and even our memories are not perfect.

Now that all that is out of the way, in the next couple of days I will be posting a review of a book I recently finished.

LITERACY LIVES!

Generation Y We Suck

There’s really a lot of factors to go into when examining a group, but youth culture can essentially be broken up into facets of pop culture. Because let’s face it, pop culture pretty much is youth culture.

However, for simplicity’s sake we’ll be looking at 3 factors in this post that exhibit what effects youth culture: Fashion, Music, and Ideology. Since most Generation Y’ers came of age in the 00s, that’s the decade I will be comparing to the 90s and the 80s.

The argument that Generation Y is just not as good as Generation X is one that I’ve debated for a good amount of time. Gen X has drawbacks, notably among a percentage of the 40-somethings that share the Boomers’ utter disregard for political sanity, but the Me Generation had something nearly approaching originality. Generation Y is by comparison a bland, reheated leftover, the difference between eating paste and chowing down on a brownie.

• Fashion

If I said I thought the styles of the1980s and the 1990s were tasteless compared to today, I would only be partly lying. Sure, I owned the platform sneakers--everyone did--and you pretty much had no choice but to wear mom-jeans because that was what they sold most of the time. The pocket chains remain en vogue today; also, I’m pretty sure the beanie hat ain’t going anywhere. And girl, you know I had jelly shoes.
The 00’s brought us a slew of WTF-ery with basically the philosophy that defines Generation Y: the less taste, the better. The scatter-brained, more-is-better attitude was marketed like so many ridiculously expensive sweatsuits (why would you buy a sweatsuit that you can’t really sweat in?) and Generation Y lapped it right up. Why? Because it was there. Because it was soooo edgy. How do we know it’s edgy? Because we were told it was!
Generation Y is pretty notable for blindly following trends (though every generation can say this). In addition, Generation Y closely associates the purchase of a trendy (and probably expensive) look with, or in many cases replacing, organic satisfaction. In essence, the message that if you just get the perfect pair of shoes, make yourself up just right, lose the right amount of weight, wear all the right clothes, get perfect cosmetic surgery, or wear the precise perfume/cologne advertised, everything in your life will suddenly fall together like a perfect game of Tetris©...well, that message is blaring loud and clear. Buy all the right things and you’ll become a fey, marvelous creature, envied by all, romantically tragic, and therefore marvelously appealing.
As stated on Love Your Style.com:

One escape for a sick soul is materialism, in buying nice clothes and houses and so on, in becoming enviable in your loneliness. [source]

Sure, the message of “Love yourself the way you are” is loud and proud, but often gets misconstrued. The person eating their way to obesity will shout down their detractors with the justifying battle cry of “I love myself the way I am! Don’t judge me,” while the person who spends spends spends on hair dye, a monumental amount of piercings, funky clothing and god knows what else will also shout down their detractors with the same battle cry, yet neither of these examples are openly facing the world as themselves. That is, one is hiding behind massive amounts of food, and the other is also remaking themselves in a new form. In either case, it could be argued that neither new shape is the “real person,” ergo neither of these examples are genuinely accepting of themselves.
This is not to say that all people of a generous build are self-medicating with food. Some are merely endomorphs no matter what. Nor are all people who coat themselves with dye and lacquer attempting to chisel a new persona out of an original that they are unhappy with.

Another side of the “remake yourself in this ideal” is the pro-ana and pro-mia subcultures, composed of young women (and an increasing number of young men) who have forums, LJ communities, etc, to network and enable each other. They also use the “Don’t judge me” battle cry, though in this case it might be the wail of the suicidal. The lure of proclaiming that one loves themselves “just the way they are” runs contrary to nearly everything that’s trendy in Generation Y. Why? Because it’s fashionable.

Eating disorders are by no means new, but they’ve skyrocketed in this generation. Appearance is considered important to the point of obsession. More important is the pursuit of “perfection.” And what is perfection? Why, whatever they tell us it is.

In the fashion world of Generation Y, the follower instinct is strongly at work. Fashion has ingrained itself into what I can only describe as a philosophy, stressing the importance of looking sleek and perfect at all times (according to the approved trends, of course). Essentially, Generation Y places more weight on packaging than content.

• Music

In the 80s, hair bands ruled almost all that was before them--and quite frankly, I worship at that altar. And yeah, Luke Goss drummed in a band with his brother, apparently hell-bent on setting a new standard for being part of the movement of MJ-style pop bands with singers that sound eerily like women. Fortunately, Goss has mostly seen the error of his ways and proceeded to give us a rather sexy Frankenstein Monster.

In the 90s, straight up dark rock held their own in the scene, with renowned and still-revered bands like moody, soul-baringly poignant, witty and highly-skilled Type O Negative, love-them-or-hate-them Nirvana, and grunge-soaked Soundgarden delivering a pure and glorious antidote to the sugary-sweet pop of both the current decade and the too-cute-for-words pop of the 80s. These groups, especially the first two, had an impressively large impact and occasionally overlooked influence in the music scene and pop culture from the very day they came to light.

Today, however...we have Lady Gaga, Justin Beiber, and a plethora of rap musicians who are mostly notable for their ability to sound like each other. And the key word in most of their music is not talent, but auto-tuning.
Enjoy Your Style.com notes:

Jihan Forbes, a contributor at Starpulse.com, stated that "Lady Gaga is in some ways a reincarnation of Elvis Presley: She takes cues from other truly forward-thinking and innovative artists of color, and repackages it so that white America can comfortably digest it." At Racialicious, a website on "the intersection of race and pop culture," one reader commented:

“To combat the lack of message in her music is really Gaga’s ultimate weapon: the way she panders to her fans, her “little monsters”. She includes them in on [sic] her charade in a way that no one does, overly praising them on Twitter while penning vague platitudes about living life to the fullest and never giving up. However strong and subversive she may appear in public, she plays coy and victimized to her fans who then feel it is their duty to love and defend her. It’s basic and people fall for it like hotcakes.” [source]

Lady Gaga beautifully exemplifies the Generation Y attitude in music: nothing new, nothing original, but extremely faddish. Essentially, it’s a stylized caricature of itself, a sort of black hole that compels the viewer with a strange fascination with how unbelievably dull and self-destructive it is. Why is this kind of music popular? It features synthesizer hooks and dull, throbbing beats that stick in the mind. The lyrics are pretty much empty shlock, with almost nothing penned to mean something personal. Britney Spears asks in her trademark little-girl nasal purr “If I said I want your body now, Would you hold it against me,” essentially taking a ridiculous pickup line that was sad and tired at first use and making it worse by putting it to music. Rihanna’s “S&M” fares no better, repeating what has been plastered on messenger icons and forum signatures for years: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, But chains and whips excite me.”

These are examples of songs and artists that are given radio play almost to the point of inducing madness, overlooking more talented artists that produce better quality songs. But the talented artists are often much less popular. Lady Gaga is showy and a palatable amount of outrageous; Sinead O’Connor lacks the willingness to make a (large) spectacle of herself and rarely flaunts her sexuality to market her music. Again, Generation Y is far more eager to plunk down cash on packaging than content.

• Ideology

Whether it’s protesting fur with the calculatedly hip PETA2 crowd, jeering conservatives based on (badly or un-researched) rumors, or trying to save the polar bears with the global warming groups, Generation Y launches itself at the always-on-sale self-righteousness inherent in all the rabid, frenzied buzzwords of the day that give the consumer a feeling of really knowing what’s going on in the world. The Generation Y’er who finds themselves sucked into yet another black hole of devout faith in pretty much anything, often blindly following their chosen leaders with the kind of devotion approaching or straight up fanatical. I would include links for this section, but it’s so damned depressing. Do your own googling.
Point is, Generation Y cares more for buzzwords and the sense that they’re “really doing something” than actually doing something. It’s easier to rant and rave about whomever the leaders have chosen as the enemy of the day than to do one’s own research. It’s easier to rant about the evils of capitalism while wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt that cost you $10 to $20. Again, packaging is preferred over content. Generation Y cares more about the appearance than anything else.

In short, you can tell a lot about any given group of people by what they produce. And the main thing my generation has produced is what looks like a compelling argument in favor of eugenics.

Women who can't cook and other tales of woe

I ran across this article, which talked about something that I’d been observing for the last 10 years.

While today's women are advancing in the workplace and making more money, a new study found that few of them know how to do the same domestic chores their mothers and grandmothers did every day.

Researchers found that only 51 percent of women under 30 knew how to cook a roast while 82 percent of baby boomer females thought it was a cinch.

Notably, the young women of today are more likely to simply buy something new instead of repairing it:

McCrindle also noted that because these women have bigger paychecks, they don't feel the need to have to bake a cake from scratch or iron their own clothing when instant mixes and dry cleaners are readily available.

"We live in a throw-away culture where, rather than repair something, we will buy a new one, even if it is just a matter of darning holes or sewing on buttons," he said. "As such, many women have lost these skills. If we do want something repaired, women today are more likely to take it to their local drycleaner because they are busy and can afford it."

Naturally, the article ended on a slightly snide note, asking “[If] Over 70 percent of women under 30 admit to taking out the trash, mowing the lawn and washing their own cars, [...] Why is sewing a button back on still a "lady skill" if we've taken over in all of these departments?”

My quick answer to that is that men’s big fingers don’t handle needles well, but I think Charlie Sheen disproves that theory.

What amused and irritated me was the comments on the article. A good amount were from men extolling not the personal satisfaction they get from a woman cooking for them, but the emotional satisfaction.
Predictably, some of the women agreed. And some of them went on rants about how men shouldn’t be cooked for, because apparently cooking for a member of the male gender immediately makes you June Cleaver.


Favorite comments (emphasis mine):

dannyfrom504 said:

i don't think i've evern [sic] had a woman who isn't related to me, cook for me. but then again, i cook quite well. hmmmmmmmmmm.

“E” promptly went ranty on his butt:

E said:

It's a good thing that you cook well for yourself and don't ever hold your breath on a woman cooking for you.....it will be very difficult to find June Cleaver these days...women just do not want all that crap like the women from generations ago....and frankly, I don't blame them! There is more to life than cooking OR cleaning for MEN!

Commenter Joe remarked on the above:

Joe said:

Lord Danny, you do you very best, tell the TRUTH about the matter and you get some female to tell you how WRONG you are! lol Well origamib [sic?] Danny is 100% correct, as far am I go [?] he is anyway. When I see my lady, and yes I MEAN lady, cooking for me and yes even cleaning for me, I not only find that sexy but also am very thankful! How can it be sewxy [sic] you ask? Simple, she's doing something for ME and what she's doing is something that no one "likes" or "wants" to do, she's doing it becuase [sic] she wants to help ME out and THAT is what's so sexy! It's a real shame I have to explain such a simple thing to you but oh well, maybe one day you'll find out that not all men are like to described in your post. Some men not only love their Lady but also respect and even ADORE her as well. So, maybe next time before you begin talking on how men are, maybe you should take a good look into the mirror and ask yourself WHY your man doesn't seem to look at you like we look at our ladies. Then again, I'm veery [sic] sure that you've got it all going on for yourself and have ALL the answers right.

Joe also posted again, saying:

Joe said:

No, it's NOT the females JOB to do the cooking. It would sure be NICE though if the female would cook becuase [sic] she wanted to cook some really nice food once in a while though. I can cook and do a fine job if it and I don't mind it either. What Iv'e [sic] found though is today, females say things like, "it's not my job" or some other very stupid thing. It has NOTHING at all to do with a "job" but rather why can['t] we BOTH cook for OUR family? Why can't they just do something nice becuase [sic] it's nice? Seems like there has always got to be a "reason" to do something for someone. All you females out there who don't cook becuase [sic] of (whatever reason you may have) you just don't get it. Maybe you females don't care all that much if your man cooks for you but by God us men DO care, we LOVE IT when you cook for us. Maybe that's why, maybe today if the female isn't gettting [more sic] something out of it other than a thank you and knowing how much your man loves it, it's just not worth it to you? I have NO IDEA of the real "why" only I know if a woman isn't willing to cook for me once in a while then she's not worth my time. Something as simple as cooking a meal and I'm just not "worth it" to her? Well excuse me lady, but there's the door.

504danny said:

christine- i have 2 sisters (i'm the eldest); and when my mom left my dad, she had ZERO life skills outside being a homemaker. she was on a mission to ensure me and sister's didn't have to depend on the opposite sex. i learned how to do laundry and clean. well, my youngest sis was cool with it, but my older sis wasn't. lol. when my mom tried to explain that there was a bigger picture involved, especially if she was planning on becoming a mother she said, "my husband's gonna have money, i'll get a maid." well reality finally set in when she married a man with 2 kids and she had to feed them; things got real, really quick. she was suddenly behind the bell curve. lol.

but i think what a lot of women forget, is that those "feminine skills" are VERY sexy to us. most women love when a guy does "man things". i used to chuckle the way my girl would just stare as i changed her car's oil, or would fix something at her apartment. it works the same for us. i'd never EXPECT my lady to cook or clean for me, but i really appreciate when she does. and it makes me want to do more to show her how glad i am that i have her in my life.

Commenter Chris pointed out the flip side, which is that a lot of men under 30 really do expect women to do everything for them. I call this learned idiocy.

chris said

@ Danny
your comment was sweet and you sound like a retro man. I can tell you this though.. now a days your luck if you can find a guy to do the so called man things. I know many young men including in my own family that would be sitting in the dark with no clothes and starve to death. The young men of today do not know how to be men they are all about their hair and clothes and material things but heaven forbid something breaks or needs to be cleaned...you wont find them doing it. I know my sis has three boys and a husband and who do I usually see outside mowing the grass or power washing the deck, shovel snow, all the while they are sitting on their butts asking her what is for breakfast lunch or dinner so then she gets to do that as well but now that she is in the house she gets to wash everyones [sic] clothes, vacume [sic] mop, dust, do the dishes and the list goes on and on she will then ask any one of them to take out the garbage (mind you just a short walk from the kitchen to the curb and the answer in reply is from them com'on [sic] cant you see we are in the middle of watching TV can't you take it out. This is her usually [sic] routine in addition to being a school teacher. so...with that said now tell me why on earth would anyone want to get married and have kids now a days I know I don't nor would I want my daughter I would tell her to go have a great life and then if you find someone who you can (not just be in fantasy love with) be a real partner where you compliment each other and pick up the slack where the other needs then great but it should never be one sided where the other one does all the caring and the other does all the taking.

Finally, one of the women doesn't start in whining about the men.

jgholt said:

I really have to agree with Danny and Joe. I am a woman, 50' ish..... I have found that none of the women today can cook a "for real" meal. I am so glad I grew up in a time where microwaves and packaged foods were not around. I think it is very rewarding to cook for a man and I am not married. I do foster care and I love to teach my foster teen girls to cook. Yes, I love to be taken out to dinner or have a man do the bar-be-cuing, but I can cook anything and everything and when I see him take that first bite and know that he realy [sic] appreciates a home cooked meal, well, that warms my heart.

oyvey61 said

I have to agree with 504danny - as busy as I am working full time and trying to fit school in too - there is nothing that makes my husband happier, and like me more than when I cook a meal and straighten up the house. It's not a sexist thing - Doing these things make him feel cared for and that intensifies his affection for me. It's simple math!

Roughly what I said:

I totally agree with Joe, Chris, and Danny. I do find men who can actually do "man things" like handy-work around the house, fixing their car, or even hunting to be sexier than their relatively foppish counterparts. You know why? Because they have skills that I think men should bother to learn. I can fix a cabinet and hang shelves myself, and indeed have a huge tool chest in the house at my disposal, but I like knowing that a man will do those things for me simply because he wants to (this is with the assumption that I have given the guy a reason to want to do things for me, and in my experience, being nice to them and treating them like people--something I think more women should try--is more than enough).

Oh, and I'm in my 20s. My early 20s. I left the man-hating and the irrational belief that every guy who appreciates a woman who can cook is part of "the Patriarchy" in my teens, along with too much makeup and a tendency to listen to Marilyn Manson. Seriously, girls, ease up on the men. They're NOT saying that they think women should be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. They're saying that as men, they perceive women who have domestic skills as extra nice because, well...whether or not you particularly like it, a good woman can be the difference between a house and a home. This is what I call a "guy instinct." Seriously, this kind of thing gives them emotional comfort. And that really is OK. If I get emotional comfort from being wrapped up in strong arms and reassured that whatever I'm worrying about at the moment is going to work out, then I'm not going to be a hypocrite and complain if giving a man a sandwich and a kiss brightens his day.

And do you know why I like men who do "man things?" Because I appreciate that they do them. I show my appreciation with hugs and cooking. Men show theirs in return by changing the oil in the car, etc. This is not a feminist issue. This is just how men and women interact. While there's exceptions to this dynamic in many cases, it's not "bad" or degrading for either.

Then again, I was raised in a family (single mother, grandmother, basically no father figure) where learning skills like sewing, cooking, and housework were NOT encouraged for their husband-snagging potential, but for their practicality. I learned to cook at 8 years old and I'm pretty durn good at it. But I was never once told that men were superior to women. More importantly, I was never told that women were superior to men, either--I was taught that we're all equals, though not interchangeable (men are better suited physically for working on oil rigs, etc). I was also taught by example that knowing how to do "woman things" and also owning and running one's own business is not mutually exclusive. Knowing these skills does not mean you're going to suddenly be some kind of so-called June Cleaver caricature.

Point is, women my age who can't cook, clean, or basically look after themselves are, in my opinion, less self-sufficient than they should be. (I also think men should know these things, but I grew up in Mormon culture, where the boys are often pretty coddled and only get a crash course when they go on their missions.) These are valid, useful skills that ought to be encouraged and admired, but they just aren't anymore. I've grown up watching girls in my age group never learning how to cook anything more than boil-n-bag meals and anything you can put in a microwave. I literally don't even know how to use a microwave because I already know how to cook food from scratch, so what do I need a microwave for!? And I definitely agree with the commenter who said that cooking for yourself results in less weight gain. I have a very organic, relatively low-fat diet. I'm 5'6", slim to average build, only a little jiggly, between 110-120 lbs and around a dress size 4 to a 6, depending. Knowing what goes into your food is invaluable for maintaining a healthy diet. And besides, cooking is FUN. Sewing is FUN (if tricky). Cleaning...ok, cleaning sucks, but it's important to know how to do it.

And for the record, I enjoy homemaking and am happiest when doing little things to make someone I care about happy. This does not make me a June Cleaver, thank you very much. It doesn't make me anything, except someone with more practical skills than most women in my age group. My only regret in regards for this topic is that I have no significant other at this time to unleash loads of pies, casseroles, mended trousers, and smoochies upon. Being a partner in a business is great, but it doesn't provide the emotional satisfaction of seeing the "Aw shucks, thank you!" expression on the face of the man you love when you do something nice for him. And yes, it really can be as simple as a little sandwich. Hardly anything to start a war of the sexes about.

I’ve been told before that my appreciation of men who act like men made me less as a woman. I find that offensive. No one, certainly no other woman, may tell me that I am not female enough for their tastes, especially if they view any shouldering of “traditional” roles as a betrayal. You know what, feminism is supposed to be about choice. If I can be educated according to my career decisions, gainfully employed, AND enjoy cooking for people I care about, then I don’t give a flip if anyone is offended. If anything, the fact that I can be the flirt, the domestic goddess, and the businesswoman makes me rather good at this woman stuff.

Dear obnoxious self-appointed food police: eat me.

Today my post is about the food police. Not necessarily the same idiots who want/wanted to ban Happy Meals in San Francisco, as opposed to say, not eating that kind of crap. The ban got vetoed, by the way--probably right around the time people started realizing that it was stupid.
By the way, the attitude that it’s “too hard” to buy healthy food and cook it for your kids is not a valid excuse for demanding that local legislation be passed to ban whatever you think is making them fat. Disagree? Ok, riddle me this:
1. Who is buying the junk food for the chubby bebes, O ye concerned parents of the year?

2. Eating healthy is difficult--the finding, the buying, and the cooking. I speak from experience. If you want to stick with it, then you suck it up and find a way. If you don’t, then get used to buying your toddler clothes from the hefty kids’ store. Very simple.

No, this blog post is about the members of the organically-minded community who feel the need to instill their values in others--by insulting them.
Granted, this isn’t far removed from what I myself do, except that I’m not necessarily trying to convert people. Rather, I am being my usual snarky self.
You’re welcome. Truly, I have smiled upon you this day.

Now, one of my lengthy fore-forewords:
I was raised by my grandma and my mother. These two women were convinced that any non-organic anything that passed the lips of anyone anywhere was going to give the person cancer or some other terrible disease. I have, at the time of writing this, lived a bit over two decades on this little mud ball and have never had a doughnut or a Big Mac, and I have only used commercial food coloring once. I eat whole wheat. I eat organic food in general about 96% of the time. I’m about a dress size 4 or 6.
But I’m not a damn food Nazi. A grammar Nazi yes, but food, nein.

The whole thing got kicked off when I saw these:


Are they not beautiful, readers? Are they not the most adorable rainbow pancakes you have ever seen? Damn right they are.

Then I saw this post later, titled “Things Successful Bloggers Do.”
Now, one of her quoted comments from a hate-commenter comes from who I can only imagine is an extremely phobic person involved the words, “I am screaming in fear [because of the food coloring].”

Darling. M’dear.
If you have ever used cheddar cheese that is yellow-orange, it has a colorant in it. If you have ever eaten a food that has any sort of color in it at all, you are eating a colorant. Your toothpaste, if it is other than pure chalky white, has a colorant in it. Granted, the phobic fruitcake who left the aforementioned comment was referring specifically to chemical colorings, which are indeed linked to things like ADD, etc, in children.
However, if you have lived long enough to reproduce and officially be a organic-minded parent yourself and you still don’t know about the growing amount of natural food colorings out there--that have been out there for at least the last 10 frickin' years--go right ahead and hand over your “Self-Appointed Total Food Awareness Guru” card. Yep, pass it forward.
And seriously, “screaming in fear”? From rainbow pancakes? Let’s hope you’re never confronted with some kind of minor catastrophe, or your head might explode from the sheer terror of it all.

I’d also like to point out that a lot of kiddies who are raised by these fear-mongering obsessives (what I like to call the “crazy” side of the community) leave the nest and immediately gorge themselves on junk food.

Most interesting (read: made me want to slap them) comment on her original pancake post?

“Gre-e-e-a-a-at. Trick the little tykes into consuming as much of this worthless nonfood as possible. Bunches of sugar and other empty carbs, cholesterol, etc. Gotta get a jump start on that diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, and stroke.
Gee - you oughta be nominated as be Mother of the Year.”

Ahem.
Dear self absorbed jackass that goes by the screen-name-of-”wizard”:

Firstly, it’s buttermilk pancakes. Not something you should gorge yourself on, but still.
She states she puts one or two drops in the recipe. She also provides a link to the recipe that she used, which contains...
Wait for it...
A whole tablespoon of sugar! YE GODS!
Why, with children eating pancakes (with flax seeds in them) roughly the size of my fist (seriously, that's around how big they look compared to the fork in this photo), perhaps as often as once a month, that is a sure track to diabetes and woe! There will be cancer! Wailing! Gnashing of teeth! Possibly sad musical montages!
Or not.
Granted, children are much more sensitive to chemicals than adults are, which would be why food colorings would affect them so much. But the key thing to bear in mind is that not much coloring was used in the recipe and they aren’t eating it that often.
More importantly, if Rachel’s anyone to go by, kids with ADD may well grow up to be goddamn geniuses. So snarf those pancakes, kiddies.
I kid. Mostly.
Also, kids that are fit (and evidently they are) are reducing their risk of stroke, etc, just by not sitting on their butts all day.
Plus, it’s been argued that eating a (moderately sized) breakfast of carb-a-riffic goodness may actually prevent:

“...many of the dangerous symptoms of metabolic syndrome.
Metabolic syndrome is a constellation of symptoms that includes abdominal obesity, high blood pressure, insulin resistance and high triglycerides. It frequently leads to full-blown diabetes, and even when it doesn't, it puts you at significant risk for heart disease.”

Sure, it’s mostly based around mice, but we’re talking about active children here. Going by the descriptions and the picture on the left side of the blog, you can put them on a wheel out in the yard and they run around like they’re on speed happy little monsters angels.
In closing, Amanda isn’t a bad mother. Her kids look happy and healthy in their pictures, she obviously loves them with every cell in her body, and frankly, it’s none of your damn business if she wants to give her kids rainbow buttermilk pancakes once in a multi-colored moon or not.
Overly judgmental ass.

Smooches,
Mary