Glenn Beck’s  rally which hijacked Martin Luther King’s speech anniversary – a fact which he called “divine providence” (the poor man doesn’t know how to read a calendar) – creates a convenient excuses for me to criticize something that has long been a peeve of mine: the way that people, especially conservatives, only talk about “returning to values” that arbitrarily privilege them.  (If certain obnoxious men hadn’t used this for centuries to explain why women should stay disempowered, it would bother me less.)       

Of course it’s obvious they would do this, I just want them to admit that their time-machine-trek might not be so great for everyone involved.  I, for instance, would hate to go all the way back to, say…2009 in Saudi Arabia, where I couldn’t vote, drive or leave the country.  I’d much prefer to step back to a nice village in Turkey 10,000 years ago when it seems women were at least equally empowered as men (Stanford Magazine said it, not me) and where, in all probability, we lived to ripe old ages.  Or take me to live with the Lakota (aka Sioux Indians).  I really like the way the teepee and everything else belonged to the women.  Of course I’d want to be there a few centuries before white people came and killed them off.  Read the rest of this entry »

Every once in a while, I’m on the guy’s side in a fight.  Like when women insist a man should put the toilet seat down.  I have no comment.  Since I’ve always lived with more men than women, I can’t see how one can argue that the seemingly-arbitrary down is better.  So I try not to say anything, lest I undermine my sisters.  

But in this case I have to admit: if I were Donald Bren I’d be pissed (article here).  Of course one has to be careful basing an opinion off of what the press reports, but the net of it is this: billionaire Donald Bren’s ex girlfriend  - one of many, apparently – and her two kids Christie and David have been trying to win $400,000 a month in child support.  That’s right: a month.  Each kid wants almost $5 million a year from a father who seems to have been more of a sperm donor than anything else.  The children are now 18 and 22.  The fight has been going on for 7 years, but it really doesn’t sound like they were starving: according to his side he’s already given them over $9 million.  That seems adequate to raise 50 children, much less two.  And her lawyers agree that he did pay $10,000 a month per child in child support for many years.  And let’s remember: Jennifer McKay Gold was never even his wife.    

David and Christie are kids for crying out loud!  Barely past puberty!  Who knows how to spend that much money?  If I were the judge I tell them to get jobs and come back in ten years and tell me what they learned about earning money.  I’d ask whether they think it’s really fair to forcibly take it away from a guy who never planned on having them in the first place.  

Child support laws are supposed to protect innocent children from financial neglect.  We don’t want them to starve or be forced to live on welfare simply because one of their parents refuses to contribute.  Clearly, at $10K per kid per month, starvation in this case was never a hazard they faced.  In fact Donald Bren’s mega-million dollar drama highlights two huge problems with the current system.   Read the rest of this entry »

Let me answer this question the way I see it: absolutely nothing. I find a lot of Russian men to be pretty great.

I’m in Moscow for the third time in two years, and prior to my first visit, here’s what I heard from numerous sources:

1.) Russian men are awful (behave badly and boorishly), which is why Russian women prefer American men.

2.) The ratio of Russian men to women is lower than most countries due to alcohol-related deaths so they are forced to seek husbands abroad.

3.) Russian women are “feminine” and accommodating and thus put their relationships with men first, over their careers.

So here I am, wondering: where are all the women who want to leave this country? Among the well-educated, employed women I’ve met, not a single one dreams of leaving.

Things are actually pretty good here if you have a decent job. More and more women have decent jobs. The men I’ve met (in the high tech sector, so admittedly more educated than average) are also smart as heck, quite funny, handsome and they’re hard workers. So where are the nasty ones who beat their wives when they drink? Maybe I’m only meeting the best guys, but it does make me wonder why more American women aren’t interested in Russian men. (See pg 168, chapter 11 of DFFP “Exotic Imports” for the benefits of importing a guy – link to the Kindle version here).

Read the rest of this entry »

Having recently done my first radio interview and scheduled several more, a girlfriend of mine suggested I check out Tom Leykis. She did say he’s outrageous.

I couldn’t sleep last night. So in the wee hours I went to Tom’s website and read a rant he wrote about Tiger Woods. Or rather, about how marriage is for losers. He writes that most men would leave their wives if they struck it rich and that men live with “the best woman they can afford”.

It always astounds me when some seemingly intelligent men can’t discern the difference between a gender issue and a socio-economic one. But then again, men are missing 30% of their connective brain tissue*. In some men this seems to be associated with an overall lack of empathy, and men certainly aren’t culturally encouraged to have empathy for women. Obviously, many of them don’t even try. (Just to be fair, if women were in charge, I’m sure there would be women like that too.) So in a way it’s not their fault. A combination of nature and nurture has condemned them to gender ignorance. This is where I come in: I’d like to help.

First of all, check out this link on Celebrity Single Moms. Anyone who hasn’t noticed that the wealthier and more attractive a woman is, the less inclined she is to marry (as Tiger probably should have been at 29, I agree with Tom Leykis there) simply hasn’t been paying attention.

Someone might also suggest that Tom veer from his anecdotal data and try googling some actual studies (heavily footnoted in my DFFP Chapter 13) on marital happiness; if he did, he would find that on every continent married men are the happiest of people. They are much happier than the average single guy. Conversely, married women are always unhappier than their single sisters. This tells us marriage serves men better than women. And finally…well, there was this comment following a long string of the same following Tom’s Tiger rant:

“Marriage in America is like Communism. It works well in theory but falls apart when practiced. Marriage is about money and just another way for women to transfer our wealth to them. If you really don’t think marriage is based on money, try getting a divorce without a prenup. If marriage is really as you would like it to be then women wouldn’t expect an exhobitant pay off to leave our lives but they do. Until this changes and until divorce laws change I agree with Mr. Levkis and I’m going to boycott marriage until it becomes an amicable thing for men (but we both know that will never happen).”

Unbelievable. See my point about lack of brain matter above. I submitted: “Why don’t you date a career woman for a change? 33% of women in American now earn more than their husbands you Neanderthal. When divorce happens in that circumstance, women pay alimony too. It’s not women’s fault that they were constrained from education and jobs. Remember the brilliant plan the US government had to make Rosie the Riveter give her job up so a man could have it after WWII? Women’s depression rates skyrocketed over the next twenty years (and counting). And women pilots who kicked ass in the war were also forced to quit post-war so more men could fly. You think they wanted that? You think any one wants to be demoted from such a fantastic job to cleaning toilets and scrubbing grout? If so, you’re insane. Let us work, pay us fairly and watch the old system change. EVERYONE prefers financial freedom and independence. It’s not gender specific, numb nut.” In retrospect, I could have avoided the name calling. But a girl can only take so much.

best,

cj

* note: while it’s true that women have 30% more connective tissue between brain hemispheres (not to mention more “gray matter” over all) than men, I don’t actually believe this makes men inferior. But since there are so many men who still seem to believe that women’s differences equal inferiority, I thought, just for fun, someone ought to state this brain difference the same way. Plus, why doesn’t anyone ever mention what that girls start talking before boys developmentally? If that were reversed, misogynists & chauvanists would have used it as evidence for male superiority years milleniums ago.

Tiger Wood’s mom sat in the front row when he made his apology. The “experts” said she was clearly angry, and I agree that her body language makes it look that way. However, it makes no sense that at this late date she would still be upset by the facts at hand. If we factor in her culture, here are some more likely reasons for her to be angry:

a.) Mom is pissed that Tiger hasn’t earned the prerogative to behave anyway he wants. After all, Tiger’s a star, he’s her star, and he shouldn’t have to apologize for anything. Ever.

b.) Mom also doesn’t want to acknowledge that she might be to blame in any way. Did she raise him wrong? (If she had left his father when his father was unfaithful, would that have sent Tiger a different message?)

c.) She’s angry about being included in what she considers a silly charade (the apology).

d.) She’s furious at Elin for not “standing by her man” and showing up at Tiger’s conference (a decision apparently made only the evening before).

I’m not one to blame a mother for what her kids do once they’ve grown up. But that doesn’t change the fact that we moms still often feel responsible. The conflict for a Thai mom is that so many Thai women are forced to endure infidelity from men. They have no acceptable (social or economic) alternative. Which probably means that his mother can’t understand why Tiger is in trouble in the first place.

And, if we’re to believe that Tiger’s father cheated on her (Tiger’s apparent words, not mine) his mother won’t understand why Elin is making such a fuss. The answer of course is: because she can. In every country where women have enough power, money and social status to leave philandering husbands they do. Sometimes they stay legally married while conducting their own affairs (as Jackie Kennedy did), but they do assert their right to freedom. What’s nice is to see that society is finally catching on to the fact that this is an issue of empowerment and values – not gender. Where and when women have the ability to also philander without serious consequence, and their value system doesn’t prohibit it (or he broke the vows first, so the fidelity pact is broken) they are just as likely as men are to do it.

Every business person and parent knows that it’s impossible to negotiate from a position of perceived powerlessness. So it’s not that I applaud female infidelity, but in order to be fair (and healthy), the power should be at least as balanced in a relationship as it is in nature. We all know that “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The way I read it, Tiger’s mom is angry that with all his talent, hard work and success he doesn’t have that absolute power. Because after all, that’s what society teaches us that boys are entitled to. And as the mother tigress, who can blame her?

cj

I remember, as a teen, falling for Alan Alda. I was watching a TV interview where he was asked, “Why are you a feminist?” (I think by Barbara Walters – a great woman’s role model in her own right – but it was so many years ago I can’t recall.) His answer was, “The question should be, why aren’t we all.” He was quite clear on the point that it only meant presuming women to be of equal intelligence and wishing for equality of opportunity and protection. And he’s right; here’s what Webster says about the definition:

“ the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes”

Of course there have been less reasonable advocates than Alan. Like at least one insanely radical group called The Feminists. Although I can’t imagine giving up men, much less as if they were some toxic addiction, I can muster up some sympathy for the basis of these women’s convictions. I suspect they were each more grievously wronged by men than most of us, leaving radical rage as the only acceptable path left. Maybe a bit like the Black Panthers and Malcolm X; at some point, when the injustice runs too long and too deep, the rage has to boil over. It’s understandable. But darn it, those broads, chicks, girls, radical “feminists” – they did ruin an otherwise excellent word.

The few times I’ve read about their “male conspiracy theory” I’ve wanted to point out that by the way, we women would never had won the vote back (we certainly had lots of voting power in Gatherer-Hunter societies) if half the American men hadn’t agreed to it. So you know, it’s not like they’re ALL bad.

At the same time, too many men have benefitted for too long from women’s virtual enslavement (globally) to make it change very fast. I’d like to think I’d be more kind if I were in their place – this mass of men – but honestly it would be nice to have someone always put me first, cook for me, keep things picked up and raise my kids. Especially if all I had to do was work from nine to five.

I might even get a little lazy, and allow it to continue. I might even tell my daughters to hold onto it as long as possible (“keep your husband in his place, honey”) before it slipped away. I might tell my sons that serving women was the key to their happiness too, and remind them that God is after all a woman. I really hate to think I’d be that awful of a parent, but I’m just saying: it’s possible.

But I digress. And now I’ve run out of time – if I don’t start the laundry soon the kids will have nothing to wear tomorrow. Back to finish this thought another time.

best,

cj

Alas. As much as I’d like to do this, I’m afraid it’s too late. Or too early; maybe in another generation or two the sting will have been leached entirely from the word “feminist”. Then women can claim it once more without men protecting their privates as they run for the nearest exit.

The other day I asked a twenty-nine year old sales woman if she considers herself a feminist. She said, “Oh, no.”

I was surprised. I said, “But you do believe women should have equal pay, education, protection and the vote, right?” She concurred, “of course.”

Pause.

I added, “But…you mean you’re not exactly going to go out and march in the streets until we get it?”

She nodded. “Exactly.”

Which is to say, enjoy email exchanges and even first or second dates with as many men as possible. I know, I know. Mom told us NOT to do this. And patriarchy hates it. But honestly, could there be a better reason to try it? And we’re not talking about SLEEPING with multiple men for crying out loud. We’re just talking about courtship.

Plus, even starting with twenty great-sounding emails from men, we will probably only end up seeing one or two because they are quite good at cancelling themselves out (wait and see). Having others on the list makes it much easier to drop the big favorite when he sends incredibly dumb email, or otherwise reveals a real deal-breaker. Let’s not start making excuses for bad behavior before we even meet them!

Plus, the double standard that “She’s a Slut and He’s a Stud…” (see Jessica Valenti’s delightful book on this: http://www.amazon.com/Other-Double-Standards-Every-Should/dp/1580052452 ) only refers to who we sleep with. Not who we FLIRT with. Throughout history women who have been aggressively courted by multiple suitors have been admired, not chastised. So let’s get on with it. The Rule again, restated: “On-line flirt with as many men as you have time for” when you are internet dating. Too much focus on any one of them until we’ve met and established true rapport or exclusivity can be the cause of three problems which it should be our goal to avoid.

The first one is: Crushing Disappointment. Very common when a relationship starts in cyberspace. Then we meet him and realize he resembles our fantasy about as much as a Hyundai resembles a Lamborghini (and men think we don’t know our cars!). Nothing wrong with a Hyundai, of course, unless it’s completely overpriced.

The Second Problem: Perceptual Blindness. This is an actual scientific term ( see Scientific American article on this: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=none-so-blind ) for the human ability to completely ignore (and deny) what is right in front of us in favor of what we are intently focused on. It’s why another rule includes introducing him to our friends as soon as possible after the third date (“gosh, I didn’t notice his wedding ring!”).

The Third Problem: Overlooking the Really GOOD Guy. The one who deserves a second and maybe even third date before you decide. It’s true: some of the best guys in the world get nervous and say the dumbest things (read about some famous men’s meetings with the women who are now their wives). Most of us know we don’t want the flashy creep who’s in love with his own reflection and on the make with every woman he meets. At the same time, the less obvious men of this genre may come close to matching our romantic ideal. It helps to admit that women have about as much a weakness for bad boys as men have for bad girls: they sometimes seem like big fun. They may even BE big fun at times. But let’s not confuse him with relationship material, and let’s give the nice guys a chance. Or two. Or maybe even three.

Simply stated, an internet fantasy about any man should be considered as delusional as our daydreams about actors who seem perfectly gorgeous, sensitive, intelligent and understanding. How can we possibly know until it is solidly grounded in fact? (Unless of course it’s George Clooney, who I’m quite sure really WOULD understand me.) One more time: you do NOT ACTUALLY KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS GUY FOR **SURE** until you’ve at LEAST met him, and even then, he could be a complete sociopath. Sociopaths are not fun. When they are found out they usually get dumped, but it’s a drag to be the one who provided him the free ride (financial, emotional, and/or sexual) since it’s always at the woman’s expense.

Of course tabloid headlines notwithstanding, falling for the wrong guy is rarely fatal. As long as it isn’t, we can recover. Quit him as soon as you realize what a loser he is and then forgive yourself for falling for him in the first place (I recommend Martina McBride’s song “Cry, Cry” ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/recsradio/radio/B000NOKAPI/ref=pd_krex_listen_dp_img?ie=UTF8&refTagSuffix=dp_img ) during this phase, and perhaps Kid Rock’s “I’m A Low Life” to remind you of him: http://www.amazon.com/gp/recsradio/radio/B000ULQUS0/ref=pd_krex_listen_dp_img?ie=UTF8&refTagSuffix=dp_img ). Whatever we do, let’s not imagine that a guy who lies about his job, his financial situation, his children, or the fact that his ex-girlfriends are all strippers isn’t going to lie to us about everything else.

Back to the multi-tasking credo: it’s hard for internet newbies to imagine everything that can go wrong. So let’s take a look at other women’s experience in meeting cyberspace fellows. What should we do if the one who currently writes like a fantasy heart throb is really one of these guys (we already handled Sociopath Steve)?

Serial Killer Sammy – he wants to be sure we keep our relationship with him very “private” and agree to meet him in a remote area (umm, DON’T)

Insecure Ian – anything and everything we do or don’t do – including being too busy to answer his email one day — indicates to him that we’re about to reject him, and he will freak out accordingly. (Recommendation: let him freak and let him go.)

Gag-me Gary – he cannot stop expressing himself in poetic prose that makes us want to throw up. He’s in love with the idea of being in love, not in love with us specifically. (Leave a smiling cardboard cut-out of yourself in the room in your place and see if he notices.)

Two-Timing Tim – he’s a Player pretending to be a romantic and it won’t be until we meet him the third time or vet him with our gal-pals that we figure this out. (When they say, “my, he certainly does have a high appreciation for women, doesn’t he?” that would be a hint.)

Sad Sack Sid – he never got over the fact that the love of his life left him and he never will. (Don’t waste your time trying to help him through this. It’s just his schtick for not appreciating you.)

Pathetic Pete – he dresses like he has no female relatives and has never read a men’s magazine. Plus, his haircut is the pits, he has bad personal hygiene AND he’s completely oblivious. Unless he’s making an anti-social statement (and you’re a rebel revolutionary in your own right), this suggests gross insensitivity to cultural cues. If not to a whole lot more. Pathetic Pete Reconsidered – of course if he IS aware and he has a great excuse (for example: “sorry to show up like this, I was just out fighting the Los Alamos blaze, but I didn’t want to miss my coffee with you”) he definitely deserves a second date, if not a freebie on the first one. (Wait – I meant free coffee, what were you thinking?)

Faithful Phil is a little like his cousin Gag-me Gary, only Phil wants us to know from the first date that he’s utterly faithful to every woman he’s ever been with and will be with us too (tip for Phil: none of us value very much what’s given up freely on the first date).

Honest Anthony – wants us to know he is “the most honest guy you’ll ever meet”. BIG RED FLAG. Normal people don’t have to assert this. Human beings tend to assume others are the same way they are. Most often this means: “I’m honest/faithful in my own way.” Which is almost always at odds with the way we would define it.

Swinging Stanley – you won’t know he’s a Swinger for a while, if he’s crafty (and/or over the age of twenty-five). It will start with him asking, “what do you think about threesomes?” Do not, in your wildest dreams, imagine this is an innocent question.

Boring Bradley – his emails are fabulous! But when we finally meet him we can’t believe it. Either it took him 8 hours to write each one, or he has one heck of a ghost writer because his conversation is entirely confined to monosyllables. (Of course, he could be simply stunned by your charismatic presence, but ask him if he has a friend who’s a writer anyway. And if you can have that guy’s number.)

Delusional Dan – women may not be THAT visual but we CAN tell the difference between 6’2″ and 5’9″. Also, for the record, also between “40ish” and “60ish” and definitely between 180 lbs and 300lbs. It’s very hard to recover from this sort of disappointment, and a guy like this isn’t likely to be straight with us (or himself) about other things as well.

See what you have to look forward to? Scary, eh? But the point is, even if you had five of the dates above in a two day period (better go for the decaf), as long as you know what to expect, you will end up more entertained than disappointed. You will surely laugh about some of it – as long as you weren’t foolish enough to pin all your hopes on one of them. Plus, your friends who are in relationships will enjoy hearing what happened (it makes them glad they’re not out there too).

At the end of the day, if he’s just right for you, THEN you can ditch the others. But when things don’t work out, isn’t it great to know you have another date or email to look forward to? Most men, by the way, learned to do this at puberty. That is, if they can get away with it.

Best,

cj