LADIES: WHY YOU'RE NOT MARRIED

LADIES: WHY YOU'RE NOT MARRIED - BY TRACY MCMILLAN (A.K.A. A VERY SMART WOMAN)

You want to get married. It's taken a while to admit it. Saying it out loud -- even in your mind -- feels kind of desperate, kind of unfeminist

[this is a larger theme: want happiness girls? kick that feminism streak to the curb.NOW].

, kind of definitely not you, or at least not any you that you recognize. Because you're hardly like those girls on TLC saying yes to the dress and you would never compete for a man like those poor actress-wannabes on The Bachelor.

You've never dreamt of an aqua-blue ring box.

Then, something happened. Another birthday, maybe. A breakup. Your brother's wedding. His wife-elect asked you to be a bridesmaid, and suddenly there you were, wondering how in hell you came to be 36-years-old, walking down the aisle wearing something halfway decent from J. Crew that you could totally repurpose with a cute pair of boots and a jean jacket. You started to hate the bride -- she was so effing happy -- and for the first time ever you began to have feelings about the fact that you're not married. You never really cared that much before. But suddenly (it was so sudden) you found yourself wondering... Deep, deep breath... Why you're not married.

Well, I know why.

How? It basically comes down to this: I've been married three times. Yes, three. To a very nice MBA at 19; a very nice minister's son at 32 (and pregnant); and at 40, to a very nice liar and cheater who was just like my dad, if my dad had gone to Harvard instead of doing multiple stints in federal prison.

I was, for some reason, born knowing how to get married. Growing up in foster care is a big part of it. The need for security made me look for very specific traits in the men I dated -- traits it turns out lead to marriage a surprisingly high percentage of the time. Without really trying to, I've become a sort of jailhouse lawyer of relationships -- someone who's had to do so much work on her own case that I can now help you with yours.

But I won't lie. The problem is not men, it's you. Sure, there are lame men out there, but they're not really standing in your way. Because the fact is -- if whatever you're doing right now was going to get you married, you'd already have a ring on it. So without further ado, let's look at the top six reasons why you're not married.

1. You're a Bitch.
Here's what I mean by bitch. I mean you're angry. You probably don't think you're angry. You think you're super smart, or if you've been to a lot of therapy, that you're setting boundaries. But the truth is you're pissed. At your mom. At the military-industrial complex. At Sarah Palin. And it's scaring men off.

The deal is: most men just want to marry someone who is nice to them. I am the mother of a 13-year-old boy, which is like living with the single-cell protozoa version of a husband. Here's what my son wants out of life: macaroni and cheese, a video game, and Kim Kardashian. Have you ever seen Kim Kardashian angry? I didn't think so. You've seen Kim Kardashian smile, wiggle, and make a sex tape. Female anger terrifies men. I know it seems unfair that you have to work around a man's fear and insecurity in order to get married -- but actually, it's perfect, since working around a man's fear and insecurity is big part of what you'll be doing as a wife.

[And you better fucking believe that's what husbands do for wives - DAILY.]

2. You're Shallow.
When it comes to choosing a husband, only one thing really, truly matters: character. So it stands to reason that a man's character should be at the top of the list of things you are looking for, right? But if you're not married, I already know it isn't. Because if you were looking for a man of character, you would have found one by now. Men of character are, by definition, willing to commit.

Instead, you are looking for someone tall. Or rich. Or someone who knows what an Eames chair is. Unfortunately, this is not the thinking of a wife. This is the thinking of a teenaged girl. And men of character do not want to marry teenaged girls. Because teenage girls are never happy. And they never feel like cooking, either.

3. You're a Slut.
Hooking up with some guy in a hot tub on a rooftop is fine for the ladies of Jersey Shore -- but they're not trying to get married. You are. Which means, unfortunately, that if you're having sex outside committed relationships, you will have to stop. Why? Because past a certain age, casual sex is like recreational heroin -- it doesn't stay recreational for long.

That's due in part to this thing called oxytocin -- a bonding hormone that is released when a woman a) nurses her baby and b) has an orgasm -- that will totally mess up your casual-sex game. It's why you can be f**k-buddying with some dude who isn't even all that great and the next thing you know, you're totally strung out on him. And you have no idea how it happened. Oxytocin, that's how it happened. And since nature can't discriminate between marriage material and Charlie Sheen, you're going to have to start being way more selective than you are right now.

4. You're a Liar.
It usually goes something like this: you meet a guy who is cute and likes you, but he's not really available for a relationship. He has some condition that absolutely precludes his availability, like he's married, or he gets around town on a skateboard. Or maybe he just comes right out and says something cryptic and open to interpretation like, "I'm not really available for a relationship right now."

You know if you tell him the truth -- that you're ready for marriage -- he will stop calling. Usually that day. And you don't want that. So you just tell him how perfect this is because you only want to have sex for fun! You love having fun sex! And you don't want to get in a relationship at all! You swear!
About ten minutes later, the oxytocin kicks in. You start wanting more. But you don't tell him that. That's your secret -- just between you and 22,000 of your closest girlfriends. Instead, you hang around, having sex with him, waiting for him to figure out that he can't live without you. I have news: he will never "figure" this out. He already knows he can live without you just fine. And so do you. Or you wouldn't be lying to him in the first place.

5. You're Selfish.

[AT LAST, SOMEONE SAYS IT]

If you're not married, chances are you think a lot about you. You think about your thighs, your outfits, your naso-labial folds. You think about your career, or if you don't have one, you think about doing yoga teacher training. Sometimes you think about how marrying a wealthy guy -- or at least a guy with a really, really good job -- would solve all your problems.

Howevs, a good wife, even a halfway decent one, does not spend most of her day thinking about herself. She has too much s**t to do, especially after having kids. This is why you see a lot of celebrity women getting husbands after they adopt. The kids put the woman on notice: Bitch, hello! It's not all about you anymore! After a year or two of thinking about someone other than herself, suddenly, Brad Pitt or Harrison Ford comes along and decides to significantly other her. Which is also to say -- if what you really want is a baby, go get you one. Your husband will be along shortly. Motherhood has a way of weeding out the lotharios.

[My only reserve here - men don't prefer other people's kids, and you're not a Hollywood movie star, so skip this one and just be really serious about who you pick]

6. You're Not Good Enough.
Oh, I don't think that. You do. I can tell because you're not looking for a partner who is your equal. No, you want someone better than you are: better looking, better family, better job.

Here is what you need to know: You are enough right this minute. Period. Not understanding this is a major obstacle to getting married, since women who don't know their own worth make terrible wives. Why? You can fake it for a while, but ultimately you won't love your spouse any better than you love yourself

[ready that part ten times over aloud. Then repeat.]

. Smart men know this.

I see this at my son's artsy, progressive school. Of 183 kids, maybe six have moms who are as cute as you're trying to be. They're attractive, sure. They're just not objects. Their husbands (wisely) chose them for their character, not their cup size.

Alright, so that's the bad news. The good news is that I believe every woman who wants to can find a great partner. You're just going to need to get rid of the idea that marriage will make you happy. It won't. Once the initial high wears off, you'll just be you, except with twice as much laundry.

Because ultimately, marriage is not about getting something -- it's about giving it. Strangely, men understand this more than we do. Probably because for them marriage involves sacrificing their most treasured possession -- a free-agent penis -- and for us, it's the culmination of a princess fantasy so universal, it built Disneyland.

The bottom line is that marriage is just a long-term opportunity to practice loving someone even when they don't deserve it. Because most of the time, your messy, farting, macaroni-and-cheese eating man will not be doing what you want him to. But as you give him love anyway -- because you have made up your mind to transform yourself into a person who is practicing being kind, deep, virtuous, truthful, giving, and most of all, accepting of your own dear self -- you will find that you will experience the very thing you wanted all along:

Love.

Out-rageous

Think of stories like this the next time you consider all police "good guys" and anyone they might be after a 100% "bad guy."

Two CA Men Sue for False Arrest in DV Cases
February 7th, 2011 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

The misuse of domestic violence laws and faulty police practices when DV is alleged just keep on coming. This case out of San Carlos, California (San Jose Mercury News, 2/4/11) bears some striking similarities to this one out of Atherton, California, just a few miles away (Palo Alto Online, 2/2/10).

In the more recent of the two, it looks like Mark Littell Adams’s wife went to the doctor to have a finger splinted. The doctor decided, on the basis of what we don’t yet know, that Mark had attacked her. So he called the police who, Adams says,

forced their way into his Kelton Avenue home on April 23 without a search warrant or probable cause, and arrested him on suspicion of domestic violence against his wife.

[ENTERING A PRIVATE RESIDENCE WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT OR CAUSE IS A CRIME. ITS CALLED BREAKING AND ENTERING. THE POLICEMEN THAT DID IT SHOULD BE BROUGHT UP ON CHARGES. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. PERIOD.]

Prosecutors never filed charges against him and, three months later closed their file. Now, Adams has gone to court requesting that a judge make a finding of actual innocence in his case. If the judge agrees, Adams’s arrest record will be expunged. He’s also filed suit for deprivation of his civil rights.

Meanwhile, Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said,

“The evidence wasn’t sufficient enough for us to prosecute, but we also believe the evidence does not show his innocence.”

[Really? Then divulge the evidence you have that suggests ANY GUILT OF ANY KIND. YOU HOLD A PUBLIC OFFICE - DIVULGE TO THE PEOPLE THIS 'SECRET' INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE.]

That’s interesting because, in the earlier case out of Atherton, he said

“It was not sufficient (evidence) to prosecute, but it was not a case where we would agree to declaration of factual innocence.”

Maybe someone should write some new lines for Mr. Wagstaffe. He’s overusing the ones he has. That’s because a judge in the earlier case agreed with the Atherton man police had arrested and in fact issued a formal declaration of innocence.

[So the prosecutor didn't find him innocent, BUT A JUDGE DID? Again, WHERE IS YOUR 'EVIDENCE' MR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR?!!? YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC, NOT JAIL US WITH THUG TATICS AND NO CAUSE, YOU GODDAMN EGOMANIAC TYRANT.]

That case involved a man named Jon Buckheit who was involved with an unnamed woman. He placed a 911 call to police claiming she was being violent toward him, but, in an all-too-familiar outcome, they arrested him, not her.

Like Adams, he was arrested, like Adams he was never charged, like Adams he’s sued the police and county for violation of civil rights, like Adams he claimed actual innocence and like Adams it all came about amid allegations of domestic violence. And in both cases it was the man who was arrested despite there being no obvious evidence of wrongdoing on his part.

One aspect of the Buckheit case that may or may not be present in the Adams case is that a police officer seems to have illegally altered the police report of the incident to include an allegation of child abuse. The officer who actually made the original report testified under oath that it had been altered by another officer.

[THIS IS POLICE CORRUPTION. IT IS THE THUGS TRYING TO COVER THEIR TRACKS. WHERE IS THE PRESS ON THIS? ALTERING POLICE REPORTS? WHAT'S NEXT TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE? OH YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT - THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE.]

For his part, Adams says that he’s found it hard to get a copy of the audio tapes of his own arrest. That bears a definite resemblance to the same difficulties Buckheit had in getting his police report. And, in yet a further similarity, Adams says he thinks the audio tapes may have been doctored.

[What was I saying again? Something about tampering with evidence... Where the fuck do we live? Saudi Arabia? Are these police officers or hired goons? They are making a mockery of the entire police force. Why would anyone trust people like this?!?!?!]

We’ll see what happens in the two cases. But what’s happened so far isn’t exactly new. I’ve reported before that police are trained to believe that, in DV incidents, it’s men who are perpetrators and women who are victims, so it’s no great surprise when they act accordingly. Indeed it’s those rare occasions when a woman is arrested on a DV charge that are the exceptions.

The most telling example of all comes from the training materials for Maine police officers answering domestic violence calls. Not only are they written in almost exclusively gender-specific language, their hypothetical examples include not a single one in which officers are instructed to arrest the woman.

That’s true even in the case in which both the woman and the man admit to officers that she hit him and he didn’t hit her. Combined with objective evidence of injury, most people might think she would be the one arrested, but no; police learn that, once again, he’s the correct one to arrest even though he has committed no crime.

That looks a lot like what happened a continent away in the Adams and Buckheit cases.

Runaway Husband Syndrome

Make sure it doesn't happen to you. Because its a vicious and dangerous killer and its on the move. It could gobble up your children at night, it could ruin your life. So be prepared! Learn to spot the signs! Your husband could LEAVE YOU! So check for any sign that he could be going and if you spot something suspicious, why maybe you should leave him first! Call a lawyer! Know your rights! Know what you are ENTITLED to!

[At this point, most divorced men should have killed their computer monitor as many men have been divorced for reasons which still leave their mouths agape, questioning what happened after coming home to a locked door or accusatory state social worker].

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/runaway-husbands-unfaithful-abandon-wives-warning/story?id=10829180

Let's start with the low-hanging fruit:

"As a therapist, she had counselled couples on divorce, but Stark was completely unprepared for the disintegration of her marriage."

- Are you freaking kidding me. Nice piece of journalism, dear author. She's a couples therapist who couldn't keep her own marriage together? She saw no signs, held no suspicions, heard no complaints, etc.? Impressive. What intuition. That's like being a professional golfer who can't get par at the local mini-golf. What does she tell her clients? I assume advice she herself cannot take? My guess is that her husband is the Lester Burnham type (See American Dream) and he just goes along with the program. She's too busy having a big, sexy career to notice her husband is a self-loathing schmuck. So was he... until he decided not to be, it seems.

"Three years ago, Montreal author and therapist Vikki Stark took the red-eye flight home from a book tour, eager to be back in her loving husband's arms."

Oh, cute. Check it out - she takes a HARD, HARD flight back from HER OWN book tour, to see her 'loving husband.' I guess his job was to go meet her at the airport and welcome her back from her long trip. A trip that was all about her success and her career. Jesus, I'm already thinking this was one understanding guy. So she has a big shot career. What does he have? What does he contribute to the family, to the relationship? It sounds like she makes the money. I mean, he's at home, apparently, waiting for HER.

"How do you deal with the hit to self-esteem when you feel like an old dish rag he threw away?" she said. "How do we turn anything life throws at us for an opportunity for growth?"

Sorry? He "threw you away?" How? This lady was on her own book tour - hey lady, what was your husband doing? Does he have a career that he LEAVES YOU AT HOME FOR WEEKS AT A TIME FOR? And if he did, would someone whisper the word 'selfish' about him? Would someone ask him what his wife did all alone for weeks? I guess he understood your career.... or you thought he did. But perhaps you running off to your career (like a mistress, nearly), for weeks at a time, made him feel like the one that was a old dish rag that was thrown away? Do ya' think? Just maybe? Emasculating maybe? Yeah.

"More than 400 of women aged 45 to 60 from around the world responded to her online survey, and their stories were mind-boggling."

Around the world? Wow. A whole 400. Blow me down. 400 out of.... what hundreds of millions? You could make it 5000 women and still be a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the women in the world. That number does not EVEN BEGIN to portend any sudden-man-leaving crisis. Besides, the reasons for those husbands leaving could be wide and varied and have nothing to do with her situation. Her husband had no role. He couldn't contribute anything she couldn't. The only job left for him was to cook and clean and apparently that wasn't enough for him. He should've told her that a long time ago. Now she has to troll for another poor-luck loser. Study after study shows testosterone-filled, alpha-male, top-earning men are happier than the "even-steven" earning men, and the WIVES of the higher-earning men are happier than the wives of the earning-equal wives, but I guess book-tour genius didn't read those studies. Of course she could've just had a heart-to-heart talk with two dozen non-alpha lesbians but that was too much work as well. She was too busy patting herself on the back for knowing so much. Take a lesson, madam. Relationships are like the ocean or the stock market - just when you think you have them figured out they blow up in your face. Be humbled, priestess.


As always, the author, Ms. Stark, directs the entirety of her book on HIM. What the man did wrong. What he was after. Why she wasn't good enough for him (meaning his false expectations). Blah, blah, blah. What she might've done wrong? Her culpability in his leaving? Non-existent to this woman. In other words, she doesn't really want to know why he left. She wants to make herself feel better; she wants to convince herself it wasn't her fault. At all. Even a little bit. What bunk.

Blissfully we get to the truth, which the author somehow is blown away by. What a moron. Here it is:

"[The men] are often pillars of the community: doctors, dentists, professors, pastors, little league coaches, who seemed to be involved with their families and community.

"People look at the couple and see them as having the model marriage," she said. "That's part of why it's so devastating to friends and family -- if that couple could split up, what marriage is secure?" [Oh Lord - what is this, a NOW poster article for divorce and distrust of all men everywhere?]

In 95 percent of the cases, Stark found, the men ran to other women, almost always younger, but surprisingly not "trophy wives."

"The girlfriend is not sexy and gorgeous," said Stark. "Often she is rather ordinary, not as accomplished as the wife and looks up to him and laughs at his jokes and makes the man feel like he's king of the world."

Holy shit. There you go. You can act surprised now. And I do mean act. So the secret to men's hearts is.... not net total sexiness of a woman? IMAGINE THAT. He's a human being. No kidding. Who'd'a thunk it? So the lady he winds up with is... a feminine woman who looks at him as a provider with a distinct role in the relationship, someone who admires him and needs him. Stunning. Really. I'm blown away. I mean, what MAN (not mangina, ladies) would want a woman like that!?!?! Oh guess what ladies - all men more or less want that. He doesn't want to compete with you to make money or be very successful. That's mostly HIS role. Or at least the one he ENJOYS living. Welcome to THE TRUTH. Men with balls (like me), say it. YOU seldom hear it or believe it when you do. When you out-earn your man or else out-accomplish him, he feels like a second-class citizen because that's what men are supposed to do. You're doing his job better than he can. Congrats. So what do you need him for? And don't give me a load of shit about "wanting" him or "loving him" or any of that other bullshit. Love and want are sweet for kiddie stories. But out in the real world they come and go. Love can be fleeting, I'm sad to say. As Chris Rock said, You can fall in and out of love with your wife several times over the course of your relationship. Now, NEED on the other hand.... Need, IN THE REAL FRICKING WORLD, is truthfully much more dependable. These men have a role with their new ladies. They are needed. They do something she can't do. It makes them feel worthwhile, depended on, needed, relied on. That makes men feel good. GET IT!?!?!? EVERYTHING about their old wife DID NOT make them feel ANY OF THAT. And that is a BAD thing. Comprendé? With his new wife he gets to feel like a MAN. A God-made, chest-thumping gorilla. Not someone's girlfriend with a penis. Kill the word 'partner' someone. It suggests everyone does the same things and should be happy to do the same things. Men have been force fed this shit and they've swallowed it, grudgingly. But the deep down truth is that they fucking hate it. I want to feel like a man and make you feel like a woman. Want to be someone's perfectly equal double's partner? THEN GO PLAY TENNIS WITH MABEL FROM NEXT DOOR. I'm your fucking husband. I make hard decisions, eat people for money, provide, keep the kids inline, and fuck your brains out. Sound so terrible? I've got article after article all over the web and traditional media about girls practically BEGGING to know where all the "men" have gone. Real men sister. The men I describe. Some women turned off by that? No sweat. There is some mangina waiting for them somewhere. The rest? They are smiling ear to ear at what I described. The marlboro man. Trust me. I've talked to them. You might try my little lost author.

It typically works out best when the man has the big shot career and his wife doesn't because if she had one too then tell me who cooks, who cleans, does the laundry and takes care of the kids? Answer: no one. The women's movement claims it'll just magically get done or else you will both do it. Yeah, right. That's been the cause of half the man-woman fights in America. Men just traditionally DON'T CARE as much as women do how clean the house or kitchen is. They just don't. Period. Forcing them to doesn't change reality. And sharing is the 'best' case scenario here. In our above case, wifey is gone away with her bigshot career. So the above list falls solely on hubby's shoulders. I guess he doesn't care. Or more likely, he did, but didn't have the balls to say so because his wife is the family breadwinner. So what happened? He realized he'd rather live life poor with his balls intact.

Me too buddy.

More nonesense:

"Many wives reported their husbands were "disgruntled and unhappy" at work, and figured they couldn't leave the job, but could change partners."

No, they wanted a job they could be more successful at and maybe change your relationship dynamic which is pretty shitty at present.

"According to Stark's research, these runaways appear attentive and engaged before they check out, never mentioning discontent. They are typically "conflict avoiders" and described by their wives as "narcissistic.""

No, they can't admit they feel like a loser because they make squat and live off their own fucking wife. Yes, it is their fault if they are discontent, but don't tell their wife that. But what exactly are they going to say? That he's jealous of his own wife's success? The comeback to that he already knows: "If my being successful is a problem, why don't YOU go out and become a success? I'm not going to be an underachiever so that you can feel better!" And of course, that's all true. But since this guy can't or won't do that, he's made another choice: find a different woman that makes him seem more of a alpha male. Bad choice? Not as bad as deciding to marry a woman who always had more potential than he did. If a man is threatened by that, fine; but don't marry a woman like that. And ladies... for the most part... don't marry guys who are going to resemble your housekeeper more than they will your husband.

"But when they blurt out the news, their reasons are "nonsensical, exaggerated, trivial or fraudulent," she said. Oddly, she reported, most of the men leave between October and January, perhaps because their unhappiness is amplified by holiday stress."

She's reaching here. The holidays make them feel more like a pussy because other guys are giving expensive presents and feeling, you know, LIKE A MAN. While these guys get by just because their wife offers them a joint checking account. Holidays make them feel more pathetic.

"Quite a number of men and women have affairs, and I can understand where marriages do break down," she said, "but to leave without involving a spouse at all?"

Wait, what? Men AND women have affairs? What does that prove? So the men aren't cheating anymore than the women are?

"It's like a parasitic relationship," she said. "He depends on his wife, and when he finds someone else to boost his self-esteem, he hops from the wife to the next partner."

Nope. Not even close. He has no self-esteem with you. Zero. His new lady gives him one. The poor pussy can't even tell you he resents you for emasculating him. Why don't you just bench press more than he can while you're at it.

"When women seek help, often therapists don't understand how devastating it is, said Stark."

This is fucked. And when a man is divorced by his wife, who leaves with his house, his kids and so much of his money he can never have a private life ever again... WHAT DOES THAT GUY FEEL? Why don't you look up divorced male suicide rates and learn a fucking lesson you frigging moron.

"Reality is distorted and the sense of betrayal is huge," she said. "If I can't trust 'George,' who I trusted with my heart and mind, who can I trust? You start to question all relationships."

No kidding. That serial dater breaking some poor woman's heart on page 2 of Dear Abbey? Yeah. Now you know how he trusts women about as far as he can throw them. I imagine you'll do the same. Isn't divorce great!

Go focus on your career. Its your brand new husband. Don't cry and be lonely, it makes a bad professional impression.


Addendum: To buttress my earlier thoughts, examine here, dear reader, there is a central theme at play here: two people in a relationship both sacrifice for one another - this is a tried and true axiom of marriage. When one person is having an AMAZING career, then the other often takes a supporting role - when a man plays the supporting role, this threatens him and that should be understood early on. Secondly, when both people have bigshot careers, that takes a helluva lot of time out of the relationship. Both people will feel "cheated" out of time with the other, and both will demand more and get less. A career can be every bit as demanding as a spouse - even more so. Many successful and "famous" people (Emeril, Martha Stewart, etc.) got divorced along the way. Why? Because they lived at work. They basically married their job. And I don't know anyone who can stay married to two people at the same time. One is hard enough. This is why the "traditional" method (oh, no, be scared! the word 'traditional' was used!) is for the man to have a career and for his wife to stay home with the kids - some people can live with the opposite, but many try to and fail. Many find out that they are not as "flexible" and "liberal" as they thought they were when it comes to gender roles and money. And that's fine. The truth is most men and women want "traditional" roles and studies show that men and women in those roles more often report being happy. What is happening with situations like the one above is that a man - a weak man - who didn't know what he wanted or who lied about what he wanted - swallowed the feminazi "line." That men should somehow feel guilty for not supporting a successful spouse and should eat their pride and their masculinity and accept the fact that they are the "supporting" spouse because their wife "deserves" it.

Deserve has nothing to do with anything here. And her happiness is not superior to his and vice versa. Some men can do it - some just aren't threatened by their wife's success and have their own hopes and dreams that they take responsibility for. But for many men, its just too emasculating. Its not right or wrong - its just the truth, and if it upsets someone's social agenda, I don't give a shit. Men - be who are, period.

Ladies - better really grill your man about how accepting he is about your career, and you better really appreciate him if he is accepting; it generally goes against his nature and as you've seen above.... that can blow up in both your faces.

Further, regardless of your gender, any career that is TOO successful will wind up being your ONLY relationship; this seems to be especially the case for women. When someone talks about being professionally 'successful' you should immediately think they are alone or will be soon. Professional success eventually tends to equal personal failure. And THAT, it should be pointed out, typically hits women MUCH harder than it hits men; again, THIS IS WHY WOMEN MORE NATURALLY ASSUME A SUPPORTING ROLE. Given that most women judge themselves by the success of their relationships, perhaps a bigshot career is not their path to real happiness?

Now its time for our female readers to buy a REALLY nice handbag, down an apple martini and think about going shoe shopping tomorrow; these things are the modern woman's elixir for the chronic love deficiency that makes her deeply unhappy morning, noon, and night.

-JB

The Sad State of Affairs

Do I really have to say?

From Yahoo Marriage and Family:




If you told these lines to WOMEN from so-called "conservative" countries they would ask you just how long it took your man to get rid of you as you clearly are a selfish person who does not even BEGIN to understand what it takes to be married. Here, of course, it passes as run-of-the-mill.

The Fed - Bailing Out Every Bankster, but.......

Long story short.... The Treasury dept. - WITH YOUR MONEY - is giving 300 billion to a PRIVATE bank, called The Federal Reserve Board (who prints money to bail out other private banks), and when the Federal reserve board LOSES ALL OF THAT MONEY (they're down to a few billion), the Treasury gives them even more OF YOUR MONEY.

Further, the Treasury is only allowed, legally, to bail out The Fed to 100 billion - that law, like so many others, is being completely ignored. But hey, its only 200 billion in taxpayer money that's being wasted. No big deal. You can afford it, after all. Its not like you have your own bills.

Banksters Gone Wild

Let's Summarize:




These guys use the word "scheme", but I prefer "scam."

Recovery? Please.

Bottom line: THERE IS NO "RECOVERY."

A few years ago we had a massive banking and credit crisis. In fact, it wasn't much of a 'crisis' if you ask me. It was a natural economic cycle. Economic cycles work in years and many times even decades. This is the nature of them. Ask any serious economist. There have been decades of lopsided growth, contraction and outright booms in economies before, all over the world. Its the nature of men and markets to expand to meet demand for goods and services, and typically they over-expand. For the past 20 years credit expanded and a few years ago that came to an end. That's just economics. Its happened before and I'm sure it'll happen again. The important point is that its over. It was in place for a long time but now overall credit is shrinking, not expanding. For you mathematical folks, what's happening is called "reversion to the mean." Basically, our credit and banking system became too large and over-sized. The system was out-of-balance and is now righting itself.

Well, it tried to right itself. It would've corrected the imbalance in a matter of weeks and the economy would've gone back to organic recovery. Instead, the Federal Reserve Board stepped in to save the gambling, swashbuckling banksters and their friends to the tune of some 12 trillion dollars to keep the ponzi scheme afloat. But of course, this was done in the name of saving "the system," and by extension.... you and me?

That last part is the problem. Bailing out the banks, foreign banks, hedge funds, pension funds and every other squealing gambler does NOTHING for you and me. NOTHING. Your debts are due. Period. Best thing for you to do is refuse to pay any bank that was [illegally] bailed out. That includes all top-four big banks: Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase. Your debt will be a total loss for the bank that they must right off. Your debt will be sold to a debt collection agency for 25 cents on the dollar who will try to talk you into paying with empty threats. Then your debt will be sold for 15 cents on the dollar to another agency who will do the same thing. If after 6 years (less or more depending on your state), the statute of limitations runs out and your debt is considered free and clear. Any effort to collect it after that is null and void, regardless of what the collector demands or claims. Period. That is the law. I guarantee banksters are at this very moment trying to convince states to change these laws to 25 years or more, but for now it is what it is. If you did this, yes, your credit score would be pretty bad and you wouldn't be able to use any credit cards that didn't carry really steep interest rates for a while, but so what. Declaring bankruptcy is worse, as your debts will not be discharged. Since "they" "reformed" bankruptcy, you have to pay the bulk of your debt back over a period of time, in essence rendering you a debt slave. You're better off negotiating with a second or third-level collection agency. After all, they paid 15 cents on the dollar for your debt. If they can collect $2,000 out of $10,000, they will be making money.

There are no bailouts in capitalism. That is something the "regulators" and "authorities" will never tell you. First off, the "regulators" and "authorities" are all former Wall St. people who intend on working there again - this is common knowledge by now. Secondly, these people will never tell you they never had to do anything when the big banks got in trouble. The whole banking system would've resolved itself with not one taxpayer nickel. The bad banks go under, their bad loans are bought by banks that are not in trouble and then IF - that is, IF, there are people or businesses that are good credit risks that need loans, the small and medium banks that expanded into the place left by the large, failed banks, will make those loans. The derivatives trade, mortgage-backed securities and other packaged, high-risk rubbish would've been sold off for the pennies on the dollar is was worth and the Wall St., passing-paper economy that resulted in outrageous bonuses would've collapsed, but Main St. would've gone on as usual. After all, Main St. America does not get their small business loan from Goldman Sachs. This much should be obvious.

None of this would cost you and I one nickel. But of course "we" could not "let" that happen because it was "bad" for... "us." That is a complete lie. There is no direct trace between Wall St. and Main St.. If anything, your loan from Wells Fargo, BofA, or JPMorgan Chase, should it be liquidated when the bank collapsed, would be sold for less than it was worth in all likelihood. Probably 70 or 80 cents on the dollar if you typically pay at least your minimum balance on time. If you don't, it would be sold off for much less... as little as 25 or 30 cents on the dollar. In that case, the new owner of your loan would only have to recoup half of your debt with them to make a good profit. You win, they win.

But "we" couldn't "let" that happen, even though that is how free markets have been dealing with such problems since time began. No, "we" needed to save the "banks." Banks that of course, demanded your debts bank at once as they were still insolvent. How nice for them that "we" saved them from collapse... Question: How can you save someone who has already collapsed? You can't put a volcano back together after it has erupted and yes, this is pretty much the same thing... Once a bank is known to be insolvent, other banks won't do business with it for all the tea in China. And since we have 4 HUGE banks that STILL have Trillions in bad loans (nicknamed "toxic paper"), those banks will be bleeding money for years and years, even with bailout money. This is also common knowledge among finance folks. So with no loans to make (the economy is still in very bad shape) and no mortgages to package and sell-off for fat fees, what did the banks do to keep from going out of business?

Lied.

They basically lied, lied, and lied some more. They dumped all the bad loans they could onto The Fed and the rest they threw into a bucket on their balance sheet called "Level 3 assets." That's supposed to mean, those assets are hard to value and typically contain really esoteric and odd securities or assets. Its pretty much a very small accounting category every bank can use that has a relatively small number in it. But in this case, it was the perfect loophole. Level 3 was immediately saddled with mortgage and credit card loans. Those NEVER get thrown into Level 3 - because they are not hard to value and never have been. The problem is that those things were now worth a fraction of what they used to be worth, and the only way to hide that, in a panic, is to slap them under "Level 3." The "regulators" should've balked at this and demanded those loans be taken out of "Level 3" and properly valued - REGARDLESS of their value. But this made our banksters sad :( and would've shown the massive losses they had hidden, so "we" couldn't force them to do that. So the bankers sit around and wait for their collapsing loans that no one is paying (called a non-performing loan or NPL), to be completely worthless and in the meantime they pray and demand more free money from the Fed to try to make money with... usually in HIGHLY non-banking types of ways... like buying stocks, bonds, commodities (oil, gas, soybeans, wheat, etc.) to profit from the rising prices abnormally low interest rates are causing (generally called "inflation"), and basically drive up the cost of everything you need and consume. "We" must let "them" do that to us as "the banks must be saved at all costs," we are told.

After all, its good for 'our' economy.

If you suspect the rising of prices (without additional demand from consumers) butchers the economy and kills your discretionary spending on other things like gadgets, cars, clothes, toys and all things that make the economy grow, then you would be right. But screw you. That's Wall St.'s attitude. They have their own problems. And while they laugh about the public's ruination for their profit, they only watch in horror as time passes, knowing the banks are still bankrupt, and now entire nations, having brought billions in bank debt onto their own books, are the next to fall.

Nations don't fall. Power brokers in National capitals with HUGE egos don't go home with empty pockets to tell their wives their bad decisions helped bankrupt the nation and now they will have to get real jobs to feed the kids. Not with unofficial unemployment at 18%. Yikes. Who would want to look for work now!?!?!?! Being King is a much better gig.

So Nations will next war with each other. After all, if you don't distract people from asking questions about why the banks need TRILLIONS in permanent bailout funds, you might not get reelected anyway and your friends in "finance" might lose the gravy train you have made for them. So its "defend 'our' country" and a call to arms. 'We' have to kill some 'bad' people to defend 'our' nation. Who will we kill? It doesn't really matter. They'll make something up. A shot is fired, someone fires back, etc. etc.. It'll be shoot first and ask questions later. Even more so with all the countries in massive debt and no way out.

There IS NO COLLECTION AGENCY FOR NATIONS.

You should be pretty disgusted by now. So get ready. Instead of going to war, perhaps there is a better solution for 'our' nation.

Revolution.

THE POOL WE LIVE IN IS DARK

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/business/02speed.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&ref=business

As it has grown, Direct Edge and other new venues have sucked volumes away from the Big Board and Nasdaq. The N.Y.S.E. accounted for more than 70 percent of trading in N.Y.S.E.-listed stocks just five years ago. Now, the Big Board handles only 36 percent of those trades itself. The remaining market share is divided among about 12 other public exchanges, several electronic trading platforms and vast so-called unlit markets, including those known as dark pools.

Think about this for just one second. Stocks listed on the New York Stock Exchange are only traded on the exchange itself 36 percent of the time? What on earth is going on? Where is the bulk of the trading taking place if not on the regulated, public exchange? Other exchanges and.. unlit markets? What the hell is an unlit market? Does that sound like a good thing to you? Dark Pools? Do you know what that means? It means that the trading - 70 percent of it - is being done off an exchange. Do you, dear reader, know the purpose of an exchange!??!?! Its to ensure that all the people trading on it are doing it with real money, with real collateral for the contracts they have entered into. So if I sell someone a stock, the exchange verifies with my broker that I really have the shares. Or if I sell a stock 'option' - a type of bet based on a given stock and its price, that I have enough money to cover that sale, should the price move against me.

Given that some stock option sales have virtually UNLIMITED EXPOSURE and RISK (see selling naked), I find it to be QUITE REASSURING that SEVEN OUT OF TEN trades, trades of UNKOWN TYPES AND AMOUNTS are taking place EVERY SINGLE DAY in the middle of a global credit and currency crisis on no exchange with zero transparency into them. With no exchange, we have no idea what the prices are. With no price discovery of ALL trades and stocks at ALL times, the actual price of every stock is in great doubt. Do tell me, dear reader, HOW CAN WE KNOW EXACTLY HOW MANY TRADES and IN WHAT AMOUNTS are taking place in dark pools if they are not traded on a PUBLIC exchange? Or perhaps this is why we are having sudden "flash crashes" of stocks on a microsecond basis with no "black swan," or unforeseen, catastrophic event to cause them!

Now, this is America and in America, we honor private contracts between private parties. Its none of the government's goddamn business who is doing what with whom. HOWEVER, when TAXPAYER, that is, PUBLIC money - YOUR MONEY AND MINE - is being used to bailout these private parties BECAUSE THEY TOOK TOO MUCH RISK WITH TOO LITTLE COLLATERAL (itself, fascist and corporatist), then EVERY SINGLE TRANSACTION BETTER GODDAMN WELL BE MONITORED TO ENSURE THE PRIVATE PARTIES CAN PAY AND DO PAY, WITHOUT CAUSING A NATIONAL CRISIS AND DEMANDING OUR MONEY. And instead - INSTEAD - these private parties are allowed to deal in secret, without public knowledge, yet still enjoy public guarantees, public money and public backstops?

And then of course THERE IS THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD. This is quite literally every rich man's best friend. This is a private bank. Read that again, dear reader. A PRIVATE BANK. This bank's chariman, Ben "Heliopter" Bernanke, may be appointed by the President (another bank employee) and confirmed by the Senate, but he doesn't REPORT to them. He reports to... well... the nation's PRIVATE BANKS! He's the backstop for the banks. He prints money and gives it to them (at about 0% interest) and buys all the garbage loans they've made to part-time Target workers for 500 grand homes. This man is a bankster's best friend.

So this is The Scam: the private banks lend wildly and recklessly and buy stocks (historically, a VERY risky asset), bonds, foreign government debt, options, mortgage debt in the old days, municipal debt, hell any kind of 'investment' that they think will pay them interest or rise in price. And if the prices crash and they get into real trouble, then just call The Fed. They'll float you the loan to get you out of the mess and buy you time by changing accounting rules, lowering interest rates and even buying the junk that is crashing in value and bankrupting you - they'll buy that junk at full value. Why you just can't lose. Or did you not know how so many "banks" with "executives," "managing partners," and "joint interests" all seem to make millions and billions in salary and bonuses EACH AND EVERY QUARTER without fail?

Its because those "insiders," those "in the know," those "friends of The Fed," aren't worried. They have their own bank. And their bank takes anything in exchange for a few trillion.

You? You have a reformed bankruptcy law and a mailbox full of credit card bills and a child support agency that threatens to throw you in jail - while your "child support" (that is nearly 40% of your income - $1,200/month and up) accrues. That is, when you leave the hospital, prison, or what have you, you will owe BACK "SUPPORT" PLUS INTEREST to a woman who could very well be making six figures a year, be remarried, or both.

Now that I think about it, its a wonder all the men aren't trying to be banksters. Or may be they are.

A Pyramid DESIGNED to Collapse

A financial post as the country's finances are little more than a pyramid scheme these days:

From Scott Blier of iBankCoin.com:

It is beyond the scope of comprehension that the FED actually wants and needs to CREATE inflation when their job is to supposedly suppress and limit it. But it is all a part of the perverting of the price mechanism of today’s markets. Does this sound legal to you?

1. The FED and Treasury (THEY) creates money out of thin air.
2. THEY then lend it to banks for nothing (0%, free money).
3. Banks then lend back to THEM.
4. THEY allow banks to act as intermediary to make a guaranteed profit.
5. THEY buy Treasuries from banks for cash and allow them to Hypothecate that money the standard 11:1.
6. THEY allow banks to take the hypothicated money and buy other assets on margin.
7. THEY allow commodities to have the lowest margin requirements of any financial instruments other than Treasuries.

Can you see the money machine at work? THEY create a dollar and it can become $100 and allows it to buy anything and everything market-related. Then prices rise and everyone is happy!

Do you wonder who is buying stocks and commodities? All this price perversion in the name of “saving the system”.

The desire is to get everyone hurrying to spend and invest before prices go too high. But the continuously rising prices crowd out end users because they can no longer afford the materials in question for end usage. The only buyers then become financial speculators. That is until the price is so high that nobody can buy and then prices crash from lack of buyers. Then speculators will need to sell to meet their margin calls.

The end result is that all the money THEY created will go to money heaven and we’ll be knee deep, again. And the higher the price of materials go, the closer we come to that end.

Ali-money, money, money

Read this and then remind yourself women make nearly as much as men and individually, in separate instances, much more than many men.

My lawyer was a woman, judge in my son's custody case was a woman. G.A.L. in custody case was a woman (all made six figures plus). My boss's boss is a woman, my boss's boss's BOSS is a woman (and we're talking a software company). And on the list goes.....

From wikipedia:

History

Alimony has been discussed in ancient legal texts including the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi (#137-#142)^[1] and the Code of Justinian. ^[2] The concept of modern alimony in the United States derives from English ecclesiastical courts which awarded alimony in cases of separation and divorce. Alimony Pendente lite was given until the divorce decree, based on the husband's duty to support the wife during a marriage that still continued. Post-divorce or permanent alimony was also based on the notion that the marriage continued, as ecclesiastical courts could only award a divorce a mensa et thora, similar to a legal separation today. As divorce did not end the marriage, the husband's duty to support his wife remained intact.^[3] The term alimony comes from the Latin word alimonia, and was a rule of sustenance to assure the wife's lodging, food, clothing, and other necessities after divorce.^[4]

Liberalization of divorce occurred in the nineteenth century, but divorce was only possible in cases of marital misconduct. As a result, the requirement to pay alimony became linked to the concept of fault in the divorce.^[5] Alimony to wives was paid because it was assumed that the marriage, and the wife's right to support, would have continued but for the misbehavior of husband. Ending alimony on divorce would have permitted a guilty husband to profit from his own misconduct. In contrast, if the wife committed the misconduct, she was considered to have forfeited any claim to ongoing support. However, during the period parties could rarely afford alimony and so it was rarely awarded by courts.^[3] As men's incomes increased, and with it the possibility of paying alimony, the awarding of alimony increased, generally because a wife could show a need for ongoing financial support and the husband had the ability to pay.^[3][6] No-fault divorce led to changes in alimony. Whereas spousal support was considered a right under the fault-based system, it became conditional under the no-fault approach.^[6] According to the American Bar Association, marital fault is a "factor" in awarding alimony in 25 states and the District of Columbia.^[7] Permanent alimony began to fall out of favor, as it prevented former spouses from beginning new lives,^[6] though in some states (e.g., Massachusetts, Mississippi and Tennessee), permanent alimony awards continued.^{[8][9][10][11]} Alimony moved beyond support to permitting the more dependent spouse to become financially independent or to have the same standard of living as during the marriage or common law marriage though this was not possible in most cases.^[3][12]

In the 1970s the United States Supreme Court ruled against gender bias in alimony awards, and the percentage of alimony recipients who are male rose to 3.6% in 2006.^[13] In states like Massachusetts and Louisiana, the salaries of new spouses may be used in determining the alimony paid to the previous partners.^{[11] [14]} Most recently, in several high profile divorces women such as Britney Spears, Victoria Principal and Jessica Simpson have paid multi-million dollar settlements in lieu of alimony to ex-husbands who were independently wealthy.^[15][16] According to lawyers, men are becoming more aggressive in the pursuit of alimony awards as the stigma associated with asking for alimony fades.^[16]

Some Women are Not All Women

For some reason, be it the singular minded view of television anchors or the monomania perpetrated by N.O.W., but people need to start announcing to the world and to themselves that we are all very different. Men and women both have mutually exclusive programming that goes back to hunter-gatherer times, but let's face it, while many men may seem to be the same and many women seem to be the same, some men aren't all men. Some women aren't all women. Every guy isn't Tiger Woods. Every woman is not Anna Nicole Smith. We are all shaped by our experiences and we are all born different people. From our very inception in the womb, every time an embryo is formed, even from the same parents, the formation of that embryo is EVERY TIME RADICALLY DIFFERENT! Ever meet a brother and sister who are total opposites? A Father and son who can't get along and you wonder how one could come from the other?

And I'm sure you've met a man who is as gentle as a kitten and a woman is seems to be as hard and icey as the most distant man. Now men and women are inherently made differently, one from an x and a y chromosome, the other from two x chromosomes, but as they grow older, the differences begin to melt. Men and women mature at different rates, generally speaking. Girls are born 6 months more mature than boys. At 2 years old - just 2 years being alive - they are A YEAR more mature than boys. That said, some boys certainly mature a bit faster than others. I know I did.

Now to the meat of the article, dear reader. You will hear such things in the press... MEN do this... WOMEN do that.... its usually spoken in a derogatory way. When you hear this, you should hear SOME men... SOME women... etc.

Further, know that many of the "men" and "women" who make the news or make the spotlight to be judged are Hollywood starlits. These are not normal people. They are often liquid to the tune of millions and some have a net worth of well into the hundreds of millions. Super athletes, the famous... these people have access to resources that the normal people do not. This allows them to behave in a wanton and selfish manner and AVOID EVER HAVING TO COMPROMISE. Marriage is compromise and any therapist or even priest worth his or her salt will tell you that. So be sure to laugh hysterically should ANYONE ever suggest "going back to" a single male breadwinner would result in chaos and female subjugation. [My family had a female breadwinner and they managed to stay married for going on 4 decades. My father did more than his fair share in other ways... in fact he very well qualified for the so called title of "stay-at-home-mom" who liberal think-tank studies state are worth 100 grand plus given their contributions. More in his case and he worked a full time job as well as did the cooking and cleaning. But I digress].

In fact, be sure to note that American Indian tribes had the ultimate "patriarchal" society and "subjugated" women but somehow instituted marriage unions and THRIVED as a people for hundreds of years or longer. In fact in many tribes, women had the right to leave their husband at any time for any reason or no reason (she simply wasn't allowed to seize his property or income - I guess those crazy savages just never realized women should be able to leave men as penniless, dependent and unable to provide for anyone else). But of course the fact that women had ENORMOUS influences on their husbands in tribal culture gets lost on modern society. Hell, even president's wives in the 18 and early 1900's bent their husband's ear about everything from support for the poor to women's suffrage to war and clearly had an impact. Hillary Clinton didn't bother with informality, despite not being an employee of the government she sought to fix the healthcare crisis nearly single-handedly when Bill was in office. (Now the Health Care industry owns her as it does every other politician).

But always bear in mind that men and women live together. They always have, they always will. Period. Its in their best interest. They cooperate. They enjoy the financial, time and energy savings of living under one roof. They build intimacy and trust. They take care of one another. Its not the alpha-male way to live, but its clearly in our best interest; in society's best interests as well. Once children come along, you MUST cooperate and work hard if your children are to be successful, healthy adults.

Now, onto women. Sorry, but this post will be about women. Comment about men if you'd like. Women are designed and behave as societal creatures... that is, group animals. Women are designed to cooperate, they are MUCH more intuitive than men and are famous for being able to communicate with eachother without speaking. This has its roots in hunter-gatherer society as most things do, and like all instincts, it is not to be ignored. Women simply care about what others think more than men do. It is in their nature, it is part of who they are and how they were made. In this case, the design and the behavior was to ward off predators, and help take care of their young, which they were left alone to do while men hunted. Like a sponge, or a mirror, women detect and sense almost CONSTANTLY. For that reason it was the poet Byron who said that women are a reflection of all that is wrong with society. What he meant of course, is that women sense and detect ALL things around them, not just some things. And much of what society seems to preach in media, news and "society" is pretty ugly: greed, lust, sloth, materialism, sensationalism, rumor, innuendo, judgement, hate, cruelty, violence, etc..

Men are taught from a young age that women are delicate, fragile and sensitive. For better or worse most men extend that to the way women think. THIS is a terrible mistake. But its done. Like thinking a panda bear is sweet and lovable just because it looks that way and moves slowly. And many men, myself included, recoil in a mixture of horror and disgust when many women reveal that they can be very shrewd; they can assess, judge and punish with the toughest of any man. They can hate, spy, cheat, lie, steal, cajole, threaten, kill, maim, poison, stab, fantasize, abuse and exploit. Are all women evil? No. But don't think they do not have the capacity for evil. Just as men do. Mary Wollstencraft hinted at this years ago, quite brilliantly. The way many men discover this is when a woman casually looks at another and coldly sums up her appearance or fertility potential: "her butt is big and her legs are chunky." Or something like "she needs to get a bikini wax and supportive bra." Or sometimes much worse. The horror author Stephen King was an odd child, of course and was teased in high school and when asked about it often recalls that what he endured was gentle compared to what unfavored girls endured. One female classmate of his was teased so mercilessly by other girls she developed severe depression and despite growing up to eventually get married and have children, she one day blew her head off with a shotgun.

Are all women this evil? Are they wicked and disgusting? Are they shrill harpies who are lusty and conniving? No. In fact many women are very giving, loving, and charming people who love to help others, give themselves selflessly and are devoted to their families. Unfortunately, these women are not ALL women. And I have to openly wonder, cruel as it may be, how many of these women there are with a 50% divorce rate and 50% of children being born out of wedlock. Now these numbers are not a result of more women being evil or anything like it. They are a result, in large part, of women being led astray. Remember reader, that children raised in broken families - divorced, abused, etc. - are more likely to have broken families of their own. Does the evidence not strongly suggest this problem is accelerating? 60% of divorces, studies report, are requested by wives. Not husbands. Wives. While men certainly bear blame in many instances of divorce, the statistics show women are the larger driving force. This is highly unnatural. Women are inherently designed to 'nest'. They seek out stability in romance, work and friendships. They start families, they stay close to their parents - these are all well proven facts. Why are they breaking up their own families? What could be causing this?

It is assumed, in the media, of course, that men are to blame for families breaking up. "Tiger Woods!" they say (as if all men were philandering, billionaire playboys). But I'm afraid that simply isn't what is happening across the broader spectrum. Stepping into anecdotal evidence for a moment... I am appalled to personally know friends or family friends that had occurrences of wives quite literally coming home one day and ambushing their husbands with "I don't feel like being married anymore." That is literally the statement of two different women with no relation to eachother! Now there may have been underlying reasons for these women leaving their husbands, but in both cases I can confidently say that infidelity, poverty, joblessness, drugs, alcohol, and abuse were not factors. Simply, their husbands were simple, hardworking family men whose trespass was known only to their wives. Further their wives suspiciously gave NO reason for wanting out! This would've been HIGHLY suspicious and irregular 30 years ago but is today considered appallingly common. I can't help but suspect that fickle and capriciousness nature of Hollywood movie stars and the public's obsession with them is at least partly responsible. To make the situation even more absurd, these women are entitled, under the law, to alimony, which is still comically contained in all state law books. I say "comically" because more women than men receive college degrees these days and women's earnings have been skyrocketing for the past 10+ years. The fastest growing market segment is women in the 18-25 age range. Yet in Mississippi, Massachusetts and Tennessee, alimony is usually awarded for life. Give me a break, for chrissake. Life? So the women I see divorcing for no reason have literally hit some kind of lottery, whereby they receive a portion of the earnings of someone who is their earning equal, thereby reducing them to being a kind of running debt slave to her, yet the divorce was her decision and she must not give any reason or cause for it!

The marriage of today is not the marriage of yesteryear. Marriage is being entered into lightly by many and being equally discarded by many. Many women simply don't 'need' marriage for financial reasons. Women truly are men's equal, for better or worse. The statistics reveal it, simple observation reveals it. And with divorce rates at obscene levels, its obvious that people have neither the moral nor the practical reasons to shun divorce that they once did. Yet in light of effortless divorce, a completely self-sustaining female population, and equality between the sexes, women are being handed a portion of her ex-husband's earnings for the rest of her life? A husband who might've been her husband for all of 3 or 4 years? This no-fault-divorce-between-equals system of ours has nothing to do with commitment, love or marriage. Its become a ticket to rent-a-slave. A small proportion of the time, men are actually being awarded a portion of their ex-wife's earnings for life. This is equally obscene. A completely healthy man with a good education just being GIVEN (stealing, in essence) a portion of his wife's income that she works hard for every day in exchange for.... nothing? This isn't justice or equality or any of that nonsense. This is a mafia-style shakedown with the divorce lawyers laughing all the way to the bank. How long before a man and a woman get together and soon think that being the higher earner is the WORST thing for him or her? After a divorce, despite being a higher earner who most likely has more education and works harder at a difficult job, you could find yourself POORER than your ex, who you may have been married to for only a matter of months and who you most likely have not associated with for years. You are now legally obligated to enrich a stranger. They don't sleep with you, rub your shoulders, cook for you or sacrifice for you in any way, nor do you for them yet this transfer of wealth takes place regardless, FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIFE. Think about what that means if you divorce in your 20s or 30s!

Welcome to the pinnacle of stupidity. The United States of Blow-'em-out. While Barry Ritholtz's book "Bailout Nation" was an apt description of the financial farce that is our banking sector, a book about our family and social structure ought to be entitled Blow-Out Nation.

Hang 'em High and Dry Nation.

SELF-EXPLANATORY

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/relationships/blog/2010/12/sick_of_the_hunt.html

This is so awesome, I don't even know where to begin. Actually its not awesome. Its sad. Sorry. But I have to laugh because the woman writing it is so damn naive. She's plainly past her prime and apparently in denial of that fact. She's also in denial that she is a woman and not a man, and that her primary attractive features are not her career or education.

I'm 32 and I live in rural New England. I moved here for a job after completing a master's degree. The job is great and the area offers lots of outdoor activities that interest me. The problem? A man shortage. And from talking with friends who live in more populous areas, this "shortage" isn't necessarily unique to my rural life -- so we're not thinking that moving is necessarily the answer. I travel enough for work to mingle outside of my local network.

Women are not men. Men don't elbow eachother and say "Look at the Ph.d on that chic!" Why has this not sunk in? Is there a blockage in your head ladies? Wear snug clothes (not like a whore), heels and show off your figure, then talk to many men. Mother Nature does the rest you bonehead. Researchers in England found one thing that every man looks for - hip to waist ratio - its a sign of fertility. Its what sells all those trashy fashion rags - YM, Cosmo, etc.. "How to hook a better mate than you otherwise might" is what they should be called. They spend pages and pages on clothes that make your pear-looking figure more like an hourglass. Why? Men's eyes don't lie to them.

Any guy growing up in this country that went to High School will tell you the truth: women went for the alpha males (imagine that), usually sports stars or maybe the charming, funny guys who were quite smart. But usually the sports gods. Why? Because they were the most physically dominant. Just as women did in the hunter-gatherer days. We're still animals, kids. Nothing has changed but our latest theories and hair-brained ideologies, all of which fail quickly when going toe-to-toe with mother nature and her bag of from-the-gut instincts she gave to each of us at birth.

"I've been in several long-term relationships, including a five-year romance in my 20s that I thought would lead to marriage but didn't. It ended over three years ago, so it is safe to say I've recovered and made it out to the other side wiser and more confident."

Notice the waste of critical time when she was in her prime? Romances don't take 5 years sweetheart. The guy wants you or he doesn't. So what was the problem? Was he a mangina? Was he not into you and you were waiting for him to come around? You never should've wasted so much time. You should've pressed him after year 2 for chrissake and then moved on. Patience is great, but love doesn't take that long. Period. Selma Hayek wants to marry me? Done deal. We're work out the details later. How long did that take?

A host of movies have come out tackling our damsel's little fantasy that men and women are exactly the same. Namely, "The Ugly Truth," "The Truth About Cats and Dogs," "Someone Like You," and "The Backup Plan." In those movies women with similar fairy tale opinions of men and women are disabused of them rather fast. All stem from a total misunderstanding of how men and women work. How men and women are designed is not that hard to understand, nor should it be. Think about how long cars have been in existence. Now go to the library and look up all the books on cars. There are millions. Are we confused about cars? No. Or how about whales? Or chimpanzees? Or clothes. Men and Women are much older than any of those things and much more interesting. We have teraflops of research on men and women and their motives and workings. Modern media groups, in an effort to sell literature or movies or books or whatever make it all out to be some kind of mystery. Its no mystery. Go to India, or the Middle East, or any of those "traditional" countries and tell them new-fangled ideas about men and women. How men are really in touch with their feelings and should help with child rearing constantly and use skin care products, or how women are really happy working all day and leaving strangers to raise their children or worse, leaving budding adolescents alone in the house surfing for internet porn or experimenting with drugs. They will stare at you in disbelief and think you just plain idiotic. But I digress.

The woman in the Boston Globe article above is truly lost, the poor dear. She's taken her leisurely time through life... as is her right. But what she never figured out is that there is no free lunch in life. Men are programmed... PROGRAMMED by mother nature to have sex with young, healthy female animals.. mammals in our case - young women, for the purpose of procreation. Its not a thought, its not an idea or a theory. ITS INSTINCT. Respect it. Girls are born 6 months more mature. At 2 years old, they are a year more mature. What is mother nature's goal? To get her quickly to a point where she can breed. Don't blame me. Its not my idea. Its not my design. But its a design we have to respect, like it or not. In the article, our dear writer figures it out... too late.

I'm old enough to realize that at this point, I may find love with someone who is already divorced, has kids, or has some other situation that at one point would have been on my "deal-breaker" list.

No honey. Not 'may' find love. Your ONLY CHANCE is to hope AND PRAY for love with whatever man still finds you attractive and desirable. That was the part of your life that just ended. Sorry if that's mean. Its true. You're past your prime. You're not as healthy as a 23-26 year old to breed with. Men will figure this out and ignore you. Except for EXACTLY THE TYPE OF MEN YOU FIND.... THE LEFTOVERS: divorced and if he's also single, then he didn't leave his wife for someone else.. SHE DITCHED HIM, meaning he's emotionally shattered, broke, and probably battling depression and all that goes with it. Welcome to the era of women choosing and discarding men if and when they see fit. She got the house, the kids and all his money; you get whatever scraps she left you... literally.

But our writer thinks she's going to "strategize" her way to a "quality" man with a good job. BWAHAHAHAHAHA.

I'm very social and have a large network of friends. I'm out and about in many clubs, from alumni activities to athletic organizations. I've spent plenty of time dating online and am open to these opportunities. I'm not shy at all! Blind date? Sure. Want to set me up? Go right ahead. Speed dating? Done it.

And yet, where are all the educated and employed men? Am I asking for too much? (I'll even make concessions for employment, given the economy.)

Seriously? What are you snorting? I love the line "Where are all the educated and employed men?" WITH OTHER WOMEN, THAT'S WHERE. With women who somehow figured out relationships aren't carefree, timeless marathons with no goal. Women who were aggressive and motivated. Women who worked at it. They went out EVERY NIGHT in their 20s or close to it. They dressed sexy and they let many men know they were marriage material.. maybe they were "traditional" or "conservative" in their views, or they laughed at his jokes and admired his charm and intelligence, or let him know how impressed they were by his drive at work, I really don't know, I'm not a girl. But I'm sure these women didn't wait 5 years through a dead-end relationship. They found a good man and let him know at some point that they were going to be taken or lost to some other guy. Get it?

I had a friend (female).. an old roomate.. she found a handsome guy at a club and they started dating. He told her before getting any more serious, he wanted to date around a bit. She said "No." Just that. "No: you're with me or you're not. That's it. And there's no coming back. You're in or else get going." Where are they now? Married with kids. Take a lesson.

Secondly, being open to new opportunities or whatever is fine, writer. But forget about that. Look down. See what's under that Master's educated brain? That's what you're selling. That's your primary offer. Shutup with that nonsense about your deep soul. That's for AFTER he's sold on your body. Respect Mother Nature or die alone. Go to the gym, forget about your big shot career for a second. GYM, GYM, GYM. Get in the shape of your life. Then show it off. After you meet a guy (and you will with a good body... trust me. Suddenly they will just appear), then keep yourself in shape. Let the guy make some decisions. Ask him what he wants to do. Don't plan everything. The rest will work out fine. If its taking too long, mention you're after marriage eventually and that you can still date. See what he says.

Failure knows no end. Her friends fail with the same style as she and she apparently wants to pool their failure into a collection of what-not-to-do:

I know I'm not alone: I have plenty of female friends (both gay and straight) who are well-educated, many of them own their own homes, and live independently and yet yearn to share their lives with someone. The seven-weddings-a-year pandemic has passed us by and we're now all invited to baby showers and wondering when it is appropriate to consider freezing our eggs (no joke).

Live independently. Good for them. But are they selfish? Do they stay in shape? Are they, you know, PHYSICALLY ATTRACTIVE. Listen to yourself! They own homes and are well educated. Congratulations. What has that gotten them? A big basket of nothing, that's what. Want someone? What does your someone want? Nice breasts and a sexy legs. Sorry, but this is The Ugly Truth. Get as sexy as you can (I don't like plastic surgery - that's extreme), and be honest with the man who chooses you. IS THAT SO HARD?

Yet More:

the last thing I want to do is go "munting" (man hunting). Everyone knows that husband hunting gives off a whiff of desperation. And yet the alternative is to "give it time," "be patient," and "let fate do its thing" while the biological clock keeps ticking.

DON'T BE PATIENT. Jesus Christ. YOU'VE BEEN TOO PATIENT. Remember Mr. 5-year failure? How did that work out for you? He treaded water while you lost 5 years of prime perkiness off of your figure. The kind of perkiness youth buys without the gym. Now you'll have to REALLY earn your figure. Did patience help your figure? YOUR FIGURE IS THE PRIME MOTIVATOR FOR MEN. Patience is good for 17 year old girls. Not 32 year old wanna-be spinsters. You are almost twice as old as super-hot 17 year old girl. You are aiming for spinster-hood. STOP IT.

Is this a lose-lose situation? Who's better off: the single ladies who put their name in their hat online or those who refuse to submit to the (somewhat justified) stereotype that we’re all munting and wait it out? I'm turning to you because advice from married friends is exhausting and not helpful. And the rest of us haven't figured it out.

How is someone so educated so stupid? There is the word 'wait' again. STOP WAITING FOR CHRISSAKE! You should have two new best friends in life: the gym and thong underwear. You are selling sex appeal. Period. That gets you looks, from looks come conversation and opportuntiy. Get it? Say Hi to every guy you get near. EVERY SINGLE GUY. Be Mrs. Gym-rat and Mrs. I-COULD-BE-YOUR-NEW-BEST-FRIEND. Period. Make yourself say Hi to at least 10 guys in the bar and at least 10 guys out and about during the week. No luck? Make it 20. No luck? MAKE IT 50. AND AREN'T YOU LATE FOR YOUR APPOINTMENT WITH YOUR PHYSICAL TRAINER!?!??!?!

Every man reading this is nodding.

What does the pro at the Globe tell her? Oh Boy.....

You're telling us that you're doing what you need to do to meet someone nice. I guess my advice is to keep doing that -- and to stop thinking of it as your desperate search for a husband. It's really your search for love. That's got a better ring to it, doesn't it?

And take the pressure off yourself to speed this along. Again, only fictional characters have awesome and interesting partners all of the time. I know it's exhausting and that your clock it ticking, but love isn't easy to find and maintain. Even the marrieds have to work like crazy to keep it going.

– Meredith

The worst advice ever. From a girl. Girls don't hunt girls (mostly). Why the Hell would you ask one what to do. Your girlfriends aren't going to tell you your boobs are too small in your choice of shirt and bra today. They don't have the guts. Ask a ruthless man and do exactly as he says, you dumbass. Doing what you're doing and not changing anything is moronic. They have a saying in Tennis: Always change a losing game, never change a winning one. Same here. You have a losing game and your online therapist says keep it up. I'm mounting your spinster trophy now. I suggest your don't keep your personal trainer waiting.....

Still a Virgin? Don't Worry, THERE'S TREATMENT!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/02/still-a-virgin-billboards_n_704116.html

"Still A Virgin?" signs have been posted in tons of places it seems, around cities country wide. What can I even say here? They're right up there with the "Life is short, Get a divorce" billboards with big breasts and ripped abdomens on them. Classy. Seriously. Yes, this is America, and you can post anything and say anything and yada yada yada, and I'll always love America for that. This sort of thing you just have to put up with. Like if I put up a sign that said "Feminists are tainting your thoughts with poison." What a minute, that one's true. Nevermind.

The "sexual revolution" was anything but, kids. It was just a pack of young kids (like we all were), telling their parents, "You have it wrong, WE know what's best!" and failing as all kids too. So they grew up, became conservative and learned being married is better than hopping from bed to bed, from relationship to relationship and never settling down. Duh. Find me one old person who think that system is bunk. Its not "the government's" plan or a male or female supremacist plot. Its just what happens. Ask a grandparent for chrissake. Selfish people die alone and those willing to make a deal get married and get to have a family and children and all the fun (and grief) that goes with it. Better than realizing your life was ultimately futile, if you ask me.

But the signs are beyond stupid. They are only a sign of what has become of us. So virginity is bad? Really. So we need more STD's? More half-drunk girls accusing men of rape the next day? More children born out of wedlock? We need more abortions? Those who made this sign are making people who have not had sex FEEL GUILTY OR ASHAMED for not having done so, regardless of age. Well that's clever and sweet of you. Heaven forbid they not have some drunk sex they regret or a one night stand, after all. We wouldn't want women to only have sex with men who want to marry them or men to find a woman who wants them for a husband and not a sex conquest, a woman who will blow him out for his life savings and 50% of your salary in "child support," should a child come of it, now would we? Not to mention catching a life-threatening disease and having to tell everyone you have romantic feelings for that you are infected. How fun must that be?

And guess what folks. These problems that I mention? They're getting WORSE, not better. Not sure we have this rabid problem of TOO MANY virgins running around. I've read that the average age for girls to lose their virginity is 15-17, so let's speed that the Hell up, because that's just too damn old! And every man I know is just DYING to discover their fiance has been with half a dozen men before she met him! Oh joy! Isn't love SPECIAL? So quick, find some guy or gal and screw them BEFORE ITS TOO LATE. This is like a terrible mortgage commercial from 2005; hurry up and BUY! Ignore statistics and the fact you know you don't have the money - BUY DAMMIT! Sorry Jane, you didn't nail some stray man fast enough and now no one wants you because you're just a rookie. Yeah, right. What would you rather have guys, a rookie who you can guide and who can discover her sexual limits with you in an open and trusting way, or a pro who brags she knows "WAY MORE" than you do? A woman who can SHOW YOU a thing or two? Yuck. No thanks. Guess what ladies - guys who have slept around are not sexual tyrannosaurs; they are emotional basket cases, sluts or both.

So why would you be in a big damn hurry to join the ranks of that group? Its not something to be proud of. If you want to see your boyfriend smile, tell him you've only been with 1 or 2 men (yeah, LIE) and watch the big smile come onto his face. Or else go sleep around some more and get PLENTY of EXPERIENCE as if you were trying to study up for some big job interview that require you have physician-like knowledge of the male sexual organ. Your husband in waiting will be very impressed with you, right before it dawns on him how you know so much and he jumps into a 2 hour detox chamber then refuses to touch you without a HAZMAT suit on. The media is basically out to ruin you as it envies your yet-to-be-corrupted soul. See those signs for what they are - absolutely LUDICROUS. If it really improved your life to sleep around, you wouldn't need a billboard for it. Billboards are for shit you don't need, don't want, and typically are trying to convince you to do something that is NOT in your best interest.

Recession? TIP OF THE ICEBERG

Written by Graham Summers
Forget a Recession, The Empire is Crumbling

I look around me and I see an Empire in Decline.

The US economy is clearly in a depression… not a recession, not a recovery, but a DEPRESSION of a moral, social, and financial nature.

More than 40 million Americans (12%) are on Food stamps. Nearly one in five of us are unemployed of underemployed. Folks go to Wal-Mart at 11PM waiting for their government checks to clear at midnight so they can buy baby formula, milk and other necessities.

Three out of every five Americans are overweight. One in five are obese. Indeed, there are only two areas (one state, Colorado, and Washington DC) where obesity rates are under 20%.

Nearly three in four of us don’t get enough sleep. Almost one third of us report having trouble falling asleep EVERY night. And almost half of us report that day-time sleepiness interferes with normal activities including work.

Half of marriages end in divorce. One out of ten married couples report sleeping alone. The average American watches 28 hours of TV a week (enough to qualify for a part-time job). Two thirds of us eat dinner while watching TV, preferring the fake, sensationalized lives of others to engaging with our own families.

The TV and media are filled with foul, ungodly images of sex, violence, and hate. The most watched shows of the last decade all feature ordinary folks becoming superstars in lottery-esque competitions (American Idol, Survivor, Who Wants to be a Millionaire, etc) OR crime sagas detailing the most sordid and disgusting elements of society (CSI, Law and Order, etc) OR amoral social dramas in which notions of personal responsibility, fidelity, and common decency are unknown (Desperate Housewives, the Bachelorette, etc).

Today, brain dead, vapid human beings who have contributed nothing to society are idolized and followed as though they invented the wheel. We’ve actually got two industries devoted to presenting the illusion and reality of celebrity: Hollywood shows the photo-shopped, CGI-enhanced, scripted version, while the paparazzi and weekly glossies reveal the drug-addicted, affair-crazed, family breaking, soul-less emptiness.

Sex or violence are plastered on virtually every flat surface available. Even the check-out lines at the grocery store feature endless images of barely clothed women along with headlines sensationalizing gruesome behavior, right out in the open for children to see. And if the kid can actually read the headlines… God only knows what ideas this stuff is putting into their heads.

Financially, we’re all pretty much bust or going bust (except those on Wall Street).

New home sales in July were a RECORD low. Not record as in for the year, but the lowest since 1963. The talking heads are high fiving because sales improved in August, but failed to note that they were still DOWN 19% from August 2009 levels.

Americans two primary assets for retirement (stocks and their homes) have both been absolute disasters. Home prices are down 30%, stocks haven’t produced gains in over a decade. Every moron on TV talks about the Dow 10,000 like it’s a miracle. But when you adjust the Dow for inflation, (using the BLS’ ridiculous CPI measure) the Dow is SUB-500 in terms of purchasing power.

Our money system is controlled by an elite banking oligarchy fronted by academics who have never run a business, invented anything, or had any interaction with commerce aside from vying for tenure. Our currency is now worth less than 1/20th of what it was a century ago. And we are ALL in debt up to our eyeballs on a personal, corporate, local, state, and federal level.

Heck, even USA TODAY (not exactly the cutting edge in financial research) notes that in order to pay off our current liabilities, every US family would have to pay $31,000 a year… for 75 YEARS!!!

And we’re talking about an economic recovery?

According to David Rosenberg of Gluskin Sheff:

* Wages & salaries are still down 3.7% from the prior peak;
* Corporate profits are still down 20% from the peak;
* Real GDP is still down 1.3% from the peak;
* Industrial production is still down 7.2% from the peak;
* Employment is still down 5.5% from the peak;
* Retail sales are still down 4.5% from the peak;
* Manufacturing orders are still down 22.1% from the peak;
* Manufacturing shipments are still down 12.5% from the peak;
* Exports are still down 9.2% from the peak;
* Housing starts are still down 63.5% from the peak;
* New home sales are still down 68.9% from the peak;
* Existing home sales are still down 41.2% from the peak;
* Non-residential construction is still down 35.7% from the peak.

The American Psychological Association reports that 73% of Americans cite money as a source of significant stress. Personal bankruptcies have fallen 8% month over month from July to August. However, August 2010 bankruptcies are up 6% from August 2009… so much for the recovery.

And yet, despite all of this, assumedly intelligent people write op-ed articles and appear on TV claiming that things are swell in the US, that we’re actually OK and that the recession is over. Some of these people even have advanced degrees or have won international prizes for economics.

Let’s be honest. Forget recessions, forget even Depressions, the US is an empire in decline.

You can literally see it crumbling right in front of you. Just start looking at how people live, eat, and act on a day to day basis. Look at how our Government runs itself, how it manages our affairs, how it spends our tax Dollars. Look at how our justice system works, who it protects and who it punishes.

It’s all out there, right in the open for you to see. You don’t need an expert degree or some kind of advanced education. It’s OBVIOUS to anyone who bothers looking around.

The fact we don’t admit it doesn’t mean it’s not true.

Best Regards,

Graham Summers

Best of Craigslist Summarizes Feminist Juxtaposition

I rest my case.


http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sea/561877622.html

LISTEN TO THE GUY WHO CALLED IT BEFORE IT HAPPENED

ITS BECAUSE WE'RE EFFED.

NEW RULE: YOU BAIL OUT RICH BANKSTERS FOREVER!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Gold-Digger Paradise

This is obviously not representative of all women, but.... Please. Ladies? This is what men contend with. And if you married a wealthy guy, remember this next time you accuse him of having a wandering eye.

GOLD-DIGGER PARADISE.

{The Russian girls party at clubs like Dune, RdV East and Madame Tong’s and frequent pool parties thrown by Southampton resident Michael J. Lohan, father to Lindsay. Mr. Lohan could not be reached for comment.

But the girls are not out for one-night stands for money. Rather, Boles said, “they go in there, entice the guy, have him fall in love with them, disassemble his life, the guy proposes, they come in with a heavy duty Russian lawyer to negotiate the pre-nup, with very heavy benchmarks." The girls, Boles said, take jobs because doing so sets themselves up “to look humble." He said he knew of an older film producer who had left his wife for a young Russian girl, but declined to provide names.

A long-time Southampton resident who works as a personal trainer said that the girls “are landing them, that’s for sure. We see all the time on the street these Russian women with nannies and babies. They’re marrying these wealthy American men, and becoming trophy wives.”

But even then, some are still on the prowl. “My husband was sitting on a bench, and this Russian girl with a baby came up and started chatting him up,” the trainer said.

“This place used to feel so WASP-y, but now it’s like South Beach. I’ve never seen so many gorgeous Russian girls in my life. So decadent.”}