The Ultimate Buffoon: Allred

You may or may not have heard of Gloria Allred.

Hopefully, you haven't. She's a cold, cynical, bitter, aged scoundrel. An attorney, man-hater, and fame-seeker. Does it get any worse? Pretty much, no.

She claims to be gender neutral and she has represented men in gender discrimination suits, but its jut to make her look more rounded. Her success is in slandering men, especially high-profile playboys that in no way resemble the 99% of men out there trying to live and work and raise a family. Her worst argument is so pathetic it can only be the argument of someone who is wrong and reaching for anything to win the argument.

Lately she's been representing ex-girlfriends of playboys. Yeah. Like everyone didn't know this guy, who is an international golfer/soccer/basketball/finance billionaire is just out for sex and clearly not really in the market to marry her client - a porn star or hotel employee who willingly and freely had sex with said playboy. What this moron lawyer is trying to argue - in vain - is that the man made some kind of contract by having sex with her client and that this non-existent contract should be used to fleece him for money, emotions, an apology and a number of other absurdities. All because her client, was naive, stupid, horny at the time, or all of the above. There is a reason why mistresses are typically hot and dumb - smart women know when they're being used for sex (and some are game to use and be used if they are after the same thing), and they generally avoid it.

Gloia Allred tries to make money off of women who claim not to know what they were doing - even when they were sleeping with a married man. So she bandies about the worst examples of male playboys she can think of - mainly Tiger Woods.

ALLRED: Of course, she did. But do you care about women being hurt by men whom they trusted, whom they loved, who they had every reason to believe loved them?

MORGAN: I get that.

ALLRED: I mean, that's it. And do you care about the rights of women? Do you care about all those women across this country who are being hurt, and men treat them like, oh, well, they're just an afterthought. They're a footnote. They can walk away after being in a long-term relationship.

Not being hurt is not a legal or moral right, crazy lady. She says, DO YOU CARE ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN!?!?! And then goes on to rail about how women are being mistreated. First off, and with apologies, fuck the rights of women. Seriously. Women have more rights than men in this country and that's a fact. Look up the "Violence Against Women Act" and tell me I'm wrong. Violence is illegal - PERIOD. Discrimination is illegal. Period. There is no reason to make a separate set of laws unless for women unless its for an ulterior motive.

Secondly, women hurt men all the time - and again, so what? Its not illegal to hurt someone! Its not nice! But its not fucking illegal! Nor should it be! GIVE ME A BREAK!

Secondly, men do not just "walk away" after a long-term relationship, #1. #2, her clients didn't even have long-term relationships, so what is she talking about? I know plenty of divorced men. They're a bucket of parts. They're devastated, half-human beings. They're shattered. They look at women and run the other way. If that wasn't bad enough, they're financially devastated by the woman who left them. The real problem is that so many women are so full of anxiety and fear of not being young and sexy enough that they leave "BEFORE they are left." (Husbands begging for explanations as to why THEY were left, receive none or are told "its obvious things aren't working out." This can be for anything from forgetting a holiday to being too tired to have sex - yeah, that's right. Women need sex and if they don't get it, most automatically figure its because they don't look good - as if the suddenly became ugly or something.) You would not BELIEVE how often that happens.

Strangely, Ms. Allred argues that these short-term sex pals that she represents - some of whom are literally porn stars - are best discussed by examining every woman in the United States of America who is being, or has been hurt by, a man - in any way, shape or form. Whether the American woman hurt this man first, cheated on him, abused him, left him, has severe emotional problems, etc., is all totally irrelevant to Ms. Allred. Women are being hurt and that is all you need care about, dear reader. As if we should burn the Constitution and start over because women experience emotional pain.

The ACTUAL TRUTH is irrelevant to this lawyer as it is to most lawyers. Unless you are savagely attacked by a stranger, which is very rare, you probably are involved in some way when you are hurt and chances are you did a little hurting to your mate, yourself. Ms. Allred dodges this question, repeatedly, as she's worried about her clients being seen as adults instead of grown children.

Furthermore, she acts as though her clients are CHAINED to the perpetrator. These are not CRIMINAL issues. She's trying to steal money on behalf of someone who had their FEELINGS HURT but are otherwise fine - someone who could've called their lover a louse and walked out the door WHENEVER THEY WANTED TO. Basically she represents people who take no personal responsibility for much of anything, including dating a jerk.

Men of course, and their feelings, are never discussed. Jerks are made, not born, Ms. Allred. Every good guy who has tried to act like a jerk to get a girl has failed; trust me, I've known plenty of good guys. Male jerks, I think you'll find were hurt quite badly at some point and simply never recovered; they hide their feelings away and keep women at an emotional distance - men DIVORCED by their wives are good examples of this. Of course, good looking women can have any sweet, nice guy they want. Many choose jerks instead. Don't believe me? Find the "nice" guys on a college campus and ask them who gets first shot at the pretty girls - trust me, they'll tell you its the pompous, arrogant athletes, not the nice boys you'd bring home to mom. When a good guy chooses a woman who is a jerk, he's laughed at, mocked, jeered, and generally treated like a fool who just bought a used car, unseen and undriven and discovered its a mess. What would Ms. Allred have women who choose a bad guy do? Sue him for being a jerk?

Now that's a real practical idea, isn't it?

Its an idea only a lawyer could come up with, because lawyers get rich off such drivel. This type of garbage philosophy was formerly kept to the fringes of society, but now its gone mainstream. If you are a student of societies as I am, THIS IS A VERY BAD SIGN.

p.s. Ms Allred has been married and divorced twice. I'm guessing she did nothing wrong in both marriages and the men were both to blame. Just ask her.


Whole Transcript:


MORGAN: Do you wake up and feel angry for the men? Or is it all women against men?

ALLRED: Well, we actually have had a number of cases, where we represent men who have been discriminated against in employment, on account of their gender.

But we've had those cases in the past. I objected many years ago -- and this was a well-known case -- for at the beginning of my career, when there was a commission on the status of women that was created, I believe in Santa Monica, and they excluded men from being able to participate.

And I went before the court, and I argued that that was discrimination against men, that men have a stake in the equality for women, and that men should not be excluded from that conversation, and especially not from a governmental entity that was going to opine about that.

MORGAN: Does it worry you that for all the very good cases you fight, where there's clear evidence of discrimination or harassment or whatever it may be -- does it worry you that you have almost single- handedly created an atmosphere, a culture, perhaps, where people who want to try it on, and who want to make a few quick bucks, like claiming discrimination and harassment, can now do that because of this atmosphere that you have helped propagate? Does that worry you?

ALLRED: No, not at all, because we are a plaintiff's law firm. We screen our cases very, very carefully. We make sure that we have the facts. We've investigated the facts. And you know, we can only take a small number of a little of the cases that people ask us to take. So, no, the weak cases, we are not taking.

But I'm happy when women who believe they have been discriminated against on account of their gender seek the advice of any attorney, whether it's myself or anyone else in the country, and say, I feel that I've been discriminated against on the job, or sexually harassed.

Is there something I can do about it? Do I have a strong enough case?

I don't want them to judge that themselves. We act like private attorney generals in enforcing the rights. And we look forward to women standing up and asserting their rights, and protecting their rights and vindicating their rights in a court of law. And we're very proud of those women who have the courage to do so.

MORGAN: And men.

ALLRED: And men as well, but --

MORGAN: Occasionally. Let's take a little break, come back and get into some of the more high-profile cases you've taken on.

ALLRED: Love it.

MORGAN: Because you seem to be popping up with almost all of them, Gloria, one of the more predictable elements of any scandal is you and that a little red top of yours.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALLRED: Mr. Polanski was able to victimize another child while he was a fugitive from justice.

I think we're beginning to unmask Scott Peterson. We'll find out who he really is.

It is time for Tiger Woods to take responsibility for the deep pain that he has inflicted on Veronica.

MORGAN: Just some of the high-profile cases that have had Gloria Allred all over our TV screens in the past few years, and she's back with me now.

I mean, you do pop up when you're -- I guess the people you're taking on least want you to. And for that reason, you've become the kind of legal agent provocateur, haven't you? Do you like that status?

ALLRED: Well, I like empowering my clients. I like providing them with a voice that they otherwise might not have, because I think they matter. The typical person matters, not just celebrities in our culture matter, and this is what we do.

We go up against the rich, the powerful, the famous, big corporations, government, celebrities, batterers, wrongdoers, killers, wrongdoers of all kinds, sexual harassers.

And we allow that individual person to fight that -- I'll call it a David and Goliath battle, or David and Goliath battle, and often win. And yes, people say, oh, my God, I mean, how could you go up against them?

I mean, these celebrities, often, they have their entourages. They have their PR people and an army of lawyers and their managers and everybody else. And who does that individual person have? They have us and they get to have a voice.

MORGAN: Roman Polanski, I totally get, because there you have very serious allegations of serious sexual misconduct.

Tiger Woods is an interesting case to me, because he's a golfer. What really is the public interest in exposing Tiger Woods when it comes down to -- yes, there's the role model argument and he's making money for whoever, Gillette or whoever it may be.

But actually, does it matter what Tiger Woods does in his private life? Why did you feel compelled to expose him?

ALLRED: Well, it matters if any man hurts any woman. And in the case of Joslyn James, whom I represented, she was hurt. She was deceived. She was lied to, and he never even offered an apology. They had a --

(CROSSTALK)

MORGAN: She was a porn, right?

ALLRED: They had -- she had -- she was an adult film star, yes.

MORGAN: And she went on to make an adult movie based on Tiger Woods' text messages.

ALLRED: Well, she, you know, she has a right to have a career. She gave it up for him.

MORGAN: Yes, but how's that --

ALLRED: Let me just say, he asked her to give up her career because he was jealous that she would be with anyone else. She did at great economic sacrifice to herself.

MORGAN: Yes.

ALLRED: And then --

MORGAN: But she doesn't seem to have been --

ALLRED: After the scandal -- yes, she had to go and make a living.

MORGAN: Yes, but I mean, go and make a living, she would have made a porn movie starring Tiger Woods' text message. I mean, how hurt could she have been if she felt able to do that? That's my point.

ALLRED: You know, those of us who are -- lead a more privileged life and are able to make a very nice living the way you are and the way I am, I don't think we should look down our nose at other people who have to make difficult choices about how they make a living. It's not for me to sit here --

MORGAN: No, no, don't get me wrong.

ALLRED: -- and judge or second-guess how anybody makes a living -- I'm so glad that anyone is able to work.

MORGAN: Rewind. I wasn't making any moral judgment about her career. She's perfectly entitled to be in the entertainment industry. My point is, how hurt could she have been by Tiger Woods if she then just, the moment it was over, went out and made loads of money making porn movies starring his text messages?

It seemed to me that she was one of the cases where you were at your weakest, and you've had so many where you've been very strong. And I just wonder sometimes, when you watch what she did afterwards, do you slightly sit back and go, maybe I should have left that one alone?

ALLRED: Not at all.

MORGAN: Really?

ALLRED: No. I'm --

MORGAN: (INAUDIBLE) for you.

ALLRED: No, I mean, you know, I'm not a politician that sits there and puts my finger in the wind, sees which way it's blowing.

I'm going to stand up for women. I've stood up for women who are adult film stars. I've stood up for women who are judges, secretaries, factory workers, farm workers -- you name it, we've had it, just about. And I --

MORGAN: Do you ever regret afterwards taking on cases, because of the way that perhaps the person you've been defending or prosecuting on behalf of, because of their behavior afterwards, you have moments of self-reflection afterwards?

ALLRED: No, I'm so proud of my clients and the courage they've shown. You have no idea.

We are living -- I feel I live in a war zone every day for women, where we are fighting for their rights against very powerful, very well-funded forces, and I'm just so proud of the courage of my clients, because they come in. They're often crying -- like at a glass table like this, tears all over the place.

And then I see them evolve into -- from victims to survivors to fighters for change and standing up and being empowered, and then going on and empowering their children and their coworkers and other people in their community.

MORGAN: Where does, for example, the rights of Tiger Woods' wife override the rights of the adult entertainment star who's been having an affair with him, who just feels a bit, you know, aggrieved by the fact he isn't actually going to stay with her? Where do the rights of his wife come into that, in terms of your moral compass?

ALLRED: I wouldn't characterize the fact that Ms. James was upset that he wouldn't stay with her, OK?

It was his lying, it was the deception, it was the way he treated her, after three years of an intimate relationship, over a thousand text messages, and flying her around and making her feel that she was the only one.

As to his wife, of course she has rights, and I assume that she asserted them, and I'm glad that she did so, because that would be her right. MORGAN: Yes, but you know the point I'm getting at, right, is that, you know, you sort of paint a very compelling picture, because you're very eloquent about this, of this poor, unsuspecting adult entertainment star who got duped by Tiger Woods --

ALLRED: Well, do you think it's OK, Piers, for men to lie to women and break their hearts? I don't. I make no apology for that.

MORGAN: No, what I wonder, though --

ALLRED: I don't think that men should be able to hurt women and then just walk away and throw them out like a piece of garbage.

MORGAN: But she knew that he was married.

ALLRED: Well, of course she knew that he was married, but --

MORGAN: Does she -- does she not care about Ms. Woods?

ALLRED: Of course, she did. But do you care about women being hurt by men whom they trusted, whom they loved, who they had every reason to believe loved them?

MORGAN: I get that.

ALLRED: I mean, that's it. And do you care about the rights of women? Do you care about all those women across this country who are being hurt, and men treat them like, oh, well, they're just an afterthought. They're a footnote. They can walk away after being in a long-term relationship.

MORGAN: I'm not condoning any of it. What I'm saying to you is, though, that if you're Ms. Woods, and you see this adult entertainment star claiming my life's been ruined, and then she just goes out and starts making movies --

ALLRED: She didn't say my life's been ruined, and, again, you know, again, those of us who have a lot of opportunities shouldn't look down on those who are trying to make a living.

MORGAN: No, no.

ALLRED: And I -- and you know what, I make --

(CROSSTALK)

MORGAN: -- trying to paint me as a --

ALLRED: I don't represent his wife. I don't know what her thoughts were, but I --

MORGAN: No, I'm not making any moral --

ALLRED: -- I'm glad that she stood up for herself.

MORGAN: I think it's interesting about -- I'm not making any moral position or argument about what she does for a living. What I'm saying is, if you go out after all this, after you've gone public and said, Tiger Woods treated me really badly, he lied to me, he broke promises and so on -- fine.

But if you then go and make these movies, based on his text messages, all that's going to do is really add to the hurt and humiliation and public shame of Tiger Woods' wife. And I'm curious as to where you representing that client would have a view about that kind of behavior and say maybe that's not a good idea.

ALLRED: You know, I just don't sit in judgment of my clients. If they have to --

MORGAN: Ever?

ALLRED: They have to survive. They have to make a living. I'm proud of her that, you know, she's trying to make a living. And, you know, not everybody has a lot of options to make a living like you do and like I do.

Let's come back after the break and talk about the political cases, because there I'll have a little bit more sympathy with your clients.

(LAUGHTER)

What Happens When Real Men/Dads are Gone?

..and all the kids are raised by entitled, selfish, bratty young women?

This:

I resent his parenting style

Q: My husband is being emotionally abused by his adult child. Junior demands money from Hubby, always gets it, and still goes on to say terrible things about Hubby to his extended family and friends, trying to garner sympathy (and further cash payments) from anyone who will listen (and via Facebook). He has lived with us now and then, does not work, is sullen and violent, helps with NOTHING, eats all our food, had caused property damage to our home, and is mean to our pets. From what I have seen, he does nothing but complain and suck everyone dry. There has not been any physical violence, but I see firsthand how much the emotional abuse takes a toll on Hubby, and it breaks my heart.

WHY IS THIS OK? If I pulled a fraction of this stuff even one time, Hubby would divorce me so fast it would make my head spin, as well he should. But because the Junior shares his DNA, he's regarded as a Precious Angel who is not to be scolded. I have never seen Junior punished for anything -- not one single time. Not so much as a stern talking to. Hubby occasionally suggests "rules" that are routinely ignored without consequence. As his behavior worsens, his enablers simply lower their expectations further to accommodate him. Hubby says "at least he's not doing drugs." Really? This is the benchmark you set for your offspring?

Do we live in a world where children are raised to believe this kind of behavior is acceptable? This is the only -- and I mean ONLY -- thing Hubby and I disagree or argue about (we married late in life and are late 40s). For the most part I keep my mouth shut and grit my teeth, but once in a while I just can't take it anymore and I finally speak my mind, but it makes no difference; nothing changes except the mood of our relationship, so it's not worth fighting about.

While the kid's behavior appalls me, it is the lack of response from Hubby and his ex-wife that bothers me even more. Precious Angel is the only child of a stay at home mom, and has never lifted a finger in his lifetime. He sits around watching TV, playing video games, and complaining on his cell phone (that Hubby pays for) to his delinquent friends about how much his life sucks ... and then cashes the next round of checks that Daddy just gave him while he hurls insults and punches holes in the walls.

I wish I could love my stepson and have peace in my home, but the truth is I don't like him even a little bit. I don't have children of my own, and now that I see what it's like, I'm glad I don't. It's gotten to the point that I can't even listen to Hubby's stories of "can't believe what this kid pulled today," because it's his own fault that his child acts this way. For my part, I smile, clean up after him, try in vain to engage him in conversation, serve him dinner, and keep gritting my teeth.

I'm at a complete loss as to how to handle the anger that this is causing in me. Someone out there please help me find a single redeeming quality in this person!

Thanks for letting me vent,

– Frustrated With Rotten Kid, Formerly Boston

Think you would've read that 30 years ago when the Mad Men-style "old school" men were around?

Boston Globe: Awake, Yet Very Much Asleep

The Boston Globe is calling for shared parenting.

Um... what the Hell took them so long!?!?!?!

Are we going to wait until fathers are thought of by society as Dinosaurs now are? Cool, yet LONG GONE and hey, who needed them anyway?

Or shall we wait (haven't we already?) until the children are all COMPLETELY lost, without discipline, respect, responsibility or any of the other traits men instinctively instill in kids?

Well, at the tail end of the nightmare, the Boston Globe sat up and said "Well what if we just let kids see their dads more? I mean men and women are equal and women earn a lot more money now, right?"

WELL LOOK WHO JUST SHOWED UP.

Gee, thanks Boston Globe. Thanks for repeating what the "radical fathers movement" has been SCREAMING AT THE TOP OF ITS LUNGS FOR 15 YEARS NOW.

EDITORIAL | Editorial

March 19, 2012

FEW MATTERS can be as contentious and emotional as post-divorce child custody arrangements, and in recent years that acrimony has spilled over into Massachusetts politics. Several times, a bill calling for what is known as “shared parenting’’ — which would create a legal presumption for joint custody — has been introduced in the Legislature, and failed.

The debate has often been passionate, as divorce proceedings can be, and it has sometimes turned ugly. Some proponents of the bill, who claim that the family court system is biased against fathers, have launched ad hominem attacks against opponents. Unsurprisingly, this hasn’t created a receptiveness to compromise.

But the Legislature has recently provided a model for compromise on deeply felt issues: the task force on alimony, which met for more than a year, and resulted in the passage last fall of a sweeping overhaul of state alimony laws. The state can - and should - follow the same approach to modifying custody laws by bringing together responsible advocates on both sides. It’s time to break the contentious impasse on an issue that’s already painful enough for every party involved.

The alimony task force was launched amid some doubt that opposing parties could even sit at a table productively. But they did, and reached some compromises that had seemed elusive, if not impossible. That gives confidence that a similar approach could find common ground on the even more important issue of child custody.

Advocates for custody reform aren’t going away; they are among the loudest and most persistent constituencies to lobby state government today. Their passion bespeaks a genuine need to examine the workings of family courts, and to determine whether some complaints about bias have merit. And while some shared-parenting advocates won’t be satisfied with anything less than joint custody in all cases, others have suggested smaller changes in law and practice that are worthy of discussion. These include tweaks in the language used in domestic relations cases - such as replacing the term “visitation’’ with “parenting time’’ - and changes in the restraining-order process that would encourage more healthy contact between parents and children.

The task force should not be another forum for fathers’-rights supporters to push a shared parenting bill that would deprive judges of the necessary discretion to determine the best interests of the child. Still, a full airing of the current state of custody proceedings would surely be valuable, as would a chance for all parties to get beyond polarizing rhetoric and us-against-them attitudes. Either the Legislature or the Patrick administration should convene a task force soon, and get to work.

FWB: FAIL

Just watched the romantic comedy "Friends with Benefits."

It was a funny movie at times, but as always, cliched and a bit lame.

More importantly, everything winds up being Justin Timberlake's fault, of course. He's the guy wrapped up with Mila Kunis, the leading lady.

Its all a big joke, but a bad one. They hit it off, but instead of trying to be lovers, they try to be friends. Only they want to have sex and find eachother attractive enough to do so - there is a word for this: lovers.

But they have convinced themselves they are both horrible mates after having too many failed relationships. So they decide to have their cake and eat it too: friends that sleep together but are not emotionally involved.

Yeah.

And these claim to be intelligent people. What idiots. So what happens?

What do you think happens?

She gets emotionally involved and blames him for not going against what they BOTH agreed to from the beginning - friends that sleep together. Of course if a baby came along that would be his problem too.

There is a word for men that commit to to women for babies - marriage. Women have declared that's no longer the case, of course, and have kids whenever they damn well please - and enact laws requiring men to pay for it all.

Men are either too stupid to live or else can't believe a woman would have their child without their consent. So, both, basically.

Going back to the movie, Mila Kunis, demands that Justin Timberlanke not do anything too sentimental and actually freaks out when he does. Then at the end of the movie she demands he's "just like every other guy out there - only after sex."

I laughed, but I wasn't supposed to. This was coming from the same woman who demanded he not emotionally care for her. Now she's was showing her disappointment in him for not caring about her.

WHICH IS IT, YOU CRAZY BITCH!?!?!?!

That would be my response if I were him. How you ladies get mad at this crap is beyond me. This is how women - smart women - can get the reputation of being a total idiot, especially in the minds of men. She said one thing but meant the opposite. When she changed her mind? When she was betraying her original intent? No one knows. Why? Because she didn't say shit. Does she even think about taking responsibility for that? NOPE.

Justin Timberlake? He meant what he said. He did what he said he would. He wanted more, but he was content to keep her at a distance, because he too had fears about getting hurt; he respected her fears and he thought she respected his. Turns out SHE WAS LYING. Two people were involved, ONE PERSON WAS LYING. Get it?

Here is a lesson for you ladies:

YOU CAN'T BACK YOUR WAY INTO A RELATIONSHIP THROUGH SEX, YOU CAN'T PROTECT YOUR FEELINGS THROUGH SEX AND YOU CAN'T LIE TO YOURSELF OR ESPECIALLY TO MEN AND EXPECT THE MAN TO "SEE THROUGH YOUR LIES," DETECT YOUR TRUE FEELINGS OR ANY OTHER CRAZY BULLSHIT. Men are just not able to handle that kind of emotional complexity, nor should they be expected to. Be honest or else back out if you have a problem - men will understand. Better that than lying and manipulating.

Lying and manipulating is actually foreshadowed earlier in the movie:

"Dylan: Why do women think the only way to get a man to do what they want, is to manipulate them?
Jamie: History. Personal experience. Romantic comedies."

Its not really a good joke, once again - like the whole movie. Manipulation is not a good technique. I've dated women who have no idea how to manipulate - its wildly endearing and reassuring as a man to have a straightforward partner. Women here get into manipulating and it becomes thrilling - for them and their partners; but its the Road to Hell.

Soon its one, big, passive-aggressive nightmare where no on talks and everyone's guessing ALL THE TIME. Insane, unhealthy and destructive. I've had so many men tell me: I don't know what she wants! I ask her to tell me, beg her to tell me, I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT SHE WANTS. And women's famous comeback: "its obvious." Or "If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you." This is women treating men as if they were women. A woman would know, sure. BUT NOT A MAN. Its obvious only to you. You most likely started the game and now its blown up in your face. Women are far better at emotions than men and far better at navigating emotional "games." When the man finally breaks down and begs for the truth, she won't tell him because she is too angry that he used her game to hurt her and now wants to punish him with her silence. This is childish. What's worse; she won't take any responsibility for what she's done. Eventually she ends up alone and has the gall to wonder why.

At the end of the movie, who is apologizing?

Justin Timberlake.

Who is the "victim?"

Mila Kunis.

And ladies wonder why the marriage rate is plummeting.

Unreal.

Women Kicking Economic Ass: Child Support Rates on the Rise

Remember... WOMEN ARE ALWAYS THE VICTIMS, NO MATTER WHAT!!!!

60% of ALL post graduate degrees going to women and men pay 40% of their salary in child support?

Sorry, but Fuck You to every woman with at least a college degree who asks for so much as a nickel.

Bank Of America Issues Big, Long-Term Bullish Call On Women

Joe Weisenthal | Mar. 6, 2012, 8:56 AM | 1,006 | 2

Bank of America economist Neil Dutta is out with a new report titled: Global Girl Power.

The report looks at the way the economy is evolving, and concludes that the long-term trends are bullish for women.

First Dutta starts by examining the dynamics of the latest cycle, which basically goes like this. Men (the blue line) lost jobs at a much faster clip than women (the red line) did. Men have also recovered sharper than women have. The collapse and rebound of manufacturing explains a lot of this.

FRED

But the long-term prognosis for women is quite good.

First Dutta cites this table from the BLS in arguing that the fields of tomorrow are in areas that are likely to be heavily staffed by women.

Bank of America

But even beyond that, there are other reasons to be bullish on women.

Some stats:

• 60% of all higher ed degrees are awarded to women.
• 58% of Masters degrees go to women.
• The top college major for women is the same top college major for men: business.

And the story isn't just in the US: The same story is happening in Europe as well.

Now here's the problematic part. In the emerging world, the trend in the last recession was worse for women during the last recession.

Not only did the unemployment rate for men fall a lot harder during the last decade, the rate of unemployment for women jumped faster between 2007 and 2010.

BofAML

So BofA's outlook is tempered somewhat between a high level of optimism in the US and Europe, and more tempered optimism in the developing world.

Love Letters: Relationship FAIL

This one's funny. The writer of this love problem, a man, builds up a life that makes him happy and then tears it down to please an anxious, panicky, emotionally unstable, UNHAPPY woman.

So he manages to make her happy (by rooting everything out of his life that made him happy), and once he's totally dependent on her, her anxieties relax and she's pleased as punch, only he's a miserable mess - the two are nearly perfectly correlated. His wife demanded he subordinate his entire life to hers FROM THE START and the sucker took the bait.

Moron.

The first therapist they saw probably figured this out and said call it quits.

Why?

Because his wife is selfish and will never change. That's why. She was selfish and he was incredibly unselfish. Opposites attract.

Now he's asking (he should be demanding) a bit more for himself (probably just anything at all) - but his wife will never allow that. She needs him under her boot to keep her fear in check. Keep him nice and depressed and lonesome and NEEDING HER BECAUSE HE HAS NO ONE AND NOTHING ELSE. I mean, if you were happy, but your husband - the man you loved and married, was miserable - wouldn't you be sad too? Wouldn't you want to give him what he needed to be happy, or compromise or SOMETHING? A healthy, sane and/or decent human being would say yes. A vicious, blood-drinking harpy would say No.

The second therapist they saw undoubtedly was a quasi man-hater at a minimum because "things are better" yet he's still miserable. Um... what? How does a neutral, independent arbiter think the job is done when one party is still miserable? His wife is happy, his new therapist (which she undoubtedly picked) is happy and he's miserable.

Two happy women and one unhappy man. Can you do the math?

So the wife and the therapist believe everything is about her and his happiness should exist "magically" just because his wife has her every wish satisfied. And of course, now he's REALLY fooked because they have a child - also not his idea, I'm sure. But hey, the guy isn't making any choices, obviously. Once he met this woman, he gave her full reign over his life and she drove it into the ground. His wife is a worthless harpy, but for this situation, I blame him - he chose the harpy of his own free will. Poor bastard. If they get divorced she'll terrorize him for child support and attention every 5 seconds using a combination of guilt, shame, and recrimination.

Somehow this eludes EVERYONE, INCLUDING THE "Love Doctor" and nearly all readers who comment. Although, if you read the Love Doctor's advice carefully, its obvious she knows the truth and just doesn't want to tell this poor guy he married a vulture who intends to sharpen her claws on his face.

Absolutely Pa-thet-ic.





Q: Dear Meredith,

I met my wife through some mutual friends about two years ago. She was visiting Boston and ended up falling in love with the city and decided to give it a try. We ended up spending a great deal of time together and dating.

During that time, I had felt rather happy and satisfied with my life except for one thing -- I had not had a chance to pursue a meaningful relationship. I had spent almost all of my time after college building my life into what I wanted with my job, friends, and family. Because I was new to the dating game, I was did anything I could to keep this new relationship alive.

After about five months of us dating, she became very critical of me and began to complain about various details of my life. I would often hear that I would be spending too much time at work, with my family and friends, or that I didn't spend enough time with her. She began to threaten leaving me, and due to my weak sense of self at the time, I did all I could to accommodate her. I changed my job, moved, and essentially devoted as much time as I could into making her happy.

Soon enough we became pregnant and quickly got married. We never got a chance to finish the dating part of our relationship and essentially put it on hold as we prepared for raising a child. We now live closer to her family.

As you can probably guess, we have had a rough marriage. It is now a few years later and I still have problems being happy with our situation and working out our differences. We argue about everything from the smallest quirks to our plans for the future (although we have ensured these emotions don't leak to our child). In a desperate attempt to save our marriage and keep our family together, we saw two different marriage counselors. The first one pushed the idea of a divorce, so we left him to look for another one who would be willing to encourage us to stay together.

Fortunately, the second counselor has been helping us see past our differences and we have become considerably more loving and caring as a couple. We rarely argue now but no matter what happens through the sessions, I cannot be happy. It does not seem like I have any emotional issues, I am just so upset about what has happened and where I am in my life at the moment. My wife seems to be happy and I want nothing more than to be able to share that feeling with her.

As of right now I am having trouble becoming intimate and excited about life again. What can I do? I just want to get over the feeling that I lost control of my life and be happy.

– Want to Stay, Formerly Boston


A: Are you still seeing that second marriage counselor, WTS? Because you have to admit these lingering bad feelings in front of a third party. Counselor No. 2 obviously helped you guys make some huge improvements in your marriage, but you're still stuck. That's something worth discussing.

I can't fix this for you or give you a magic pill to prevent resentment and misery, but I can tell you that you need to start imagining ways to be happy in this relationship. Would you feel closer to your wife and happier about your situation if you lived near your friends and family again? Is there a geographic compromise?

I find it interesting that you bailed from the counselor who pushed you to get a divorce. That person was giving you a way out. You could have easily turned to your wife and said, "Well, the professional has spoken. Let's get this separation rolling." Instead you opted to find a person who could save the marriage. Is that because you love your wife or because you feel obligated to stay? You need to be able to answer that question -- out loud.

I want you to know that you're not the only person who feels like they lost control of their adult life. Sometimes change happens and we just have to cope. That said, your whole goal in life before meeting this woman was to have a great job and to be close to friends and family. By hooking up with her, you've lost all of it. There has to be a way that you can get some of those great things back (proximity to friends, an inspiring job, etc.). I have a feeling that if she prioritized creating a better environment for you, you wouldn't be so sad about staying committed.

I don't know whether I agree with counselor No. 1 or 2., but it sort of depends on whether your wife understands that you need a big community and a full life in order to be happy. Get the answer to that question, even if it means disturbing the peace.

Readers? Do any of us have control? Is he in a marriage that can be saved? How can he let go of this resentment? Am I right to say that he'd be happier if he was closer to friends again? Help.


– Meredith

Nude Body Scanners: Not Working

But we'll zap you with lots of radioactivity anyway....

Jim Grant: Stop Fcking Around

LOOK, LISTEN, ADHERE, DO-NOT-QUESTION

Man Convicted of Rape Without Anyone Knowing What Happened

Here is a young man with a bright future. He has his whole life ahead of him. He's a standout athlete. He has big dreams. He's already been drafted by one of the best hockey teams in the world - the Detroit Red Wings - and he has obviously just a made a big mistake. We just don't know what it is. He's been ACCUSED of rape. That's all we know. Why actually happened? Only he and his accuser knows. He has plead not guilty, so clearly there isn't incontrovertible evidence, such as DNA, vaginal tearing, bruising, and the like - those are things that turn up when a FBI rape kit is run and they are a slam dunk for prosecutions. Understand this dear reader - Rape is a CLASS A FELONY. You go to jail for A VERY LONG TIME. So what actually happened? No one knows because "prosecutors did not disclose any information about the allegations in court today, where Boston Municipal Court Judge Franco Gobourne ordered all reports in the case impounded, citing confidentiality of the alleged victim."

I'm sorry, but when you accuse someone of rape, your confidentiality is gone. You are now involved in a felony, as the victim. You have to come out and identify yourself. Its going to come out eventually anyway. We don't have ghosts accusing us of crimes in this country - IT WOULD MAKE ACCUSATIONS EASIER - A.K.A. WITCH HUNTS. I'm sorry, but its called 'courage' and this is one of those times in life when you have to use it. Its hard, I'm sure. I'm sure its Hell. I don't care. This young man could be facing 10 years or more of jail. YOU HAVE TO STAND UP, MS. VICTIM. In 10 years, you will be long gone and this young man could still be rotting away what should've been glorious hockey victories in jail. Rape has been used as a "revenge" tactic before. THE AUTHORITIES NEED TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. NOW. PERIOD. That includes her name. NOW. THIS IS A CRIMINAL MATTER, MEANING ITS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD.

Further, all that's happened so far is an accusation. Like me calling you a liar or thief. Its just an accusation. We need what's called "discovery." That's where evidence is brought forth showing this is more than he-said, she-said. The prosecutor isn't showing any "reports" (evidence) right now, but he'll be forced to eventually, so I don't know what he's waiting for. Meanwhile, this young man has been KICKED OFF THE HOCKEY TEAM AND EXPELLED.

Time out. For what, exactly? For being accused? Being accused is not a crime. At all. Yes he was involved in something and probably made bad judgement. SOMEONE ELSE DID TOO. Who did what to whom exactly? Who is guilty of what?

We JUST. DON'T. KNOW.

And before we do know? He's GONE. Kicked off the hockey team and banished. Gee, that's open-minded of the University. Do they teach critical thinking courses at that school?

At BOSTON UNIVERSITY?

What was done to the alleged victim?

NOTHING.

This is a even-handed process? Are you fricking kidding me?!?!?

If he brutally raped this girl, I'll be happy to see him hang. But as possible as it is that happened, its also possible they had a simple misunderstanding, were both drunk, had a fight, were jealous of someone else, etc., etc. Again: WE. JUST. DON'T. KNOW.

The school? DIDN'T EVEN WAIT FOR AN EVIDENTUARY HEARING TO HEAR THE FACTS. They've made up their mind and he's gone.

Gee, thanks, BU. I guess they don't believe in the judicial system.

YOU TEACH LAW, THERE AT BU!?!?!?

I went to UMaine - a major Division I hockey school. I bartended games. I knew players. I got a firsthand look. It was ugly. REALLY ugly. Hockey players were considered Gods on earth. The girls chased them - ENTIRE SORORITIES chased them. We called them "puck sluts" because they would do anything for a hockey player. I watched hockey players turn their backs on SMOKING hot girls and move on to the next. They had THAT kind of demand. It was sick. Did I envy the hockey players? Perhaps. But honestly I was too disgusted at the sight of women throwing themselves at these men. Needless to say, hockey players were accustomed to having sex whenever they felt like it, including after games. I'm guessing that's what happened here. Only perhaps the girl changed her mind and this man was not accustomed to being told "No." But that's only a theory. Something else to keep in mind here: while we're all ready to hang this boy, guilty or not, remember the culture he lives in - with girls LINED OUT THE DOOR waiting for their turn to get screwed and kicked to the curb.

Its no excuse for misconduct, but it certainly creates an environment ripe for this kind of incident, doesn't it?

A writer for the Boston Herald - a conservative newspaper - came out with an opinion today. Was it that college kids are out of control and that perhaps another angle to this would be for ladies to stop lining up for college hockey stars?

No. It was that the hockey players are out of control and are disrespectful jerks.

I don't disagree. But as always, all other contributing factors ARE IGNORED. How about the high school curriculum that ensures MANY MORE WOMEN GET THE GRADES TO APPLY FOR AND GET ACCEPTED INTO COLLEGE THAN MEN, leaving women with fewer choices for mates and jacking up competition (sexual competition) for men like this hockey stud?

Ignored.

How about asking the ladies TO STOP SLEEPING WITH HOCKEY PLAYERS SO QUICKLY AND EASILY?

Ignored.

And the beat goes on.


Max Nicastro, Boston University hockey player, pleads not guilty to two counts of rape; released on bail

E-mail| Print 02/21/2012 5:05 PM

By Brian R. Ballou, Globe Staff

A standout Boston University hockey player was released on $10,000 cash bail this afternoon, several hours after pleading not-guilty to two counts of rape on the Riverside campus.

Max Nicastro, 21, a junior from Thousand Oaks, Calif., is no longer enrolled at the university, a school spokesman said today. Nicastro held a legal pad in front of his face during his arraignment in Brighton Municipal Court, in an apparent attempt to conceal his face from cameras inside the courtroom.

The sexual assault allegedly occurred early Sunday, just hours after Nicastro scored a goal in BU’s loss to UMass-Lowell Saturday at Agannis Arena. He was taken into police custody at 6:30 a.m.

His mother was present for the arraignment, having flown from the West Coast, but she declined to comment outside the courtroom immediately after the arraignment, and several hours later when her son was released on bail.

Hugh Curran, Nicastro’s attorney, said during the arraignment, “we believe that when all the facts are out there, this will be found to not be a criminal act.”

Suffolk prosecutors did not disclose any information about the allegations in court today, where Boston Municipal Court Judge Franco Gobourne ordered all reports in the case impounded, citing confidentiality of the alleged victim.

Nicastro, a star defenseman and third-round pick of the Detroit Red Wings in 2008, is the second BU player in the last 10 weeks to face sexual assault charges.

The team’s leading scorer, Corey Trivino, was arrested Dec. 11 on numerous charges after he allegedly broke into a woman’s room at night.

Trivino, who pleaded not guilty to the charges, was thrown off the hockey team. Nicastro had been suspended from the team. But this afternoon, Colin Riley, a BU spokesman, confirmed that Dicastro is no longer a student at BU, but declined to say whether Nicastro withdrew or whether he’d been expelled.

Nicastro was ordered yesterday by Judge Franco Cobourne to stay away from his accuser.

Nicastro was ordered to return to court on March 26 for a probable cause hearing. Calls to BU athletic director Mike Lynch were not returned.

The Problem Liberals Will Never Get

Birth Control.

Its a loaded gun - literally. Like a penis. No joke intended.

The Catholic church doesn't want it. Obama does. Both are right.

Whaaa? you say?

Yeah, you heard me. Both are right. Look, poor people get pregnant - constantly. I know. The statistics prove it. Plus, my ex was trailer trash (in disguise), and the woman had 4 abortions - FOUR. She was physically unable to have any more lest she damage her reproductive system. Would've been nice to know before sleeping with her, right? Don't date liars.

Now, back to birth control. Poor people need it. A LOT OF IT. And that's just a fact; its a societal need. Not an individual need - a societal need. Do you or I or anyone want abortion? No. Its horror. Its murder, basically. The problem? We need poor people to stop having kids. They kids get sub-standard parenting, they go to poor schools, they have children out of wedlock, they have broken families - its just a statistical fact. Its bad for society for the poor to have kids they can't afford, and since you can't stop them from having sex.... Its so bad that some states subsidize abortions for the poor. I don't blame them. Do you want more poor kids running around? Needing food stamps and social programs? No. Nor do I.

The Problem

The problem with this is the same problem that always pops up: the middle and upper classes. They don't need abortions, or shouldn't. They can afford their kids (unless you're a divorced man). Yet they get abortions and they also use birth control pills, contraceptives, etc.. But that is good! Right?

No. Its not. Birth control for married people planning to have only two kids or controlling their family size in some way via condoms, birth control pills, etc. - that is one thing. But there is a hidden evil: it allows people to sleep around. It allows them, nay, encourages them, to be indecisive, lazy, depraved, sluts. Because there is no repercussion for their action. Women and men are in no hurry to get married these days; many don't even marry at all. They have seen horrible divorces and non-committal sex is easy. That was not the case 50 years ago; people very badly needed and wanted sex - but it couldn't be had outside of marriage. This made everyone take dating and marriage VERY SERIOUSLY. True, some got married too early, but marriage is not some love poem - IT IS HARD WORK AND IT IS A CHOICE AT THE END OF THE DAY. Ask any therapist considered a leading expert - love is short, chaotic, and disintegrates easily. Marriage involves love but is not totally dependent on love. Otherwise it wouldn't last. People are not perfect. Love is a feel good drug. Non-perfect people on a love-high DO NOT LAST. Marriage is something else. In the old days, people learned the difference REAL FAST and they made it work - they found a way.

That is LIFE, WELCOME TO IT.

In the old days sex = marriage and marriage = realistic actions and responsibilities. So everyone was made better to a certain extent by these simple equations. Or at least they had to act better. If you were not a quality person, no one would marry you and if you didn't get married, you did not have any sex (hardly). So there is but one choice: marry and stay married.

Today? You don't have to marry to have sex; Hell, most women are comfortable with having children without being married - and blaming all of their choices on the "man who wouldn't marry me." Women act like men, men are confused, women are confused, guidance for both is zilch and society disintegrates likewise. Women want marriage and kids but do not ask for that and frankly LIE about wanting it. Men want sex and love and understanding and will give to get it, but don't know what's expected of them and receive only complaints and disappointment. Complaints that they are not more "manly - high earning and chivalrous" and disappointment that they don't read women's minds, marry them, give them several kids and a big house, all in return for her "love" which as we just discussed, may be quite fleeting, as all love is.

So the kids use birth control to get what they need: sex, avoid what they want: love, and destroy what's best for them: marriage.

Well done, everyone.

Crimes Against the Economy: Spot On

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

Spanking: Not the Devil

Only the Boston Globe could be this stupid. First off, the article is written by a woman who has sons. She was never a boy in her life. NOT EVER, NOT FOR 5 SECONDS. So she has no idea what little boys think or what they try to get away with. Secondly, do you think, just maybe, dear reader, a father writing about sons would have this viewpoint? How about fathers writing about daughters? Most dads see no problem spanking a boy but wouldn't touch their daughter in anger if you put a blowtorch in their ear. The Globe should've had this article written by BOTH a man or a woman or else published an article written by each gender, side-by-side.

Furthermore, her conclusions are the result of what is not even sound thinking. The title reads "Spanking may worsen children's aggression," then she goes on to state that spanking "increases the likelihood" of depression, anxiety, and even cheating and criminal behaviors when the child becomes an adult.

Increases the likelihood? By how much exactly? If you one day take a sip of alcohol, that increases the likelihood that one day you will become an alcoholic, especially compared to someone who has never had a sip of alcohol, but are you really worried you'll become an alcoholic? "Increases the likelihood" is your first tip: THE CONNECTION BETWEEN SPANKING AND IRREPARABLE LIFE-LONG DAMAGE IS WEAK AT BEST.

Finally we get some hardcore truth, hahahah. Ready?

One of his landmark studies found that children who were spanked an average of twice a week to reduce physical aggression were more likely to have greater aggression two years later compared with those who weren’t spanked. Their risk increased along with the frequency of spanking.

Jesus, no kidding. You mean whacking a kid TWICE PER WEEK "ON AVERAGE" resulted in bad behavior? Imagine that. I've spanked my son 3 times.... IN HIS WHOLE LIFE. Once when he was trying to shove a paperclip in a light socket and ignored repeated pleadings from me to stop, once when he was jumping on his bed at bed time, and ignoring me entirely while I spoke to him, and once when he was acting out in the car and fussing and crying for no reason and refused to stop after being asked politely about 5 times along with various other offerings, pleadings and suggestions. That's it. I asked him if he remembers being spanked (he's 10 now). He just blinks and looks confused and says "No." - its clear he has no idea what I'm talking about. So much for sparking a lifetime of "Depression, anxiety and criminal behavior."

Why did I spank him three times? Twice he was asking for it, and once was mainly because his mother and I had separated and he was acting out constantly and it needed to stop (jumping on the bed). That's it. I could've spanked him more, but it was unnecessary. If he was acting out I would tell him that he needed to stop, needed to listen to me, and if he did not, he would be spanked even though I did not want to spank him and took no pleasure in it, I WOULD IF NECESSARY. When I made good on my threats, the action taken was no longer necessary - he knew what was coming. And how fast did he learn? 3 times. That's how fast. I needed to prove my word to him 3 times, that's it. He adapted and looked for other ways to get what he wanted after that. He knew when I said something, I meant it. He still got ice cream and stayed up late from time to time. I didn't run a gulag. But when push came to shove and order needed to restored, he knew it would be martial law and he would lose, so it was better to cooperate and look for an opening later. Kids are clever. They will behave if it means good thing for them. If they get good things REGARDLESS of their behavior, well then YOU HAVE MADE A MONSTER.

If you are spanking a kid 2 times a week, you are a bad parent, an idiot, or worse. Otherwise your child is a train wreck, learning disabled, blind/deaf/and dumb and probably autistic. I was spanked once as a kid. And I deserved more than that. My dad was clipped a few times. My grandfather was spanked MANY times. Did me, my gramps, father, mother or anyone else in my family have any serious behavioral problems resulting directly from spanking? No. No one was spanked TWICE A WEEK, which is nearly tantamount to REGULAR CHILD ABUSE. To wit - how does Mr. Straus and others below identify the difference between spanking and REGULAR CHILD ABUSE? Its not discussed.

Further, what qualifies as "spanking?!?!" A few incidental taps, or brutal whacking a bare butt? With your hand? With a hair brush? Belt?

You only ever need your hand. 99% of spanking is just getting your child to listen to you and respect your wishes. ITS DANGEROUS if they don't - this occurred to me when my son was 9/10ths of the way to electrocuting himself. As far as severity of the spanking, with my son, I had to tap him enough to smart 2 of the 3 times - the other time, the spanking was more emblematic; I tapped him so lightly there is no way it could've hurt. My son always fought back with the only thing he could: he shamed me. He wailed like I had just cut his arm off. Even when I knew for certain he was fine. That's what kids do - they play on your emotions. They know how. They see you feel guilty when you've been mean to them, they know when they cry you rush to their aid. They can play you like a violin. That's what kids do. They all have an evil streak. Everyone does. Did you ask your boss for a raise or the pretty girl to the dance after you had disappointed them or after you had impressed them? Come on, give me a break. You wait until the time is right and then you pounce. Just like a kid.

The article doesn't stop though. They really want to show off their comedic timing:

“Spanking is a traumatic experience that can cause small losses in the brain’s gray matter,” explained Straus, “causing behavioral changes.” His research also found that spanking was linked to a lowering of IQ levels in children who were frequently spanked.

Spanking doesn't make you stupid. For chrissake. It can be traumatic, yeah. That needs to be closely monitored. But like most parents, I gave PRODIGIOUS warnings before spanking. To be suddenly assaulted with no warning will cause anyone extreme fear and that's probably not a great thing to do to a kid. That said, every child psychologist will tell you; the thing that scares and upsets a kid most is something sudden and unexpected. Much more so than the nature of that thing.

Then he gets murky again. What foolishness.

“Of course, some kids aren’t harmed at all by spanking, just like some heavy smokers suffer no harm from cigarettes,” Straus said. “But they’re the lucky ones as opposed to the unlucky ones who suffer harmful side effects.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics has long recommended against physical punishment, saying its of “limited effectiveness and has potentially deleterious side effects.”

He says some kids aren't harmed by "spanking." Again. How often? How hard? Its all vague. And no, smoking heavily and being regularly beaten, are not the same thing. Smoking heavily kills most people and a small few "escape." People choose to smoke and are warned about what its doing to them. Being involuntarily assaulted by someone you love is a different animal entirely. My son was not harmed by "spanking" - as I DEFINE IT. Very rare, done with warnings, and only when absolutely necessary. To spank him every week, at least twice? He'd be in therapy for chrissake. That's just totally unnecessary. Kids learn LIGHTENING FAST - FAR faster than you and I, who are old and slow. Kids are BUILT to learn; their SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT. If you are spanking them for a CONSISTENT REASON, it will take them 2-4 times of it before they learn - and that's for a boy. A girl may be as few as once, if any at all.

So what does the article's author do? Declare all spanking of any kind at any time for any reason to be evil and therefore unacceptable. Wow, nice middle ground, you have there.

So what does she do instead?

"I’ve been able to hold myself back and have resorted to screaming instead, and that’s likely a good thing..."

First off lady, where the Hell is your husband? He was a boy you know. He knows when boys are pushing their luck and when they are just boys being boys. Your sons are pulling the same stunts he pulled as a kid. MEN RECOGNIZE THE SAME THINGS THEY TRIED TO GET AWAY WITH! Consult with the expert for chrissake. Do you think your husband would be the all-knowing wizard Merlin if you had 2 daughters instead? No. You'd be telling him what time it was. For the same reason; recognizing your own bad behavior as such.

Secondly, why don't you ask the good doctors about VERBAL ABUSE. That is a real thing, you know. And IT CAN VERY WELL BE VERY HARMFUL! My mother vented her frustration with screaming. She screamed so hard and so long I would later lament how sorry I was she did not hit me instead; all the screaming can literally crush one's self-esteem. By the way, when your sons grow up and marry a woman who screams at them, try and act surprised.

The author gives a list of guidelines. I've got my own [real life] list:

1. Throw your kid a bone from time to time. Kids haven't much control over their life and that makes anyone throw a tantrum. But if you give them choices to solve their problems, do not give them too much time or too many choices or you'll be in a quagmire worse then Iraq at its peak.

2. Ask yourself what is better for your child: a 10 minute screaming seminar on how bad they've been, or a 2 minute spank after a clear warning that allows them to remember what is "over the line" in terms of behavior?

3. You and your husband must keep a good marriage because it is best for the family and good marriages take time and effort. Wild, unruly kids drain your energy and time and can ruin your marriage and lead you to resent your family and children. Divorce is NOT AN OPTION. Make sure your kids (over the age of 2.5, or so) LISTEN to you and act in a reasonably prompt fashion to your directions. Reward good behavior, punish bad behavior. All bad behavior gets ONE WARNING AND ONE WARNING ONLY, after that, its a spanking. If you can't do it, THEN TELL YOUR HUSBAND TO.

Marvel at how fast the kids learn.

4. Accept your kids are darling angels trying to manipulate YOU to do THEIR bidding. You provide, food, water, shelter, t.v., toys, movies, Christmas, and Halloween. YOU HAVE LEVERAGE. USE IT. When kids are bad, ONLY THE NECESSITIES ARE GIVEN - food, water, shelter. When they are good, there are extras - t.v., movies, sweets, etc.. KIDS LEARN FAST.

5. Do not abuse your authority, BUT LET THE KIDS KNOW YOU ARE IN CHARGE. PERIOD. They will CHALLENGE YOUR AUTHORITY. CRUSH ALL SUCH CHALLENGES. PERIOD.

6. Play with your kids. Have fun with them. Tell them good, uplifting things, make them confident, tell them to expect success, tell them you know how capable they are, tell them they can get their own drink-cookie-napkin-toy-etc.. Don't render them helpless slaves because you like feeling needed. They will know you have multiple sides: fun, nice mommy and daddy, who they get most of the time, and the mommy and daddy who give no quarter, who come out when they are being unnecessarily naughty.

7. Quick, ruthless punishment after a warning for bad behavior gets everything over fast and painlessly. The crying will be done within minutes. Screaming, shouting, begging, pleading, bribing... these alternatives are terrible and will make things worse in the end - you'll just wind up giving more and more and more and build into your kids a false sense of entitlement. They demand and you give - just think about that for a second!

8. Notice professional child care givers, not hack academics. Who knows more about controlling child behavior, a daycare provider of 20 years experience or a bookworm who has no kids of his own and is searching for evidence to prove his "theory?"

9. Parent separately if you like, but if one parent's methods are better, faster, and more effective than the others, ADOPT THE WINNING STRATEGY.

10. Threats work. My father SPOILS my son rotten, but when my son pushes his grampy to the edge, my father threatens my son with ME - because I'm the hammer, like it or not and this snaps my son back into shape REAL FAST. Someone is going to be "the bad guy" who enforces order. Take turns, or else, be more efficient and elect ONE PARENT to do the dirty work. Either way, someone has to stop taking excuses and get the kids fed and into bed ON TIME. Do you want to be the family "General" or would you like your husband to roll up his sleeves and do the dirty work? Also, dads out there? Your wife is waiting for you to "man up" and start kicking ass. They're just little kids, you are a huge, hairy gorilla. Intimidate and conquer when you must - ITS YOUR JOB, YOU'RE THE STRONGEST PERSON IN THE HOUSE. I once told a girlfriend, "If my son doesn't behave I'm picking him up and putting him in his room. She said: He'll get up and run out! I said: Then I'll tie him to the bedpost. I make the rules in this house. Period." .... then I glanced at her and said "The same goes for you!" Did she come at me with a nasty feminist comment about how we are equal and that I shouldn't dare talk to her like that?

No. She smiled and laughed a little. A just, central authority makes everyone relax. When dad kicks ass mom, sooner or later, embraces it, because it saves her from having to do it. Women in the 1950s didn't lift a finger to discipline the children. They let dad do the dirty work and when dad wasn't home they reminded the children that dad would be home soon enough and if he received any bad reports from mom, they were TOAST.

Kids minded mom just as well as dad.

Spanking may worsen children’s aggression: what works instead?

E-mail| Print | Comments (15) 02/08/2012 9:42 AM

By Deborah Kotz, Globe Staff

As the mother of two sons, I’ve been tempted on more than one occasion to break up one of their physical fights with a smack on their bottoms. I’ve been able to hold myself back and have resorted to screaming instead, and that’s likely a good thing since the latest review of research on spanking published this week in the Canadian Medical Journal suggests that it’s counter-productive and actually leads kids to hit, kick, or bite even more.

It turns out, those parental slaps increase the risk of aggressive behavior both in childhood and adulthood.

“The findings have been very consistent over the past 20 years,” said study author Joan Durrant, a psychologist at the University of Manitoba. “Physical punishment predicts only negative long-term outcomes.”

Besides increased aggression, spanking increases the likelihood of depression, anxiety, and even cheating and criminal behaviors when the child becomes an adult. It also weakens the parent-child bond so “parents have less influence in setting an example of morally correct behavior,” said Murray Straus, a University of New Hampshire sociologist who has been studying spanking for more than 20 years.

Researchers have improved their methods of studying spanking by assessing children through the years, rather than asking adults to remember how often they were spanked -- which can yield unreliable recollections.

“If a child ranks in the top fifth among peers for misbehaviors, does he move up or down in this ranking as he gets older and does this correlate with how often he was spanked?” said Straus. One of his landmark studies found that children who were spanked an average of twice a week to reduce physical aggression were more likely to have greater aggression two years later compared with those who weren’t spanked. Their risk increased along with the frequency of spanking.

A study published this week by other researchers found that even in cultures where spanking is considerable acceptable, kids who are spanked have the same increased risk of becoming more aggressive.

“Spanking is a traumatic experience that can cause small losses in the brain’s gray matter,” explained Straus, “causing behavioral changes.” His research also found that spanking was linked to a lowering of IQ levels in children who were frequently spanked.

“Of course, some kids aren’t harmed at all by spanking, just like some heavy smokers suffer no harm from cigarettes,” Straus said. “But they’re the lucky ones as opposed to the unlucky ones who suffer harmful side effects.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics has long recommended against physical punishment, saying its of “limited effectiveness and has potentially deleterious side effects.”

Durrant pointed out that other forms of punishment -- such as belittling, humiliating, or embarrassing a child -- can be just as harmful in terms of damaging a child’s psyche. But, she added, “certainly children need discipline and guidance, clear expectations, and a good understanding of the impact of their behavior.”

First and foremost, she said, parents should act as positive role models, modeling behavior that they want their kids to mimic. Note to self: Scream a lot, and don’t be surprised when your kids scream back.

Durrant recommends these five steps for parents to take when kids are misbehaving:

1. Consider your long-term goals. What sort of values are you trying to instill in your child? What behaviors do you want to model?

2. Remember that children need to feel your respect, love, and understanding. They also need to feel safe and secure.

3. Think about what your child needs to understand for the situation to be resolved. What can you do to help your child reach short and long term goals?

4. Consider how your child thinks and feels at this stage of development. Put yourself in your two-year-old’s shoes. After a busy day with no nap, would you have trouble staying quiet through a cousin’s recital?

5. Respond in a way that shows respect for your child. Acknowledge what he or she is feeling and provide useful solutions to address the situation.

Shock and Awe

System is BREAKING DOWN. Families are breaking down,

SOCIETY IS BREAKING. DOWN.

So guess what?

Third of family break-up children lose contact with fathers in ‘failing’ court system, poll

Tens of thousands of children a year are losing contact with their fathers because of “failing” family court system and disastrous custody arrangements, a study has found.

Iain Duncan Smith said the family court system was 'a mess' with fathers too often shut out

By John Bingham

12:01AM GMT 16 Nov 2009

One in three children whose parents separated or divorced over the last 20 years disclosed that they had lost contact permanently with their father.

Almost a tenth of children from broken families said the acrimonious process had left them feeling suicidal while others later sought solace in drink, drugs or crime.

They complained of feeling “isolated” and “used” while parents admitted having used children as “bargaining tools” against each other.

Lawyers said the study showed that the court system itself was making family break-up more acrimonious with children used as "pawns".

They warned that so-called “no fault” divorces were encouraging warring parents to channel their “bloodletting” into disputes over contact.

Related Articles

• Are courts driving fathers away? 16 Nov 2009

• Plan to give fathers four weeks' paternity leave 15 Nov 2009

• Woman in £400m divorce evicted 14 Nov 2009

• Youth unemployment: 'We are producing people with degrees divorced from market reality? 12 Nov 2009

• Serial offenders spared jail to cut crime 31 Oct 2009

Opposition politicians said the poll presented an alarming picture of a system “in a mess” which was all too often leaving fathers “shut out”.

The poll of 4,000 parents and children was carried out to provide a snapshot of the workings of the family court system exactly 20 years after the implementation of the landmark 1989 Children Act.

It found that a third of children from broken families had been tempted by drink or drugs while as many as 10 per cent had later become involved in crime.

A quarter of the children said that they had been asked to lie to one parent by the other and 15 per cent said they had even been called on to “spy” for their mother or father.

Meanwhile half of parents polled admitted deliberately drawing out the legal process for maximum benefit and more than two thirds conceded that they had used their children as “bargaining tools”.

About 250,000 couples, both married and non-married, separate every year affecting 350,000 kids, according to the Department for Children Schools and Families.

“The adversarial nature of the system invites people to come and use the courts system as a punch up and the children get used as pawns," said Sandra Davis, head of family law at Mishcon de Reya, for whom the poll was conducted.

“It polarises parents and it puts children in the middle of the antagonism.

“Some fathers back off because it is too painful to carry on litigating, they give up.”

Tim Loughton, the Tory Shadow children’s minister, said: “This is alarming evidence of the very detrimental impact it is having on the welfare of the children themselves.”

“Clearly, the court system is failing and is positively encouraging conflict - and continuing conflict.”

Iain Duncan Smith, the former Conservative leader and founder of the Centre for Social Justice, warned that young people were bearing the scars of a divorce “boom” and a resulting lack of father figures.

“It is a mess, it needs a complete overhaul," he said. "It is an organisation locked in secrecy and deeply unhelpful to the parents and the children and all too often able to exacerbate the problems that they are about to face.”

David Laws, the Liberal Democrat children’s spokesman, added: “In too many cases the children become caught up in the crossfire between two warring parties in a system which sometimes encourages the parents to take entrenched positions.”

Miss Davis called for compulsory mediation for parents hoping to use the divorce courts rather than the current ”tick box” exercise for those seeking legal aid.

But a spokesman for the Children’s Society said that compulsion “goes against everything we have learned from many, many years of experience”.

Delyth Morgan, the children’s minister, added: “Divorce and separation can have a devastating impact on children caught in the middle.

“But this survey, looking as far back as 20 years ago, simply doesn’t reflect what support is available for families now … we have acted to give families comprehensive counselling, practical and legal support.”

Divorce Poison Deadly: MARRIAGE IS DEAD

England, a country who has been called the divorce capital of the world, is finally WAKING UP TO THE FACT THAT DIVORCE IS CRUSHING SOCIETY. Marriage is DYING AS A RESULT OF THE DIVORCE CULTURE.

WAKE-UP!

From England's The Telegraph:

Young couples shun marriage over divorce fears

Young adults avoid getting married because they fear it will end in divorce, research suggests.

Many expressed concerns about the “hassle” of divorce lawyers or arranging child support payments, while others had painful memories of their parents divorcing Photo: Alamy

By Martin Beckford, Social Affairs Editor

7:00AM GMT 20 Dec 2011

5 Comments

Interviews about marriage with couples who were living together found that two-thirds were worried about the “legal, emotional and economic consequences” of splitting up later.

Many expressed concerns about the “hassle” of divorce lawyers or arranging child support payments, while others had painful memories of their parents divorcing.

However most respondents insisted they did still want to get married one day, but only once they had met “the one” and were emotionally and financially ready for such a commitment.

Experts say the findings, published in the journal Family Relations, disprove the common belief that the marriage rate is declining because young people do not respect the institution of matrimony.

The paper, by Sharon Sassler and Dela Kusi-Appouh at Cornell University and Amanda Miller and the University of Central Oklahoma, states: “More than two-third of those in our sample expressed views about divorce that were in some way connected to their sentiments regarding marriage.

Related Articles

• Single-parent families reach two million 20 Jan 2012

• Average age for women to marry hits 30 30 Mar 2011

• Divorces rise for first time since 2003 08 Dec 2011

“There were numerous ways that the issue of divorce was discussed, though most raised at least one of four possible concerns with regards to marital dissolution.

“Respondents most frequently mentioned a reluctance to marry because of their desire to ‘do it right’, which they defined as marrying only once, to the ideal partner.

“The belief that marriage was difficult to exit was referenced nearly as frequently. Next, respondents expressed concerns that the rewards of marriage were not worth the risk of what might occur (namely, divorce).

“Finally, a small group of the respondents referenced past experiences with divorce as a reason to be leery of marriage.”

The research was carried out among 61 young cohabiting couples in Ohio, but living arrangements in Britain are closer to those in the US than in previous decades.

One in six people are now cohabiting in Britain while married couples now make up less than half the population, and the average age at which a woman gets married for the first time has reached 30.

Divorce rates have also fallen in recent years – as there are fewer spouses who can separate – but the new research suggests that fear of it colours people’s perceptions of marriage.

In-depth interviews about marriage with the couples found that 81 of the 122 respondents mentioned the “spectre” of divorce.

Most of them said they wanted to “prepare themselves personally, financially and emotionally” for tying the knot, so they would “get it right” and so avoid splitting up, although some also had strong religious beliefs against divorce.

Many also said that marriage was “hard to exit” and so they wanted to avoid a “painful” end to a relationship, particularly if they had children.

Some told researchers that the institution of marriage was “doomed” and was not taken seriously enough in society, and even that walking down the aisle might “jinx” a happy but less formalised relationship.

Although a few believed that marriage was “just a piece of paper” and so no different to living together, most couples believed there were some benefits even if they were only making their parents happy or gaining better legal rights.

However some interviewees, particularly women, saw marriage as a “trap” that would burden them with greater expectations and prove difficult to get out of.

“This flies in the face of the idea that men are the ones who must be dragged to the altar.”

Anastasia de Waal, head of family and education at the think-tank Civitas, commented: “This fear of ‘breaking’ a marriage strongly indicates the reverence that people have for it today.

“Non-marriage is often interpreted as indicative of marriage not being valued, whereas research shows us that not marrying is often down to the fact that it is valued to the point of becoming ‘unachievable’.

“This attitude is mirrored in people’s expectations around the position that they must be in when they get married – in the perfect relationship and financial situation. In short, couples are worried about entering marriage, commonly perceived as the ideal relationship, in case they don’t live up to that ideal.”

Bribery and Corruption at the U.S. "Dept. of Justice"

How broken is this country? Our best prosecutors, our best villain-hating policemen, ARE ON THE TAKE. Don't worry, The mighty, august, proud Justice Department is.... investigating itself.

What a relief. Hey, here's an idea, from a crazy, kooky head: CALL THE FUCKING F.B.I. and tell them to throw anyone who is in violation of the constitution in FEDERAL, POUND-ME-IN-THE-ASS PRISON.

From the daily caller:

A U.S. Justice Department source has told The Daily Caller that at least two DOJ prosecutors accepted cash bribes from allegedly corrupt finance executives who were indicted under court seal within the past 13 months, but never arrested or prosecuted.

The sitting governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands, his attorney general and an unspecified number of Virgin Islands legislators also accepted bribes, the source said, adding that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is aware prosecutors and elected officials were bribed and otherwise compromised, but has not held anyone accountable.

The bribed officials, an attorney with knowledge of the investigation told TheDC, remain on the taxpayers’ payroll at the Justice Department without any accountability. The DOJ source said Holder does not want to admit public officials accepted bribes while under his leadership.

That source said that until the summer of 2011, the two compromised prosecutors were part of a team of more than 25 federal prosecutors pursuing a financial crime ring, and at least five other prosecutors tasked to the case were also compromised by the criminal suspects they were investigating, without being bribed.

TheDC is withholding the name of the source, a knowledgeable government official who served on the Justice Department’s arrest team and was involved in the investigation, in order to prevent career retaliation from political figures in the Obama administration.

A former high-level elected official vouches for the government source’s veracity. “[The source] was trustworthy … and you could tell [the source] information or [the source] could hear information and [the source] would keep things close to [the source’s] chest,” that former official told TheDC. “You could trust [the source] with your life.”

The identities of the prosecutors who accepted bribes and others who were compromised have not yet been made public, and TheDC has not yet independently confirmed their identities. The prosecutors themselves are now cooperating with Justice Department investigators. (RELATED: Full coverage of the Justice Department)

Eric Holder, the source said, personally approved the makeup of the investigation and arrest teams.

“The team which was put in place, of course, in tracking all the information that we had — Holder had to sign off on the teams. He signed off on them a year and a half ago,” the source said during an interview. “He wasn’t fully in control of it, but of course the knowledge and approval of it came from him.”

“There are internal documents, of course. He was briefed. He got a full scope of what transpired, and he got a full scope of what is going on with this case in particular. There is nothing going on in this case that Holder doesn’t know about right now.”

DOJ leadership has been fretting internally, the source said, about how to handle the story when the news breaks because it represents a new level of corruption in the Obama administration. The Holder Justice Department is concerned about the appearance that it lacks the competence to enforce the laws in which Obama has shown political interest, including those related to corruption and other financial crimes.

Crazy Stupid Love: Definitely Crazy and Stupid

I liked the movie from a pure entertainment standpoint. I'm a bit of a Steve Carrell fan; he's an everyman type of character and maybe just a bit too much of the stumbling, bumbling, goofy husband, but he's a decent actor.

The movie was, like most movies these days, a total failure from the standpoint of being a model for behavior; in fact it was basically a story on how to succomb to your every emotional whim and behave like an immature, stupid kid. The movie isn't supposed to be any kind of model, I know. Unfortunately, it functions as exactly that for many. Its Hollywood poison. And while men may scoff at it; most women are too damn sensitive and emotional to really think the thing through. Further, young women and young men are completely too immature to weigh its meaning.

In the movie Julianne Moore is married to Steve Carrel and Steve Carrel's character is something of a doofus. His clothes are too big for him. He mumbles. He bumbles. He hunches. His clothes are an insult to clothing. He wears sneakers everywhere. He's the antithesis of masculinity, charm, and confidence. In short, he's everything women pray they don't end up with. He has a good job and helps pay the bills but when did that get a man any respect these days?

So what does his wife do to help him rediscover himself, realize who he is and take charge of his life again?

She fucks another man.

Steve's response? To jump out of the moving car he's in when she tells him this. Later in the movie, Steve realizes "his mistake" and apologetically declares "I should've fought for you!" to which Julianne Moore's character expresses relief and happiness. This is after he's moved out and their children are in an emotional death spiral.

Before putting another man's penis inside her, did Julianne Moore ever tell her faithful husband:

What she needed to hear from him?

No.

Did she ever ask him why he wasn't taking care of himself or why he seemed depressed?

No.

Did she ever try to take responsibility for his lack of desire for her? i.e. Was she overweight, ignoring him, insulting him, henpecking him, etc.? (If she had, the answer would've been No, but its still important to ask).

No.

Did she do anything to emotionally support the man she swore to support in good times and bad, in sickness and in health, for rich or for poor, on the altar all those years ago.

No.

Did she suggest marriage counseling?

No.

Who are we supposed to blame for everything?

Steve Carrel's character.

Is Steve Carrel responsible for his decay? Of course he is. Was the wake-up call he deserved his wife's infidelity?

Give me a break.

You don't "bounce back" from that one folks. This women put part of another man inside her and God knows what other acts. And her husband is supposed to go back to courting her?

Are you fucking kidding?

Why would he? So if he hits another rough patch in his life she can run off and screw someone else again?

Her actions are a lesson in WHAT NOT TO DO to address such a problem.

Coming home and telling her husband, "Honey, you've lost your will to live and if you don't change soon I'm going to lose mine too. Get some help and go to the gym or else I'm leaving you," would've been MUCH kinder and infinitely more honest, direct, and truthful than the path she did take. The path she took was taken out of selfishness, insecurity, anxiety and fear. She felt that she was unattractive and undesirable and she tested her thesis by throwing herself at another man (Kevin Bacon).

Try talking to your husband about how you feel ladies, instead of trying to catch an STD, risk pregnancy, oh, and involve another man's emotions, just because you're feeling a little sad.

Jesus H. Christ.

What would we have done to Steve Carrel's character if he had cheated on his wife because he had been feeling undesireable? Volunteered to spear the fuck, that's what.

Women of the world, I implore you, TALK to your partner and for Chrissake keep your pants on. Its called being a grown up. Its not easy, its not fun and many days, its Hell, but do it; its nearly impossible to escape in life.

-JB

Dad's Are Necessary

Tell this little girl that her dad is just a bank account and otherwise unnecessary.

Danger for Women; Men Not So Lucky

Most Dangerous Countries for Women:

Afghanistan, Congo, Pakistan, India, Somalia

Most Dangerous Countries for Men:

All of them.

The Congo is a tribal wasteland as is Somalia, and India's biggest problem is female infanticide due to the dowry system and extreme poverty. Poor families cannot give money for a woman to be married - so she remains at home forever; hence POOR families desperately do not want a female baby. The daughters they do have are cared for greatly, especially those not had by the poor. The dowry system and lack of good education for poor girls is to blame, not some random feelings of hatred toward women. Further, the conditions in most of the countries above are horrible and most of the country is thinking of nothing but survival. When you are trying to just survive, there are different rules. They are brutal rules. Life comes and goes too quickly. You, dear reader, and I, will never know what that's like so most of that entire story is out of context for a Western reader.

While the women in the photos above pull at your heartstrings, remember the men in some of those countries are off fighting off poverty, corruption, murder, and waging guerilla warfare, some against the United States. The United States has bombs that burst into fire and suck the oxygen out of the air to suffocate you; it has laser guided bombs for accuracy, automated machine guns that fire hundreds of bullets PER SECOND, flamethrowers, mines that blow out of the ground and explode at genital-level, and tanks that could turn a house into firewood with one shot.

But let's talk about how dangerous countries are for women, because they are the only ones that count.

Always remember that men protect women, no matter how backwards the country is and if women are in danger, than men are being killed; blown away like flies in the wind and no one will ever give THEM a second thought because men ARE SUPPOSED TO DIE while women are supposed to stay comfortably at home with their feet up, watching network t.v. and complaining about how unhappy they are and if reality is anything different we are all to feel bad that WOMEN don't have an easier life.

The men? The men are already dead. We killed them in our mind before they even died in real life. No one will cry for the men and no one will write articles about how dangerous life is for men because men do. not. count.

And when men are gone the women will have no husbands, no brothers, no fathers and no sons. Where will they be then? This is a quiet underlying current the above article and others like it never touches because the hidden message of the feminazis is always there: men do nothing but hurt women and women are better off without them. The Western world has used laws, terror, intimidation and the violation of civil liberties to separate men from women and ruin them in the process. Divorced men kill themselves at a rate TEN TIMES that of divorced women. We simply are minimized to the point of killing ourselves. And so the women are left alone with no one but themselves, convinced men are evil, emotionally ruined, alone and eventually depressed and in despair.

Well done everyone.