The hidden cost of single mothers

By J. DeVoy

In honor of filing my taxes, here’s some information about the tax benefits that men, families and child-free women won’t be receiving this season.  From Butterfly Squash:

• “Head of Household” is the filing status used by most single parents. They contribute the least to income taxes. The most are contributed by single males, followed by married couples, and then single females. Normally, married couples would pay the most, except that so many of them are homeowners and therefore eligible for the despicable mortgage interest credit.
• WIC is only for women.
• The child care tax credit is used more often by single parents than by married couples.
• Single mothers are the group most likely to receive free or subsidized health care, child care, and preschool (including the popular but worthless Head Start program).
• Single parents often receive subsidized housing and utilities.
• The vast majority of TANF (welfare) and Food Stamp recipients are single parents.
• Single parents benefit disproportionately from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The median income for single mothers ($31,818) was under the lowest bracket, and that of single fathers ($47,078) was over the highest bracket.

That means that while the majority of single mothers qualify for these and other income transfers, the overwhelming majority of single fathers and married couples do not qualify for them.

To recap, programs to help “working families” disproportionately benefit single mothers, though they theoretically exist for the benefit of all.  While exceptions exist – plenty of single mothers do well for themselves and their children, and single motherhood is becoming a trend among affluent, autonomous women – the majority of never-married mothers do not fall into this category.  Research shows that single mothers (distinct from divorced mothers, who are much less likely to ever live in poverty) and their children have, on average, worse outcomes than their peers in intact households.

Solution: Don’t pull the ladder up or rug out from under those who need these benefits, but start structuring them differently.  Have the child tax credit increase for married couples, and scale upward as household and/or individual income increases.  Make it a significant enough motivator for well-off, presumably intelligent people to have children.  This also creates a stronger incentive for parents to marry, but will at least increase the benefits awarded to single mothers who earn more and are most likely to be capable parents.

Clarence Thomas and Richard Posner hand victories to the internet

By J. DeVoy

In his remarks at the University of Florida’s Levin College of Law earlier this week, Clarence Thomas used a term those who read legal blogs and message boards know well: TTT. (Beginning at the 40:00 mark.)

Thomas kind of botched the acronym, saying “third tier trash,” instead of the more commonly accepted third tier toilet.  Still, a win is a win.  I’ll be charitable and attribute it to his infrequent speaking, rather than a misunderstanding of the acronym.

In other internet-related news from the judiciary, Richard Posner once again flirts with human bio-diversity and the idea of genetically determined IQ in a book review he wrote for The National Review.  Generally a social taboo, a vibrant online community has sprung up to hyper-analyze existing IQ research, make projections upon it, and discuss the relationship between genes and outcomes.  From the article:

 Not that there aren’t genetic differences between groups. IQ has a genetic component and varies systematically across groups. The average Jewish and East Asian IQ is higher than the average non-Jewish white IQ, and part at least of the difference may well be genetic. 

To those who follow such things, however, this is hardly news.  As far back as 2007, Posner expressed a belief in the genetic component of human behavior, or at least the need to investigate it, in his blog:

It is important though highly controversial to explore the genetic causes of differences in human achievement or behavior in order to avoid an inaccurate sense of how much discrimination is responsible for differences across races, genders, etc., in behavior and achievement. For example, the female crime rate is grossly lower than the male crime rate. Is it plausible that the difference is wholly unrelated to genetic differences between men and women?

This is a far cry from the genetic determinism promoted by the research at GNXP, but acknowledging the possibility of genetic relationships to IQ and traits correlated to success is risky business.  James Watson, the discoverer of DNA, had his life’s legacy snuffed out for acknowledging such a relationship; Larry Summers, who seems to have landed on his feet in the Obama administration, was forced out of Harvard for insinuating that there were genetic reasons why men are over-represented in hard science and math careers.

The News

H/T: Bob

An Open Letter to Go Daddy.com

by Tatiana von Tauber

Dear Go Daddy dot com,

As a customer for about a year I’ve been neutral with Go Daddy as my host company. While I’m not thrilled with some features offered versus not offered in terms of avenues which work best for my website, I’ve been sticking it out.

Unfortunately I regret to inform you, however, that as an open-minded and sex-positive woman and Go Daddy customer, I find your latest Super Bowl marketing videos distasteful and degrading.  My business revolves around educating women about how their sexuality can empower them and I make my money (which helps fund you) photographing boudoir where I show women how being sexy need not translate to being a porn star fantasy.

While I can take a sexist joke as funny, I believe your advertising team crossed the line from its attempt to be “hysterical” as you inserted in your vote option to absolutely disrespectful by creating ads with high stereotypes, not only poking distasteful fun at females but black, gay men, the lingerie and beauty industries and your customer’s intelligence. I understand the direction you were headed being the theme was geared towards the Super Bowl crowd but as a sex researcher and erotic artist I feel you failed your general audience and customers as your advertising team does not understand how to properly insert sex into its campaign unless your primary target audience consists of college boys and men who still feel as happy holding their beer as they are happy to hold their own dick.

Where Go Daddy failed in its “fun” intent is that the objectification was displaced, both in the Banned Super Bowl and Spa videos (speech, appearance, behavior). Rather than objectify the person, creating sexist humor works better by focusing on the sexist circumstance as expressed in this video by Danier Leather for instance.

This video is an example of “intelligent sexism” because while it pokes fun at a specific gender, it does so in an area a majority can identify with.  It pokes fun at the situation not the sex.  It focuses on a typical and real male response to a beautiful woman that though bold and gutsy is still respectable and for some, potentially flattering.  It doesn’t objectify the porn star fantasy but presents an evolved fantasy of sexual realism; therefore, its funny nature rests on the fact that its audience laughs at the real life differences between the sexes yet maintains respect by never presenting the female or male as absolute morons.  The fantasy scenarios you create in your videos represent a young erection of thought. Meaning, I’d laugh and move on if Go Daddy were selling beer but you’re not.

Go Daddy is a company with women as customers – women with businesses, intelligence, drive, confidence, maturity and self-respect. As a customer, how am I to support a company which directly pokes fun of stereotypes that are primarily true in the male fantasy and stupidity and in such, undermine the respectable aspects of sexuality I teach and present to male and female clients while using your products? 

I’m ashamed and disappointed to do business with you if you feel your niche market is boys with erections. I feel as though you’ve slutted your reputation as well as your star spokeswoman, Danica Patrick, whom I’ve always respected as a female race car driver.  Why hire a woman like that and then pay her to support your sexist humor which isn’t even sexy or humorous but down right stupid and immature?  This you are proud of? The entire mix of this accomplished woman being your spokesperson and your unintelligent use of sexist advertising presents an extremely confusing message in terms of who you truly are as a company and the philosophy which drives your sales.  I certainly hope you’ll consider this view when planning out your next ad campaign.

Respectfully,

Tatiana von Tauber

www.vontauber.com

Kitty Porn

(Starring Nice Kitty; filmed, directed and edited by J. Mehl)

New fertility treatment

Step 1: Give blowjob
Step 2: Swallow
Step 3: Get stabbed
Step 4: Profit!

I am not sure if DHAPNG can result in pregnancy. But, if a woman with no vagina gives head, swallows, and then gets stabbed… it seems like she can get pregnant from that. Well, according to doctors in Lesotho, it is possible.

I dunno… sounds like a hoax to me.

Dissecting the female traditionalist and anti-feminist

By Tatiana von Tauber and J. DeVoy

When Furman University recently hosted 85-year-old conservative activist and anti-feminist woman Phyllis Schlafly, controversy was sure to follow.  Schlafly, calling feminists “bitter, unhappy and not successful women,” argued that there was no glass ceiling for women, and that women who embrace feminism die alone and bitter.

In light of our divergent views on the subject, we, Tatiana and Jay, will consider Schlafly’s speech in classic debate style.

Tatiana

Schlafly’s anti-feminist comments eliminate support of the primary factor feminism seeks: Choice.  Unfortunately, the fine print of choice is consequence yet when determining the “right” choice one rarely understands the full load of backlashes or complications of its execution.  The future rarely turns out as planned, and one never knows if she’s signed a contract for a lemon or not.

As a young feminist in the 1980s I didn’t question feminism’s promise of having it all, but no one informed me – or I just missed the speech – that the excitement of having career and family was sold with pep rally hype.  At that time women didn’t realize just how difficult the combo might become.  We rode the wave of promise just like with the Obama campaign.  Now women are disappointed the promised results didn’t happen and the blame finger comes up.

Judith Warner in her book, “Motherhood Madness: the age of anxiety” discusses how women are opting for new solutions now that they’ve realized the combo method didn’t provide the kinds of rewards women sought in the idealized form on which they were sold.  For me feminism isn’t about giving women a “better” lifestyle so much as giving women choice. The “better” is subjective. Those who cry that their choices led them to unhappy endings must find alternatives and because of the feminist movement alternatives exist.  While both sides argue which is the better way, both fail to support that feminism’s new wave requires synthesis of old and new.

Conservative views such as Schlafly’s praise the commitment of traditional family, which I support; however, they fail in many cases to provide the comprehensive information necessary for women to understand the realties of motherhood versus career in its realism rather than theory and in the glorification to make the entire movement work, feminism is propaganda just like everything else. 

I don’t even care for the term feminist anymore because it’s just another form of segregation.  The problem with any “ism” is that it’s mostly all bullshitism.  If the goal is to create equality between the sexes, propagate a healthy vision and experience of family, provide rightful choice and freedom to all and to create solid and non-dysfunctional communities which thrive not only on a small scale but a large one, then both sets of feminists can kiss my ass because both venture out to emphasize the victimization factors both sides create for the other.  If even in feminism there cannot be an equal or neutral “sisterhood” – if there must exist subcategories within the umbrella term (feminist waves) then the intent isn’t true equality of sexes but power over the other one in an effort to find the balance and happiness sought. 

Life is a constant battle of victimization and what others do with it either makes them winners or continual victims. Some feminists, such as anti-porn advocates do perpetuate the feeling that women are victims of their sex but that for me is a personal problem.  I find my sex, my gender and human qualities to be anything but a stumbling block and each time one side presents a problem, I just look for other choices – because I can.  That’s what feminism stands for and those choices are different for every woman on the plant.  Feminism’s effort for equality will continue to be a gender struggle for power until all sides find a neutral point. 

Jay

I’m unconvinced.  If feminism has made so many strides forward, why are women more unhappy today than at any previously measured point?  Some form of glass ceiling persists in society, but it’s far higher and more easily broken than before, as women graduate college at rates higher than men and have been less likely to be affected by the current recession.

Second, yes, motherhood is overhyped – and so is everything else.  Careerism is hollow as is motherhood when either is heralded as an ultimate value and fulfillment in and of itself.  These two modes of existence are identical to any other in that regard.  Simply put, throwing yourself wholly into any one thing is unhealthy, whether it’s a job, a drug addiction, or alleged virtues (self-appointed evangelists are the worst).

Finally, it’s no surprise that Schlafly’s views are conservative.  If anything, she’s one of the few conservatives who still believe in traditional gender roles: Both parties have abandoned their core principles to put women above men through legislation such as the Violence Against Women Act and the International Marriage Brokers Regulation Act.  Recently, women from both sides of the aisle agreed that the legislative process would move faster if men refrained from participating.

When it comes to these issues, there are no Republicans or Democrats – only misandrists.  Feminism as its defined now is a grab for power.  That’s fine, and even rational, but call it that instead of masquerading it in the cheap tarp of equality.  This dichotomy is often referred to as “lifeboats or votes.”  If women want true egalitarianism in gender relations, they should cede their entitlement to protection above everything else and release the women-and-children-first mentality that still permeates society.  Otherwise, it’s admitting that women have special status, something that would be unnecessary if there was true equality.

But the real problem is fantasy fulfillment, not feminism.  Everyone is better off because of women’s equality, but now that banner is being waved to justify the living out of undesirable and even impossible fantasies.  Women, inspired by Sex and the City and self-ruining books like The Rules, have lost touch with reality.  Reality is that more than 85% – almost 90% – of their reproductive capacity is exhausted by age 30.  Reality is that men care about a girl’s past and don’t want to devote resources to getting a woman to give him what she’s already given so many men for free.  And reality is that the perfect person is waiting around the corner.  No, that’s the sound of a half dozen cats, the next season of Dancing With The Stars, and the deafening static of time buzzing by until death finally comes.

Feminism isn’t what’s ruining women, but rather the actions being taken in its name, corrupting the legacy of women like Susan B. Anthony.  Original feminists wanted women to be more involved with society, and nobody seriously thinks rescinding such rights is desirable.  Simultaneously, Anthony and her peers still believed in traditional gender roles, to some extent, something that the second wave feminists rightly disavowed.  It is the third wave who corrupt feminism by telling women they can have it all – motherhood, a great career, personal fulfillment, and every one of their hearts’ desires – and in so doing, tell the cruelest lie of all.

Tatiana

All of this shows me that society is evolving its concepts of love, marriage, family and, of course, feminism itself.  The acceptance that there is always a shadow to the fairy tale will provide many positives wherein one is prepared to deal with the consequences of choice and be happy that further solutions exist at all,  many of which wouldn’t even be possible without feminism.  

Some women are bitter as Schlafly suggests, but are they bitter because of feminism or because they failed themselves and got caught up in the hype of attaining their goals? Did these women stop to consider what constitutes balance or blindly follow “the word” of the feminist bible?

The secret to minimizing self-victimization, finding balance and obtaining a steady level of happiness doesn’t sit inside the feminist or anti-feminist view. It sits inside the passion and desire one has to experience all that feminism and more rightly, humanism, offers with the quality of the cards they’ve been dealt.  It takes maturity find strength from unexpected challenge. Suck it up, deal with it, grow up and move on.  As long as one has choice and freedom to choose, one has all the tools for happiness. 

Fantasy fulfillment, as Jay mentions, is created precisely though that patriarchal world Schlafly paints as better suited for women.  It’s as much bullshit as “women can have it all.”  Having it all means the entire enchilada, the good, the bad and the ugly, yet when the latter two are thrown into the mix, women cry foul.  Individuals who aren’t lying to themselves are those who continue to seek a well rounded education on choices available to them and consciously realize that unhappiness, bitterness and victimization merely are reactions that need not be a state. 

Perhaps America and feminism promised a fulfilling dream but when you get to be my age, you realize that the dream itself tweaks over time.  What I wanted and believed in my early 20s is so far removed from who I am now that I can only say if a woman chooses family over career (or other personal development outside the home) exclusively, she misses finding herself and when a woman doesn’t know who she is from the inside out she’s not nearly as valuable as she could be to herself, children or community.  In that sense she fails herself and the feminist movement as a whole.

Reasons why you’re miserable

By J. DeVoy

This list from Amerika.org warrants sharing.  It’s so nearly perfect that commentary or additions are superfluous.  The next time someone wonders why it seems the world is going to hell, edify them.

• We give extreme negative power to the wrong people in this society. We reward the voice who shouts an epithet from the crowd, maybe “Communist” or “racist” or “elitist,” but never demand accountability for him. As a result, we deprive people of the ability to build especially in the areas where we most need construction.
• Intelligence is relative. That means that people cannot understand an idea that requires more intelligence than they have in order to conceive of it. This is why we can “educate” people in behaviors, but unless they understand the cause/effect relationship about why those behaviors are superior, they are simply mimicking the original.
• Creating misery. In a situation where objections stop change, no real change occurs, and so it treats us to dress up the same old stuff as new and then put some icing on it so the proles don’t notice.
• We’re selling each other to death. Our culture has gone from a mode of “produce things” to “find ways to make other people like things.” We are now a culture of salesmen. The rest of the world moves on, produces things, knowing that at some point we’ll isolate ourselves and be selling each other the same stuff in a giant circle.

If you find yourself asking, “Why is modern life such a drag?” consider this:

• Appearance is more important than reality. But that appearance needs to be positive in the sense of “someone wants to buy it,” but it can be ugly. It can be cheap. It can be crass. And you’ll have to drive past it every day.
• When you assemble a large group of idiots, they buy idiot products — but no one except idiots from rich countries want to buy idiot products. The rest of the world needs function and if our wealth fades, we will have nothing to market.
• You must tolerate idiots. It is heretical to suggest that idiots are, indeed, idiots and therefore should be removed from any functional process. Instead, we need to include them so we all feel good. It’s good marketing. “Everyone here is happy,” says the salesman. “We’re a big happy family.”
• People who are not idiots get infected with the idiot virus brought on by having to sell things to idiots. They pre-chew every idea, break it down into tiny bits, and then tell you with bright pink faces how these tiny bits are more important than getting the whole thing right. Again with the salesman: “But it slices and dices!” Yes, but does it work? How long will it last? Is there a better way?
• The essence of guilt is the idea of equality: I’m just like you, how could you turn on me? Take that from a reaction to a forward action and you have passive aggression: I’m just like you, I demand you do what I want! Only a society of salesmen could come up with such a moronic idea.
• In a society where the greatest number of people must agree something is a good idea, and most of them are unaware of consequences past the next paycheck, you’re always going to get the short-sighted idea that hands everyone a bone while ignoring the real problem, which may take months or years to really stand up and slap us in the face.

Texting

Italian transvestite inmates to receive separate but equal treatment

By J. DeVoy

Italy is so besieged by gender-bending felons that it’s opening a new prison exclusively for them.  Sensitivity training and special accommodations abound.

Around 30 transgender detainees will be moved to the facility from a prison outside Florence, where they are currently serving their sentences.

Most were convicted for prostitution or drug-related offences. The governor of Lazio, the region which includes Rome, had to resign late last year after being caught up in a sex and drugs scandal involving Brazilian transsexual prostitutes.

Lazio always seems to be synonymous with loserdom.  See, e.g., Rick Lazio, who ran a hilariously bad campaign in his bid to be elected New York’s senator in 2000.

The new facility, a former medium-security prison for women, includes a sports field, a library and an allotment producing olive oil and wine.

True, it does say “former” medium-security prison, but I don’t think even the most high flying of America’s criminal elite received such accommodations.  I have trouble picturing Bernie Madoff stomping grapes to make wine from scratch.  Martha Stewart, maybe, but not people like Madoff.  These guys..ummm, girls…no, people have it made.

Pass Me My Porn Please

By Tatiana von Tauber 

When I was a kid I was mad that anyone would laugh at or with Benny Hill. The idea of making fun of  T & A sickened me. Then I grew up and discovered that if one can’t have fun with sex one is just lacking the humor around the absurdity of seriousness society has placed on gender and sex.  Meaning, we’re merely living in a more modern fashion of Puritan times.  Clearly the sex industry is winning and one doesn’t need to go far to see how sex has jumped into the mainstream.  Why?  People want it. 

A little porn is good for you

Some people are offended by sexist humor or sexist anything that depicts the stereotypes we know we don’t fit into, but when stereotypes are created, they are so clearly because of those few generalities which stand out to the masses. The uncomfortable nature of feeling victimized to stereotyping and thus judgment is to simply accept that sex can be funny just as easily as it can be serious and just as easily as it can be sexually stimulating. In other words, it seems wise to open up to its many possibilities rather than forcing them into the closet based on out of date ideology rooting in shame and fear. Sex has many sides but ultimately sex is the pursuit of pleasure. It is typical that society attempts more than anything to control the pleasure of others, especially those which are natural. 

 The most common characteristic I see in women I photograph boudoir with is their initial discomfort about the entire “pornography” thing but once they realize they’re in control of their own “on camera” sensuality,  an hour into the session they let go and have fun.  It opens a new perception on the fact that the erotic need not be scary.  Suddenly what they were most afraid to do became something exciting, fun and pleasurable to them.  And there begins the transition from sexual repression to sexual awakening.  At its end, sex is a human benefit despite its shadows and now studies are finally showing what too many would rather not know or deal with: pornography is good for you!  Time to take that secret out of the closet and look at it in the light.

Massachusetts libel case upholds Fair Report privilege

By J. DeVoy

The trial court’s opinion in Howell v. Enterprise was affirmed by Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court earlier this month, reaffirming the special protection journalists have when reporting on difficult cases.  The Media Law blog offered its analysis of the case and its significance when the decision was released:

The opinion in Howell v. Enterprise dismisses a defamation suit brought by a former employee of the town of Abington against The Enterprise newspaper in Brockton after it reported that he had used town computers to access pornography.

In affirming the applicability of the fair report privilege, the opinion by Justice Robert J. Cordy said, “[I]t is important that the privilege be construed liberally and with an eye toward disposing of cases at an early stage of litigation,” and that courts should take “an expansive but not unlimited view” of what qualifies as an official action covered by the privilege. Applying these principles, the SJC concluded that the actions at issue in this case qualified as official.

The SJC goes on to conclude that the bulk of the reports met both prongs — that they were both fair and substantially accurate. One statement in one article was inaccurate, the SJC found, but lacked the requisite element of malice that would be required to prove defamation against Howell as a public figure in his town.

The Supreme Judicial Court tacitly supports a lenient standard in determining what constitutes an official action, but still applies a two-prong test to the speech. Namely, mistakes made in reports are examined for their accuracy — the factual relation of what happened — and their fairness, the event’s reported character.

This decision seems to back away from Murphy v. Boston Herald, previously discussed by Marc.  In that case, a judge’s alleged statements about a rape victim in criminal litigation were at issue, though, whereas here there’s merely the claim that a state employee viewed pornography on government computers.  While no less damaging for the individual here, the public effects of extreme statements about a judge have greater consequence than those about a generic state employee.  Murphy may even be a special case because of the importance of the public’s trust in the judiciary and the recklessness displayed by the journalist in gathering his facts — or, more accurately, failing to do so.

Still, the Fair Report privilege lives on, and may have received a new vigor from Howell.  Though the doctrine sounds like it was ripped off from Fox News, journalists everywhere are fortunate to have it.

Only in America…

by Christopher Harbin

Only in the greatest country in the free world can one die-of-a-heart-attack-after-you-eat-here themed restaurant sue another one for trade dress infringement.  I’ve never felt so patriotic.  I might cry.

"America is a vast conspiracy to make you happy." - John Updike

Advice for this weekend and all others

By J. DeVoy

As the last man standing, literally, and the only unmarried regular Satyriconista, it’s become my de facto role to bring some dating realism to the blog and unite it with legal and social commentary.  This must be hilarious to anyone who knows me in real life.  I mostly link to stuff that works and marinate it with cynicism.

So, without further ado, a guide for defensive casual and more-than-casual hookups.

I. Use only the weakest pretexts to get her to your place.

If a girl wants to go home with you, she will, as long as some reason is given that doesn’t make her feel cheap and used.  The problem is that men (well, betas, but whatever) think that they need a compelling reason to bring her back.  As a result, they start talking about things she has to see – his home theater setup, his collection of books, and so on.  Art is a commonly used reason, and it can be fairly interesting, especially if it’s of an exploding astronaut or Hulk Hogan embracing a zombie.

The problem is that she might think she’s there for the art, and you assume she’s there for more.  Things get awkward, and the window for more than stilted conversation slams shut like so many rusty bear traps.  Plus, ambiguity is the breeding ground of false rape charges, a top-five fear for all men alongside prostate cancer and erectile dysfunction.

Avoid this quandry by using the flimsiest excuses possible.  Tell her that you have incredible tap water and she has to come up and try it.  Invite her to inspect your bedding’s thread count.  It doesn’t matter what, it just can’t be something anyone would legitimately find interesting.

This doesn’t discount the importance of delivery; none of the above statements can be said deadpan and work.  But, those statements are less likely to be lies, and a better barometer of a girl’s interest.  If she says no, then she says no.  But if she says yes to something that a person without interest in sleeping with you would like, such as artwork, you’ve created at least a socially awkward situation and possibly a serious legal threat to your freedom.

II. Make the sex really, really good.

If you don’t, she might cry rape!  Really.  As the mug shots show, expecting good sex is not just the province of attractive women whom many men desire.

Caught in a bad romance!

 

Furthermore, good sex means she’ll be back for more.  It may not be a perfect or stable relationship, but members of a gender that can rationalize staying committed to men who physically beat them likely have no problem returning to the font of all good things.

Proponents of monogamy, myself included, might find this abhorrent on some level. But, setting the fact that relationships are based on more than sex aside, this tactic is just another tool for building the stable, committed relationship you want.

III. Never stop being cool and interesting.

Winning her interest by being cool and interesting doesn’t mean your job is done, unless you’re having a serious case of buyer’s remorse.  The bravado and assholish ways that carried you to this point might be toned down a bit to yield something more sustainable, honest and, dare I even say it — vulnerable.

But, if you’re boring and don’t think about or do anything — a particular problem for lawyers and law students because so much of their work is confidential, mind-numbing, or both — she will lose interest.  Don’t lie, but think back on your life experiences and release them gradually, slowly building your narrative.  Lawyers, especially litigators, should have no problem knowing how to tell a story and keep the audience wanting more.

As Ferdinand Bardamu perfectly states:

[I]f you want to sell anything, you have to be cool. Coolness is the primary reason why the Roissysphere blossomed out of nowhere to become a potent intellectual force in the span of less than three years while the much older men’s rights movement is perennially fighting off accusations of loserness. (Full disclosure: I am a men’s rights supporter.) If you libertarians want others to respect you, maybe even accept your ideas as correct, you need to drop the shtick and learn to be cool. Getting hyper-defensive when people point out the truth about you and making bad music videos will ensure you remain an ignored minority.

For lawyers, don’t get to the point.  Dwell on the ambiguity and put that previously worthless B.A. in English to work.  Never merely say that you’re an attorney for, say, big tobacco or an insurance company: You might as well follow up with, “and I kick small animals for fun in my 5 hours of free time each week,” as it wouldn’t do any additional damage.  Frame yourself as the guy who exposes lying, greedy personal injury plaintiffs for what they are, or as an above-it-all playwright who makes others pay for their own stupidity as a day job.  Lying is wrong, but unflinching directness is for losers.

Make no mistake, this is a man’s duty.  Women should be thoughtful and interesting, but there’s less of a burden on them to have top 1% life experiences, success, personality and attraction-winning X-factor.  Most readers of this blog have standards requiring women to reach a certain threshold of education and life experience, but anything beyond that isn’t truly necessary; men want girls who fundamentally are caring, thoughtful, and happy to cook for them every once in a while.

When you’re cool and interesting, though, you can do anything and people will worship you for it.  Just ask Roman Polanski.

Not our sponsor, but they should be

A billboard inspired by the ad has a bunch of big bad Texans’ panties in a wad.