Michael Sonmore writes: Before my wife started sleeping with other men, I certainly considered myself a feminist, but I really only understood it in the abstract. When I quit working to stay at home with the kids, I began to understand it on a whole new level. I am an economically dependent househusband coping with the withering drudgery of child-rearing. Now that I understand the reality of that situation, I don’t blame women for demanding more for themselves than the life of the housewife.
Still, as a man, I could, if I wanted to, portray what I’m doing as “work,” and thus claim for myself the prestige men traditionally derive from “work.” Whenever I tell someone I stay home with the kids, they invariably say, “Hardest work in the world.” They say this because the only way to account for a man at home with the kids is to say what he’s doing is hard work. But there’s a subtext in the compliment that makes it backhanded: We both know no one ever says it to a woman. Mothers care; fathers provide care. The difference is crucial. Despite my total withdrawal from the economy and the traditional sources of masculine identity, I can still argue I am a provider. I provide care.
In this way, my masculine self-image was stretched but not broken. Diaper bag notwithstanding, I was still a Man. It wasn’t until my wife mentioned one evening that she’d kissed another man and liked it and wanted to do more than kiss next time that I realized how my status as a Man depended on a single fact: that my wife fucked only me.
Posted inFeminism|Comments Off on What Open Marriage Taught One Man About Feminism
Will increasing the number of minority and women police officers make law enforcement more effective by drawing on abilities that have gone untapped and creating better contact with communities and victims? Or will standards have to be lowered too far before large numbers of minorities and women can be hired? Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. cities for 1987, 1990, and 1993, I find that more black and minority police officers increase crime rates. This arises because lower hiring standards involved in recruiting more minority officers reduces the quality of both new minority and new nonminority officers. The most adverse effects of these hiring policies have occurred in the most heavily black populated areas. The annual victim costs for all categories of crimes was at least $5.4 billion. Other issues addressed are: the impact that this changing composition of police departments has on their organization as well as the murder of and assaults against police officers.
…While the U.S. Department of Justice states that the appropriate
testing procedures nearly eliminate disparate impact while improving
merit hiring (Gottfredson, May 20, 1997),11 critics of affirmative
action in policing argue that these tests lower reliance on important
cognitive skills. According to a 1993 survey of twenty-three large
police and sheriff departments (conducted for the Department of
Justice and Nassau County, New York), the cognitive portion of
police tests have been completely removed in three cases in an
attempt to increase minority recruitment. Even the remaining
twenty had reduced their emphasis on cognitive skills, with all the
respondents indicating “that adverse impact was considered when
determining the selection process” (Dunnette et. al., April, 1993, p.
18). Using this survey to help justify its decision, Nassau County
removed all cognitive tests except for a reading comprehension test,
which is graded pass-fail and requires that “applicants had to score
only as well as the bottom 1% of current police officers.” The
Louisiana State Police replaced a cognitive exam with a test that
initially contained six parts: three personality, one biographical, and
two cognitive, but later threw out one of the cognitive sections to
further reduce the impact on minorities (Price, June 13, 1997).12
After spending “$5.1 million to have consultants develop unbiased
exams, only to have minorities fare poorly again,” Chicago moved to
a heavily weighted seniority system for promoting police officers and
a lottery system for hiring firefighters (Spielman, 1996, p. 16).13
Some academics have charged that the new tests are consciously
designed “to work little better than simply picking applicants at
random” so that the pass rate is the same across different racial
groups (Gottfredson, May 20, 1997 and October 24, 1996). If
minority applicants with low cognitive skills are hired and if these
skills predict how good of a police officer a candidate would be,
preferential treatment adversely affects the effectiveness of police
departments. Indeed, some extreme claims have been made about
the importance of cognitive skills. Expressing concerns about the
poor English skills of new police recruits, a Washington Post
editorial (1993, p. C8) claimed that: “Between 1986 and 1990, 311
of the 938 murder cases the D.C. police brought to the U.S.
attorney’s office—roughly a third—were dismissed. . . . One local
prosecutor says many D.C. cases were thrown out because
prosecutors couldn’t read or understand the arrest reports [written by
the police].”14
…Even more controversial are accusations that in increasing
minority hires police departments have lowered standards in
screening out those who might be predisposed towards corruption.15
For instance, in Chicago, while black officers make up 26 percent of
the sworn police force, the African-American Police League claims
that they accounted for “85 percent of the [corruption related]
suspensions and firings by Internal Affairs during the last two years”
(Martin, June 20, 1997, Pg. 4). The league attributes this high rate
to blacks being singled out by a “racist” police department.
… The effect is so large that eighteen of the specifications imply that a one standard deviation change in the percent of the police force that is black increases the corresponding crime rates by at least 10 percent of its mean value (see the percentages listed next to the coefficients). The effects are dramatic no matter how one examines these estimates. For example, increasing black officers’ share by one percentage point increases property crimes by eight percent, and the same increase raises the murder rate by 4 percent and overall violent crime by 7 percent. As the median increase in black officer’s share of police departments during this seven year period was 3.9 percentage points, I conclude that if nothing else had changed, the average city’s
murder rate would have risen by 16.4 percent.
…Changing tests to employ a greater percentage of blacks can make it
more difficult to screen out lower quality candidates generally,
including whites and other racial groups. Independently of the
consent decree, the size of the change in black employment may
thus proxy for changes in the level of standards used to hire
employees in general. Similarly, changing promotion rules which
favor seniority over achievement can affect morale and incentives
across all categories of police officers.
…Asians had a greater deterrent impact on crime. More Hispanics and
American Indians did not tend to increase crime by the magnitude
shown by hiring additional black officers.
…For both murder and manslaughter the results are very consistent. More minority, black, or female officers are associated with higher murder and manslaughter rates, while more white and male officers imply lower fewer deaths. These two crimes are also the most accurately reported…
…The effectiveness of different types of police officers
lies more along racial than gender lines, though there are notable
exceptions for Asians where males are associated with fewer crimes
and females more. Murder divides along racial lines, with more
whites (both males and females) coinciding with lower death rates,
but the reverse being true for blacks and Hispanics. In all but a few
of cases, more blacks and Hispanics are associated with higher crime
rates.
…The variables explaining rape provide very little evidence that the
gender of the police officer affects this crime differently.
…In conclusion, the results for assaults on officers are consistent
with women being physically weaker than men. Criminals are more
likely to attack if they believe that an attack will successfully allow
them to escape. Consistent with the hypothesis, mentioned in the
introduction, that female officers have a shorter time to react to
perceived threats because they must make a decision before they
come into physical contact with the criminal, there is some
preliminary evidence that male officers are more likely to avoid
shooting civilians. Interestingly, the reduction appears to be greatest
for black male police officers.
… Overall, the results imply that consent decrees raise crime
rates independently of the changing racial or gender composition of
the police force. For both violent and property crimes, there is
evidence that consent decrees matter because they alter the behavior
of the existing police force.For property crimes, the quality of the
new hires produced by consent decrees also appears to matter, with
each additional year that the decree is in effect raising property
crimes by another 1.7 to 1.9 percent. Increasing the number of black
officers on a police force independently of the length of time that
the consent decree has been in effect is associated with increased
violent crimes, though the inclusion of Hispanics and American
Indians together with blacks to examine minorities as group
produces a much smaller and not statistically significant effect.
… In terms of consistent results, the race measures shown in the appendix generally imply that a greater share of the police force that is black, the higher the violent crime, murder, manslaughter, robbery, or aggravated assault rates. More Hispanics imply higher violent crime rates, though the effect is less consistent than for blacks. Higher shares of whites or Asians are usually associated with lower violent crime, murder, manslaughter, robbery, or aggravated assault rates.
…A massive experiment has been conducted with law enforcement
during the last couple of decades, with more minority and women
officers being hired. But does increasing the number of minority and
women police officers raise effectiveness by drawing on new
untapped abilities, or are standards lowered too far in order to hire
large numbers of minorities and women? I have argued here that the
effect depends upon the type of crime. The evidence for rape is
mixed, with most results implying essentially no difference between
male and female officers, though some estimates indicate that the
actual changes in the composition of police departments helped
reduce the number of rapes. However, for all other crimes, more
black officers lead to more crime, not less. This does not say that
there are not large potential benefits from minority and women
police officers, but only that the particular new officers that have
been hired have costs that outweigh the benefits. On net, the
current policies appear to be costing American cities at least $5.4
billion per year in additional victimization costs.
These changes in the composition of police departments have been accompanied by changes in the organization of police departments. Some of these changes—such as an increasing movement away from single officer patrol units—is likely due to the presence of more female officers with less physical strength. Women officers are more likely to be assaulted than men, though their overall probability of death on the job is the same. Some preliminary evidence indicates that white women officers are more likely to shoot civilians, and that black male officers are the least likely. The evidence is not consistent with the hypothesis that black officers are more effective at dealing with crime in predominately black areas. Instead. surprisingly, the results suggest that it is the most heavily black communities that are the most at risk from the increased crime produced by affirmative action policies.
The evidence contradicts that recent claims concerning the
differential dangers facing minority and white police officers. While
black officers are most likely to die from accidental deaths, black and
white male officers face the same probability of being killed by
criminals.
The problem is that because of large differences in strength and size between men and women, different standards are applied to ensure that there are more female officers. In the Nichols case, the difference was stark: the suspect was 33 years old and 6 feet tall; the female sheriff’s deputy guarding him was 51 years old and 5-foot-2.
Similarly, the intelligence tests used to screen officers have produced different pass rates for different racial groups. To eliminate those differences, there has been a strong move to stop giving these tests over the last 30 years.
Some argue that these criteria were not important in picking officers, or that intelligence tests are culturally biased — or worse, that the screening criteria exist primarily to ensure that women and minorities are excluded from the profession. There is possibly some truth to this, but there is still the question about how far one goes to ensure that a police force mirrors the community it is protecting.
Some of these differences are fairly large. For example, in a study I published in 2000 examining the effect of affirmative action on police hiring, a comparison of male and female public safety officers found that female officers had 32 percent to 56 percent less upper-body strength and 18 percent to 45 percent less lower-body strength than male officers.
In New York City, because the physical strength rules were so weakened during the 1980s, a former NYPD personnel chief complained at one time that many police officers “lack the strength to pull the trigger on a gun” and do not have the physical strength to run after suspects.
Part of these differences between men and women can be offset by changing technology and operating procedures. Cars can replace foot and bicycle patrols. Two-officer units can replace single-officer units, though these changes mean less contact between officers and the public and less area covered.
Officers can also be issued more protective gear. Indeed, my own published research finds these exact changes in police departments when hiring standards are changed for women.
We also see that as a greater percentage of a department is made up of women, the competition among men for the remaining slots increases and the average strength and size of men admitted actually rises, partly offsetting the weaker strength of the newer female officers.
Hiring more non-white officers is difficult because so many would-be recruits have criminal records, the New York police commissioner, Bill Bratton, has said.
“We have a significant population gap among African American males because so many of them have spent time in jail and, as such, we can’t hire them,” Bratton said in an interview with the Guardian.
Police departments, responding to widespread protests against several high-profile police killings of black men, are boosting efforts to recruit more non-white officers. But budget restrictions, strained relations between police and minority communities and, according to Bratton, a history of indiscriminate policing tactics that disproportionately target black and Latino men complicate the department’s goal of racial parity.
Bratton blamed the “unfortunate consequences” of an explosion in “stop, question and frisk” incidents that caught many young men of color in the net by resulting in them being given a summons for a minor misdemeanor. As a result, Bratton said, the “population pool [of eligible non-white officers] is much smaller than it might ordinarily have been”.
The application process to join the NYPD includes, among other things, a complete criminal background check.
Convicted felons are automatically disqualified from the NYPD applicant pool, as well as anyone guilty of a domestic violence charge or who has been dishonorably discharged from the military.
Summonses, however, do not automatically disqualify a candidate, though they are taken into account during the application process. For example, a summons for disorderly conduct would not preclude a candidate from being accepted into the force, but repeated convictions for an offense that demonstrates “disrespect for the law” could result in disqualification.
New York Times: Generations of New Yorkers have staked their middle-class dreams on passing the police test and getting through the long and sometimes bewildering hiring process. (Police officers earn a total compensation package of $90,829 annually after five and a half years. That does not include overtime.)
In a statement posted on the department’s website last month, in which he sought to clarify his remarks about African-American recruits, Mr. Bratton said that while “young men with felony records do reduce the available pool of black police candidates,” the “recruiting challenge stems much more from problems with our own recruiting system.”
The hiring process can take four years or more, Mr. Bratton said, leaving applicants who are unfamiliar with the system feeling adrift and discouraged.
White applicants, who are far more likely than their black counterparts to have relatives, friends and neighbors on the force, often know someone who can help navigate the bureaucracy. By contrast, many African-Americans end up dropping out of the application process, police officials say.
The statistics are stark: 55 percent of white candidates who pass the police exam get jobs with the department, according to figures released by the department last month. Of the African-Americans who pass the test, 9 percent get hired. Nine percent.
Some of those black men and women who passed the test may have been disqualified by medical or psychological issues or because they lacked the 60 college credits required, officials say.
Posted inAffirmative Action, Blacks, Police|Comments Off on Using Affirmative Action To Hire More Black Police Massively Increases Crime & Corruption
Steve Sailer writes: “Trainwreck is a Judd Apatow-directed romantic comedy in which Amy Schumer plays an alcoholic who reluctantly comes around to deciding to give up a life of one-night stands with professional wrestlers and other random muscleheads and instead settle for the love of a nice guy who happens to be one of the world’s highest paid surgeons. In the NYT, Manohla Dargis praises Schumer’s character as a feminist role model, but is so worried that the film’s ultimate message — that after a decade and a half of having blackout drunk sex with lowbrow steroid-abusing strangers, a 34-year old woman should consider resigning herself to monogamy with a devoted celebrity surgeon — is sexist that she just ignores it.”
Comments to Steve Sailer:
* “Review: ‘Trainwreck’ Delivers the Full Amy Schumer Experience”
The full experience? Such as an STD? Do the theater-seats give you herpes.
* The left seems to embrace an idea I have come to call “heroic promiscuity.”
Dargis is so caught up in rhapsodizing about it that she doesn’t see much else.
It’s consequences of disease, illegitimacy, divorce, psychological damage to women – these don’t register to liberals. Or they get blamed on conservatives, the way they blame the AIDS crisis on Reagan.
There’s a contradiction where the left hates laissez faire, except for when it comes to the sexual marketplace, where they celebrate it. (A more extreme form even, since we are talking about just social stigma rather than government regulation.)
But laissez faire has the same problems in sex as it does in economics: radical inequality. That some people will make bad decisions and lose everything, while others will win completely.
Free markets in economics lead to inequality, but at least it serves a social purpose. Competition means the people who get rich will do so, usually, because they are offering the best goods and services. There are all sorts of abuses and excesses, but the core idea is sound.
Letting Bill Gates get rich serves some social purpose. But how does society benefit by someone like Hugh Hefner get rich in the sexual marketplace?
Then on the other side there are the losers; some black girl in the inner city gets pregnant at 15, and others die of AIDS. Children grow up in broken families. Average men hard a time finding wives, and if they do they stand a good chance at getting divorced.
The left claims to believe in equality, but sexual lassaiz faire can never lead to equality.
* That kind of drinking is really hard on your looks. If she really spent a decade living that hard she wouldn’t have a chance with a wealthy surgeon. Leaving aside, for the moment, the fact that she’s pretty much aged out of the dating high end by that point anyway.
* Like a lot of art made by Jews, Schumer’s work is less about what it pretends to be about and almost totally about spitting in the face of the Christian majority. Her focus on flouting sexual convention is almost entirely anti-Christian. If Christianity changed tomorrow to be about abstaining from bubblegum instead of pre-maritial sex, Schumer would change her focus to being about popping bubbles all day.
This is why a lot of Jewish art is frozen in a permanent state of immaturity, from the juvenile raps of the Beastie Boys to the eternally sophomoric Howard Stern to the countless comedians who rely on shock more than humor. It’s more about sticking it to Christians than it is about creating something original or multi-dimensional.
What surprises me is that people take this at face value and don’t see it for what it is. There is a massive amount of bigotry, paranoia, and resentment in the Jewish community when it comes to anything Christian. Call it Christianophobia. So much of what Jews produce comes from this worldview. I’m guessing that only reason this isn’t spoken about more is that any writer who attempted to bring it into the mainstream would be branded and anti-Semite and blacklisted.
* Are Jewish children taught this specifically? I’ve heard what you’re talking about from other people and I just have to wonder. You’d think Jews and Christians would be allies, sharing the Old Testament in common and all. But they seem to despise Christianity more than anything else. Is it just the really secular ones?
OH, there’s that bit in a Woody Allen film, Annie Hall, I think, where he goes on about his Jewish childhood filled with socialism/communism indoctrination youth camps. Is that stuff really true?
* For someone like Schumer who grew up in Manhattan, Christians just don’t register on their radar. They may grow up without knowing any serious Christian believers (Episcopalian lesbians don’t count). Christians are more cartoon objects of laughter and derision than serious ideological opponents – snake handlers and people who speak in tongues, people who believe that the world was created in 6 days 5,000 years ago. You are not going to define your life in opposition to such hicks and clowns.
Promiscuous sex is no more permissible in Judaism than it is in Christianity (even today Jewish rates of illegitimacy are very low, though this probably has more to do with Jews being more organized about things like birth control and getting early abortions than any difference in the rate of sexual activity outside of marriage).
People like Schumer, Dunham, Handler, etc. can’t really be though of as Jews or Christians or 1/2 and 1/2 – what they really are are products of a post-religious society, where there is no longer any God who is watching what you do, so you do whatever you feel like. Or you could view them as worshipers of the new religion of Secular Modernism or Cultural Marxism or whatever you would like to call it. Since this is an iconoclastic religion, you do whatever the opposite of the conventional morality says, but they don’t think of the conventional morality (which is also known as JUDEO-Christian ethics) as being particularly Christian (as I said before, they don’t even know many Christians) – their Jewish grandmothers would no more approve of their whoring around than any evangelical minister would. The Ten Commandments are found in the Hebrew Bible, not the New Testament. Many of those who laid out the tenets of, and ascribe to, the new religion were people who were born as Jews but, like early Christians, they (or even their parents or grandparents) converted to the new religion and their acts and beliefs must be assigned to that new religion and not to “the Jews”. Even if these people say they are Jews, they ain’t really, not in any meaningful sense. There are plenty of believers in the New Religion who are not the slightest bit Jewish but who have exactly the same beliefs and act in the same way as Schumer. Look at her cheerleader Dargis – is she Jewish too?
* Until the mid 50′s, when the crimes of Stalin became widely known, it was extremely common for New York Jews to be either Socialist, Communist, Trotskyite, etc. (they are not the same thing). Sanders is sort of a last vestige of that era. But by the early ’60s, the Jewish political spectrum shifted to the right (and/or the Democrat Party shifted to the left) and except for a tiny hardcore fringe, most American Jews found a home in that Party and gave up Communism/Socialism (in the sense of actual party membership) and sending their kids to Communist summer camps. In any case, these camps in America were more about singing songs about oppression than making bombs. They were Peter Seeger Communists.
* One reason why feminists promote a narrative of Heroic Promiscuity is because of the so called double standard: men are considered more attractive if they are promiscuous, while women are seen as less attractive if promiscuous.
Feminists are faced with two way of trying to equalize this. To stigmatize promiscuity among both sexes, or to promote it among both by a narrative of Heroic Promiscuity.
Stigmatizing promiscuity actually promotes equal distribution of sexual affection. It means those who have gotten less sex are more attractive, putting them in position to get more.
Men who are sexually successful appeal to women’s base instincts. Society can try to compensate for that by stigmatizing such men. This is what traditional morality does, it’s what society is supposed to do: control our instincts. It’s not much, but it helps give chaste men (or beta males) a fighting chance in the sexual marketplace. Such stigma promotes equality.
On the other hand, promoting a narrative of Heroic Promiscuity means the sexual rich get richer, and the sexual poor get poorer.
Feminists claim to believe in equality, but choose to promote Heroic Promiscuity. Why? Because destroying traditional morality is more important to them than equality is. Because the main beneficiaries of stigma on promiscuity are unattractive men. And because Heroic Promiscuity is a key part of their secular substitute for religion. Sex without limits, sex without guilt: what could possibly go wrong?
* The manosphere will have a field day with this movie.
This reads like the recurring theme of Rational Male, the Cock Carousel Rider who comes to an epiphany in her 30s after discovering the train of bad boy losers has begin to overlook her and go with younger, tighter versions of her. She then shifts her hypergamic urge from “Alpha Fux” to “Beta Bux” and settles for the boring provider type.
And now this becomes the modern Cinderella tale, a brain surgeon in shining armor, Captain Sav A Ho, comes along loves her for her, and carries her off to luxury and security.
Trouble is, there is massive backlash because often this tale ends up with a second epiphany, usually after the hook has been set in the sucker with a child, and our Heroine goes out on an Eat, Pray, Love binge after divorce raping the sucker in the court. And really, doctors fall prey to this because they are usually quite beta, bookworms.
Back in the day, there was this web site floating around called the Sunday Morning Nightclub. This guy was a classic target for the type of woman that was considered a “Born Again Virgin”, a carousel rider who found Jesus in her early thirties, shut off the easy sex, and attempted to lure a sucker into marriage. So he would go to a new church, join the singles classes, scope out the women that always came to church showing cleavage, then drop his bonafides as a beta provider. He would basically steer them along, have relationships, usually sexual ones (“I don’t normally do this” would be a common thing the woman would say). Then he would dump them. All he would really have to do was at some point just say something like, “I don’t see myself as the marrying type.” The site disappeared after what he was doing became more public. His rationale was he using up this predator woman’s last harrah and preventing her from reeking havoc on some poor defenseless church boy who mistook this new found attention as validation for the life success he had attained.
But now we know-the woman that pursues this path that the Trainwreck follows is damaged, low impulse control, bad future sense, a trunk full of various mental issues, solipsistic, probably an alpha widow, totally void of the ability to bond in the way a less traveled, less damaged woman should. Graphs associate N count with divorce probability and it doesn’t take many to make a woman a high risk. (Feminists graph out at the highest risk. Some put it at 80%.) So the manosphere teaches all sorts of ways to derive the possible N count, all without direct questions, evaluation of her tales, her life experiences, etc. I can go on about STDs, reduced fecundity as a function of that lifestyle, but to make a long story short, any man that would marry a single 30 something woman is statistically making a mistake.
* Apatow’s movies are quite interesting. In that they tend to propagandize things that both sexes have rejected, utterly.
Women are NOT flocking to marry up nerdy man-boys. Indeed Katherine Heigl found it quite offensive that her character WOULD marry someone played by Seth Rogen. Even though Rogen was and is ten times the star she is; the sexual marketplace disparity was too great for her to handle. Movie after movie, from Superbad to Knocked Up to This Is Forty extols the Beta Male to attractive women.
And universally attractive women reject the message of the virtue of settling for Beta Males. Indeed Feminism has been wildly successful in gaining female adherents, because it allows average women the ability to have sex with Alphas (but not commitment — Bill Clinton did not marry Monica Lewinsky). Most women are fine with that.
Will most beta male White men see the movie and decide to “marry up that ho!” Uh … no.
Schumer herself is overweight for Hollywood. Suggesting she no longer cares, unlike Gwyneth Paltrow, Jennifer Aniston, Sandra Bullock, etc. who carefully diet, work out like crazy, and have great plastic surgeons quite probably. Schumer seems more a conduit to do favors to her Uncle Senator Charles Schumer, D-NY than anything else. Want a tax break, intervention with Obama’s Executive Branch? Cast Schumer’s Niece in a Big Role and Push Her VERY VERY HARD. Like fellow fattie Lena Dunham, Schumer seems to rely on relationships more than feminine attractiveness to get her next role. Again problematic. And symptomatic of a Hollywood concerned with insider maneuvering not profits for shareholders.
Amy Schumer in shape MIGHT be considered an acceptable prize for male audiences, maybe, if the male character had significant handicaps. As it is, her character seems a McDonald’s hamburger at Wolfgang Puck prices. I doubt Apatow will get many takers from Beta Males. Marry up a … FAT … woman with a large N count?. Nor is the beta male in the movie much of a prize for the female movie goers. He’s a 100th best choice, if that. Women want the Alpha male, the dominant man who can have any woman he wants. Mr. Big, from Sex and the City. Moody/broody semi-gay vampires, or bondage minded billionaires. Not a wimp settling for a ho.
Long term I think we are going to be resigned to most Whites outside the Upper Class Charles Murray “SuperZips” to be r-selected. That is, men compete to be the most sexy singers, dancers, fighters, etc. and invest nothing in children whose paternity is uncertain, and women are single mothers. Marriage will be for … Rich People. Who will pursue it with dynastic intent.
The old, monogamous, nuclear family, with the wife having N < 4, and the man N < 6, is dead. The condom, pill, anonymous urban living, and crucially female-driven consumer spending and advertising killed it.* The actual life of women more than ever justifies the crack by Jack Nicholson’s character in “As Good As It Gets”:“How do you write women characters so well?”“I think of a man. Then I take away reason and responsibility.”* That Manohla (Good God, what a name for a woman) Dargis totally ignores the implications of the title doesn’t surprise me at all. The Sex and the City series had many episodes where the feckless female characters suffered the consequences of their imprudent behavior. However, the characters themselves and female fans following the show generally learned no lessons whatever as a result. The characters went on their unmerry way, and the fans used the travails of the characters as an opportunity to bond cathartically. Dargis is running in the same groove; any heartbreak, anomie, or depression suffered by the film’s titular character can all be blamed on men, culture, society, whatever — it’s no reason to change any of their own attitudes.* On Schumer’s entertainment value I feel I can take/leave her– can’t remember a single funny line associated w/ her but I do think she’s a gifted sketch actress. She’s clearly more talented than the class of mediocre females who came up through recent SNL/Daily Show or “The Office” remake (e.g. Mindy Project, that Kimmy Schmitts person) or the one-note alcoholislut comics e.g. Whitney Cummings. However I tend to doubt she symbolizes any social trends/truths weightier than herself, heh.This elderly-cheerleader review by Helen Gurley Dargis, on the other hand, is very funny. There are bits in it that will be quoted long after “Trainwreck” gets licensed to Showtime for like a month in 2016.* Back in the old days, the temperance movement was led by women angry their husbands were drinking the family money away.Both sexes are irresponsible. The difference now is that feminism wants women to get away with it…and has made marriage so dangerous lots of men don’t want to get married.* I kept wondering, when I first saw Schumer, if she would expand her material beyond her crotch. Her whole act seems based on her crotch, which is fine as the opener, but eventually people will get tired of it. That seems to be a thing with female comics. They obsess over their crotch, but feminism is mostly just one long crotch joke anyway so maybe it’s a woman thing.I’m surely showing my age and cultural heritage, but I don’t find Schumer funny or attractive. She’s just vulgar and boring to me. I can live with vulgar if it is clever. Lots of comics are vulgar, but very clever at it. Schumer strikes me as a bit dull-witted. I suspect she is not funny in private either. Away from the stage or camera, she’s just unpleasant.* Jokes about abortion – that’s real classy. I’m sure comics like Schumer think that nothing is sacred and that we should just laugh at everything. Except anti-semitism, of course. That is never a laughing matter. Jews have done a great deal to coarsen american culture in the last 20 or 30 years.* Saw the movie last night. Awful, put me in a foul mood for hours. The first half has some good laffs, but the last half expects the audience to identify with and/or care about the characters. Absolutely nauseating. Plus, we get the (apparently mandatory) cheerleading for sodomy, and Schumer’s character dyslogizes her father at his funeral by calling him a racist and homophobe, the top two secular sins in modern America, reminding the double-digit-IQ audience that the worst thing a person can be is a racist [sic] or homophobe [sic!].You pay me $500 and I’ll watch that movie again; I’d never watch it for free. Purest brain pollution, a great demonstration of why fiction is dangerous and is forbidden by some religions.* Most women’s only leadership experience is being a mother to their children, and they bring this style to the workplace, treating grown people like children, often even referring to coworkers and subordinates as children. Obnoxious. And no grown person has any inherent desire to follow a woman’s lead — women get authority only from official titles, often called “legitimate” authority, an authority bestowed by rank or position but without genuine buy-in from subordinates. And women HATE having another woman as a boss, though men are more tolerant of it.* OT: Stats wiz Nate Silver: For black Americans, US is about as dangerous as Rwanda.
So the US is Europe for whites and Africa for blacks! Is it like Japan for Asians?
* When (and why) did she turn into a fat chick? In her stand-up act she looked quite cute, although foul-mouthed, which is more than a little off-putting. Her shtick is a clone of Sarah Silverman. But that fat. Why would she let herself go like that?
* A slut like Amy’s character in this film can repent, but she can’t de-experience herself sexually to undo the damage to her ability to form a stable relationship with a man. Films which show otherwise disserve the interests of young women.
* Kind of weird Amy Schumer doesn’t mention Chelsea Handler as an influence. Amy has totally appropriated Chelsea’s schtick.
* I’ve noticed that Jews have an apparent but undiscussed hatred of the Irish and Scots-Irish. Their ethnic cleansing programs of the 1950s-1970s—-under the cover of integration—-targeted neighborhoods and cities dominated by those of Irish and Scots-Irish descent (e.g., Boston’s South Boston and Charlestown neighborhoods, both Irish enclaves). You’ll notice they’ve turned their eye on promoting the priest-abuser stories from an American church dominated by Irish clergy. And of course, the constant attacks by Jewish organizations on “police punishing poor innocent black people”—-what ethnic group is famous for dominating the police ranks?
“Evil Whitey” for Jews seems to stand, not for WASPs, but for those of Hibernian stock.
Isn’t the whole point of prisons in the US to lock up blacks so that non-blacks can lead safe lives?
* Has there ever been a female comedian who wasn’t a complete train wreck?
* This phenomenon of being born a black haired baby but becoming “blonde” as an adult is quite the phenomenon among many women in Latin America and The Middle East. They figure if they are light skin enough/look Whitish enough maybe people will mistake them for naturally blonde Northern European WASP chicks.
George Lopez has talked about how his Mexican aunt loves dying her hair blonde even though she was born with black hair. And Steve Sailer talks about how a lot of Persian women in Beverly Hills love dying their hair blonde. With Persians and Mexicans, you are more likely to meet a 40 year old “blonde” woman than you are to meet a 10 year old blonde girl. Meaning they have a much higher rate of adult female” blondism” than child female blondism because hair dye is so popular in Mexico and Iran.
* Jews get away with everything. They control the courts and politicians and media. Jews pushed the Iraq War and got it. Jews pushed the toppling of Gaddafi and got it. Jews pushed ‘gay marriage’ and got it. Jews pushed the release of Pollard the criminal and will get it.
* If being captured in war makes you a hero, then all the ‘enemy combatants’ captured by the US in the so-called ‘War on Terror’ must be heroes too.
* Whenever the topic of Pollard comes up, the media shows this photo of him that makes him look angelic or even christ-like.
He looks like some figure out of a renaissance painting. The media do for Pollard what it did for homos. Idolize him through favorable images. Sacramental coverage.* The point of this movie is to propagandize for male acceptance of, or at least resignation toward, female promiscuity. That is, not the kind that you benefit from directly; the more common kind, namely, that you “man up” and “get over” your “hang ups” about her promiscuous past.
Women are more promiscuous than ever, judging from a variety of evidence, including surveys on the mean and median numbers of sexual partners people have. Men, for whatever reason (but surely partly hard-wired natural preference), don’t like this. They may like it to the extent that it gives them a greater shot at one-night-stands, but those benefits are–to say the least–not evenly distributed among the male population. In any case, men don’t like it in a wife or long-term girlfriend.
Women (and the men who push for and excuse female promiscuity) know this. Women also want eventually to “settle down”. This requires either keeping her potential mate in the dark (harder and harder to do in the social media age) or else forcing or shaming him into not caring, or pretending not to care.
The purpose of this movie, then, is to reinforce through propaganda that it is shameful for a man to be concerned about a potential mate’s sexual past. It is to guilt-trip men into suppressing whatever reservations they have on that score.
The alternative–women behaving more chastely and moderately–is out of the question for modern women. But they still want to get married once the top guys lose interest in them for short term sex. And to do that, they have to overcome men’s natural reluctance to commit to a promiscuous woman. Which requires propaganda. Which this is.
* We’re slowly moving toward banning live chimpanzees from entertainment and replacing them with computer generated imagery because the entertainment industry is bad for the chimps.
I’d like to see the same thing happen with child actors: just have underage characters played by adults in motion capture suits.
* Vox is upset that Bernie Sanders doesn’t talk about race: Bernie Sanders is an old school Liberal. He needs to adapt to new school Liberalism which is all about BLACK BODIES, ILLEGAL ALIENS, AND CHICKS WITH DICKS. If he can not adapt to new school Liberalism, The Democratic Party needs to put him out to pasture.
* Men have the ability to experience the equivalent of two or more lives to women’s one life because men age sexually a lot more slowly than women. A young man can start a family with a young woman in their 20′s, then divorce her in their 40′s, marry a younger woman and start another family.
So it makes sense that a man can disengage emotionally from a woman after her fertility crashes in her 30′s.
* The idea that slutty women are really more the result of bad parenting (i.e., daddy issues) than of women being, as the NYT put it, “the absolute agents of their lives and desires” is an old one, and is a stereotype on which both libertines and traditionalists agree.
“Ted:…they’re hookers…Oh! Where are my manners? Lori, this is Angelique, Heavenly, Shereen and Sauvignon Blanc. I love you girls. You know, somewhere out there are four terrible fathers I wish I could thank for this great night.”
* Miriam Lilian D Or I had a blonde wig once and was looking to get another one for costume, I since deleted the immodest blonde pictures. My hair as a child was naturally auburn and then turned dark. I hate hair dyed blonde, even on naturally light skinned women, I don’t care what country they are from. Dyed blonde hair will never look natural. It will always look fake, fried hair- with the texture of dried up hay. The roots will always look disgustingly black or distastefully yellow-after a bleach touch-up. The contrast in colour will always make a woman look sickly and make a woman’s brown eyes automatically look darker and beady. Women have to learn to go for dye that will suit them. They can’t fake the WASP look by looking like an unnatural yellow haired troll.
* Since it is clear, from the Sony leaks, that the movie industry is perfectly aware that they are sacrificing profits when they engage in affirmative action casting, one wonders exactly where the investment money is coming from for this social engineering of the memescape? I mean, it’s one thing when they cast a guy like Dustin Hoffman as a romantic lead with various shiksas while casting blond actors as bad guys — that’s just ethnic sexual aggression at work and it is obvious why they’d sacrifice profits for that kind of social engineering — but why this? Who, exactly, is footing the bill and why?
Posted inFeminism, Sex|Comments Off on Is Monogamy Better For Women?
Paul Sperry writes: A key part of President Obama’s legacy will be the fed’s unprecedented collection of sensitive data on Americans by race. The government is prying into our most personal information at the most local levels, all for the purpose of “racial and economic justice.”
Unbeknown to most Americans, Obama’s racial bean counters are furiously mining data on their health, home loans, credit cards, places of work, neighborhoods, even how their kids are disciplined in school — all to document “inequalities” between minorities and whites.
This Orwellian-style stockpile of statistics includes a vast and permanent network of discrimination databases, which Obama already is using to make “disparate impact” cases against: banks that don’t make enough prime loans to minorities; schools that suspend too many blacks; cities that don’t offer enough Section 8 and other low-income housing for minorities; and employers who turn down African-Americans for jobs due to criminal backgrounds.
Big Brother Barack wants the databases operational before he leaves office, and much of the data in them will be posted online.
So civil-rights attorneys and urban activist groups will be able to exploit them to show patterns of “racial disparities” and “segregation,” even if no other evidence of discrimination exists.
Posted inBlacks, Race|Comments Off on NYP: Obama collecting personal data for a secret race database
NYT: Robert Putnam of Harvard: “immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the U.S. suggests that in ethnically diverse neighborhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down.’ Trust, even of one’s own race, is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.”
Posted inDiversity|Comments Off on NYT: Who Will Pay the Political Price for Affordable Housing?
REPORT: “For example, as the proportion of the African component increases, the temporal surfaces move posteriorly and inward. The proportion of the European component is associated with protrusion of the occipital and frontal surfaces. Increases in the proportion of the East Asian component are accompanied by variations in temporal-parietal regions. The Native American component is associated with flattening of the frontal and occipital surfaces.”
“I would have expected the authors to show the total brain volumes for each group, but I cannot find those in the paper, nor in the supplemental materials. A pity, because it would help resolve some debates about brain sizes.”
Posted inRace|Comments Off on Brain shape differs by race say scientists
Couples who are getting married should be forced to have a DNA test first to ensure they are not cousins amid growing concern about incest within Pakistani communities, Britain’s first Asian peer has claimed.
Baroness Flather, a former Tory who now sits as a cross-bencher, said in the House of Lords that it is “absolutely appalling” that first cousin marriages in Pakistani communities are leading to “so much disability among children”.
She said: “There are a lot of first-cousin marriages in certain communities, particularly among Pakistanis who come from the Pakistani Kashmir area. We know so much about DNA now, but there is so much disability among the children, which is absolutely appalling.
“You go to any such family and there will be four or five children, at least one or two of whom will have some disability. That is absolutely unacceptable, and if we cannot do anything about it, is it fair to the children?”
Baroness Flather, a former barrister who was born in the Pakistani city of Lahore when it was part of India, said: “Never mind the parents — it is not fair to the children that they should be allowed to become disabled because of a social practice. It is a social practice which does not belong in today’s age, when we know so much about DNA. There should at least be some rule which says that you must have a DNA examination before your marriage can be registered.”
First-cousin marriages, which are are legal in the UK, are practised within Britain’s Pakistani community, as well as among some Arab and African families. Medical data previously suggested that while British Pakistanis were responsible for 3 per cent of all births, they accounted for 30 per cent of British children born with a genetic illness.
The noble Baroness Flather also raised concerns about Sharia law, under which women struggle to get a divorce.
Posted inIslam, Pakistan|Comments Off on First cousin marriages in Pakistani communities leading to ‘appalling’ disabilities among children
Thank God for the Washington Post and their courageous non-stop efforts to give the hateful lily white monolith of pure evil the dressing down that it so rightly deserves. Without their brave efforts it will be impossible for every single white person in this country to confess their own guilt and accept the guilt of every white person that preceded them and beg for the severe punishment they so rightly deserve. Without this complete and total surrender of the evil ones we will never be able to achieve racial harmony in this country.
* At the risk of sounding racist (although I’m sure others have expressed this sentiment), “white America” works — “black America” doesn’t.
Perhaps “black America” ought to join what works rather than attempting to drag “white America” down to its level.
“Black America”, consisting of only about 14% of the population, is responsible for nearly HALF of all murders, and a large majority of violent crimes. “Black America” shuns English is favor of its own ignorant dialect that is rejected in all higher levels of society. “Black America” uses ONE HUNDRED-YEAR-OLD grievances as an excuse for wallowing in poverty and idleness when they have men like Dr. Ben Carson to look to as proof that the ghetto can be escaped if one works to do so.
* Hmm, last time I checked, hundreds of thousands of white Union soldiers DIED freeing blacks from slavery. Where are the reparations for their families?
* When foreigners come to the US (even the ones from Africa), they learn the rules, the language, the customs, start businesses, and a generation later, their kids are in the top Universities studying engineering or medicine. Perhaps it is time for black Americans to learn from these people, and that speaking good English, dressing well, doing well in school, and showing some respect to those willing to offer you a job is not “acting white.”
* This author’s article could have been even more compelling if he had shared a few heart wrenching stories about his childhood experiences of being a slave. Maybe even some of the vast number of lynchings he witnessed while at Harvard.
* Almost every one of these cases of a cop killing a young black person has a basis of the black refusing to obey the lawful orders of a cop, of resisting arrest, of fighting with the cop. Too often the cry is “Equal Justice” when the person being referred to didn’t obey the laws to start with.
* If a potential employer has an instinctive negative reaction to a job applicant with a “black sounding name,” the reason may be that the applicant’s name is associated with a group identified with high crime and educational underachievement. I suspect, if the interests of their business or family are involved, many of our black citizens may have a similar reaction to members of this group. From my perspective as a senior citizen, the “white” community has made much more progress towards agreeing that black citizens should have an equal opportunity for education and economic advancement (including a willingness to support programs that give blacks favored treatment I this regard) than our black community has made in showing that they are able to take advantage of these opportunities.
* So, since 1965 roughly $12.5T of “reparations” have been made by “White” Taxpayers that has been transferred to “Black” Americans (about half of all welfare transfers in the last 50 years, as estimated by the CBO). That does not seem to have done the trick.
* I posted a link to the 2006 shooting at a Louisiana church by a black man who murdered 4 parishioners, kidnapped his wife and murdered her. This story got little to no media or civil rights activist’s attention, why? It was a black-on-black crime.
Yet when some moron white kid does no differently, regardless of the intent (motive), the entire history of the Confederate States is blamed along with white racism.
* I’ve been around the block a few times, too. All my life, I’ve taken people as I find them. I’ve owned companies, hired and fired, but at no time that I know of have I made any decisions in my life based on racial or other prejudice. Among my friends are people of all races and life style persuasions.
As a former member of the military during the 60’s and 70’s, I lost track of the number of hours of racial sensitivity training I went through, the racial sensitivity texts I had as required reading during professional and leadership development. I’m like you — what I’ve tried to do in my life now seems to matter not at all. The problem is in my race, I’m told. I can’t do anything about that. I’m tired too. I’m done.
* Since white people treat Blacks so badly and we’re so evil and racist and according to you Blacks are non racist and so kind and forgiving, why can’t I take my (white) children to W st in Anacostia to show them my childhood home? Or my schools? Or all the places I’ve told them about from my childhood. We would be robbed, raped and probably murdered within moments of arriving. However you and your children could come to my neighborhood anytime without the slightest bit of discomfort. And BTW thanks for trashing a once lovely and safe neighborhood (Anacostia).
* The US is the only country in the world where a Harvard educated, presumably very financially comfortable individual can whine about the injustice of the very country that has provided him with those comforts. Yes, there are still problems such as in the criminal justice system, but compared to the era in which the author was raised, we are light years ahead. I worked for 26 years in the civil rights field and got along with most people regardless of race. This current constant airing of supposed grievances is really leading me to question the motivations of the people who make up the organized black lobby. By the way, there are many more whites killed by blacks than vice versa.
* This OpEd is racist and dishonest from top to bottom. And I have news for you slick, there is virtually universal hatred of whites among blacks. That’s why gangs of young blacks regularly go around targeting whites for assault, rape, and murder. Whites don’t do those kinds of things to blacks, regardless of your Hollywood inspired fantasies of racial abuse from whites. Blacks regularly blame whites for dysfunction in they own lives.
Reverse the races in this garbage tome, and it would read like some drivel off of a white supremacist web site.
* Welcome to the daily whiny WaPo article about how tough it is to be black in America. The President is black, the AG is black. 25% of Federal Government employees are black. Seems to me African Americans have gotten their share and then some.
Try living in a place where blacks are in charge if you think the USA is tough. Move to Haiti or anywhere in Africa.
Stop having babies you cannot support. Stop having babies out of wedlock. Spend your day at the library instead of smoking pot and drinking malt liquor. There comes a point at which blacks have to take responsibility for their own welfare – and this is it.
* There is no doubt that America has a long and sorry history of racism against black people.
But there is also no doubt that there is racism against black people in nearly every other country on earth, and that black Americans are the richest major black community in the world.
Every year, white Americans pay a large amount of taxes, and bear a substantial regulatory burder, to provide for black people, who receive a sizeable governmental transfer of wealth and substantial regulatory action in their favor. And there is significant black-on-white violent crime, significantly more common than the reverse. And over time, the governmental burden is growing, not shrinking, due to the birth rate differential. I would be careful about assuming that even greater expense to be born by white Americans and other Americans would be well-received. At some point, black Americans must accept that in this world, there is not perfect fairness, and that black Americans should try to make their own conditions better through their own actions, over which they have far more control, and which are far more important to their own success and well-being. 50 years after the ending of segregation, using other people’s imperfection or past failures as reasons for one’s own failure is not an acceptable excuse.
Posted inAmerica, Blacks, Whites|Comments Off on WP: Black America has been playing by white America’s rules. If we want reconciliation, it’s time white America shared the burden.
* Everyone prefers to be around folks similar to themselves, it is just human nature. If people would just respect their neighbor and his or her stuff, this would NOT even be an issue…
* You can’t make people want to see their property values plunge and their lives put in jeopardy. People live where that stuff can be prevented.
* Imagine that. Some people are concerned about where they live. They are concerned about how houses are maintained, about the schools their kids go to, about safety, about feeling good about going home each night. I don’t think most people care so much about the race of their neighbors but more that those neighbors share and show similar feelings about the area they live in.
* Different cultures determine where a person will choose to live. European Americans usually choose to live out of high crime, failed cities by working hard, staying out of trouble. African Americans seem to want to stay in high crime, poverty areas in the cities. Different values, different cultures.
* We live in a very diverse community. No one decorates for any holiday. No flags for patriotic holidays, no indications of any religious holiday. Nothing. It’s grim. You may not notice something like this until it’s gone; then you start feeling a bit lonely. When we moved in, there was less diversity and much more color and an upbeat feeling.
* Renting is way different than buying real estate. Maybe people may take a chance on a cheaper apartment in a neighborhood that they wouldn’t at first have considered, but buying a house or condo is a different matter altogether. You are investing a lot of money and you want to ensure that the real estate prices either remain stable or increase (not go down). You want good schools and a safe neighborhood. And living a few blocks from a slum is not a good idea since the crime spills over.
* Honest question, why is “diversity” so valuable for a neighborhood anyway? I live in a really diverse neighborhood – Columbia Heights. Blacks, whites, hispanics, asians etc. projects next to penthouses, all living in relative disharmony. Never seen or heard of any white people mugging, assaulting, raping, and/or harassing anybody, vandalizing and/or stealing property etc. Conversely though, I’ve repeatedly seen, read about, and have been a victim of black crime for ten years.
So who exactly is benefiting from this diversity? I’m not, and as far as I can tell, black people in my ‘hood certainly don’t seem terribly welcoming or happy that I’m there.
* Of course blacks are more willing to move to places where predominantly whites live. Those places tend to, on the whole, be safer, have better schools, more well-kept, etc. It’s not a surprise people would like to live there. Those are neighborhoods viewed as where “good things can come from being there”.
Whites dont want to live in predominantly black neighborhoods because they tend to be poorer areas, worse schools, less safe, etc. And the perception tends to be (not incorrectly) that bad things tend to happen more in those neighborhoods than in predominantly white neighborhoods.
I’m a white female, 30’s, and I can tell you I would pretty much absolutely never be willing to move to a neighborhood that was predominantly black. Just wouldn’t feel safe or comfortable or like a place I’d ever feel like was “home”, in a way that a predominantly white neighborhood (or honestly, one with a fair mix of Asians) would.
* Who among us wishes to be forced to live where they do not want to live or to be forced to endure government-imposed and supported neighbors with whom they have absolutely nothing in common? I am white and did not inherit anything from my parents. I worked very hard to pay for my own college education and to be able to afford, in retirement, a place where I feel comfortable among people of similar backgrounds. I would never choose to live among people, white or black, whose crime rates, out-of-wedlock births, and drug use/dealing are high. Why is that so hard to understand? And why is it considered to be racist?
* If the word “crime” is used anywhere in this article, I missed it. Isn’t that the reason blacks often move into predominantly white neighborhoods but whites very seldom move into neighborhoods which are predominantly black?
Posted inBlacks, Race, Whites|Comments Off on Commenters Not Buying WP Analysis On Race & Housing
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
