Mommy, Why Would You Write a Book With Such a Mean Title?
That’s what Hanna Rosin’s young son, Jacob, asks her everyday about her recent book The End of Men: And the Rise of Women.
I am reading Rosin’s book for additional research for my forthcoming book on why men are going on strike in marriage, fatherhood and in the culture. One reason I put forth in my book for men’s negative attitudes towards marriage, women and the society is the denigrating and damaging way that boys and young men are treated in our society and a book with a title like this sure doesn’t help. To her credit, Rosin at least offers up a lame explanation to Jacob that “I want to convince people that some men out there need our help, since it’s not so easy for them to ask for it.” “He doesn’t quite believe me yet, but maybe one day he will.” Yet as I read the pages of her book, I am not sure what type of help she thinks men need and as Christina Hoff Summers said to me about men’s centers that try to convince men to be more like woman: “I don’t think that’s the kind of help men want.”
Rosin points out the ways in which girls are seen as better than boys. Rosin describes a shift in the US whereby parents, both men and women, prefer a girl when asked. It took two hypothetical daughters for people to say they would prefer the third child to be a boy. Rosin goes on to say:
Women are not just catching up anymore; they are becoming the standard by which success is measured. “Why can’t you be more like your sister?” is a phrase that resonates with many parents of school-age sons and daughters, even if they don’t always say it out loud. As parents imagine the pride of watching a child grow and develop and succeed as an adult, it is more often a girl than a boy that they see in their mind’s eye.
Did Rosin ever stop to think that with men are just responding to the culture around them. “The End of Men,” “boys are stupid, throw rocks at them,” Girl Power, and parents who want them to be girls–these are damaging messages to send to our young men. Boys and men keep many of their thoughts and feelings to themselves but don’t think that they don’t hear and respond to what is happening around them. Books declaring “the end of men” are contributing to the problem, not trying to find a solution to the reasons that boys and men are not faring as well in our society.
Interesting topic. I’ll take it a little further. I am in my 50′s married to the mother of our children for well over 30 years, with 2 boys and 1 daughter. I would say, after watching all girl families, all boy families, and mixed gender families is that guys who help raise sons become very different than guys who have only had daughters.
There’s less stress on them, father’s of daughters just have to be likeable, befuddled, and charming. Then they can do whatever they want; especially with respect to free time. They have much more of it.
Father’s of sons are more involved with their sons. They are expected to act better, set the example, and be available to guide them for the rest of their lives.
Most of the guys that I know that only had daughters have hobbies, second jobs, and just in general more time for themselves. So they’re a bit more self centered.
We used to say with girls it after 13 that it got really difficult to raise them. With boys, it was keeping them alive until 13. But not any more, “civilized” life is fraught with pitfalls for our sons; maybe more so than the pregnancy thing.
It is difficult for fathers to accept that “Father Knows Best” no longer applies.
Even more galling is that even though he is the same, his ‘better half’ has relegated him to the rubbish pile because ‘she is liberated’.
No way, NO WAY, do I believe Rosin’s son said that. She’s spinning some PR BS to float excuses for her book, which is about as popular with men as Hymowitz’s tripe.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/vg7322727mgl1875/fulltext.html?MUD=MP
Roy Baumeister does more to explain Rosin’s thesis than Rosin ever could. You read the Baumesiter & Vohs paper (about 5 pages) and you’ll learn all you need to know about what’s going on. Rosin is a hack researcher and can’t formulate a sound argument without abandoning her feminist narrative.
Baumeister makes a lot of sense.
Read Is There Anything Good About Men? by Roy F. Baumeister, and The Woman Racket by Steve Moxon, and you’ll know precisely how and why feminism has been the biggest gov’t sponsored scam since the Vietnam War.
Just finished Moxon’s “The Woman Racket” and am now halfway through Baumeister’s “Is There Anything Good About Men”, both excellent recommendations that I got from you. And I heartily pass along these recommendations. They are excellent books that need to be promoted and disseminated. We have a lot of work to do and with these books, and with the help of Dr. Helen and others like these men, I have hope.
Can we even be sure that Rosin HAS a son?
She does. There is on You Tube a video of her giving a speech on the TED series where she humiliates her own son on TV, telling him that he will most likely be taking orders from his sister when he grows up and gets a job. Many You Tube commenters said it was like watching child abuse. The kid was near tears as his sister berated him in front of a fawning studio audience.
Wonder if the son is going to grow up and despise his own mother, and maybe his sister too.
CPS should take the boy from Rosin she is an unfit mother.
Let’s hope that despising his mother and sister is all that he does. When pushed, some people end up doing far worse.
She also likely fabricated the stupid anecdote about the Asian chick picking up a sex partner after acting like Suzie Wong in her recent essay lauding young women for being sluts.
Both Rosin and I hold degrees from Stanford. Here’s what the latest issue of the alumni magazine (I just came back from pulling it out of the recycling container in my garage) says about the book:
The latest tome in a provocative genre, The End of Men focuses on how women are faring comparatively better in the new economy. Rosin, a senior editor a The Atlantic and a founder of Slate’s Double X women’s section, provides excellent shoe-leather reporting on college campuses (where young women outnumber men and enjoy a hook-up culture that enables them to focus on achievement), factory towns (where wives rebound from downturns faster than husbands) and corporate offices (where those with “feminine side” skills are ascendant). Readers may find the author a bit too eager to sweep to her conclusions, but there’s no denying the book is readable and intriguing.
This is accompanied by a picture of a smirking Rosin.
To quote a character from a play by George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart, I may vomit.
…or to quote Bertie, from The Code of the Woosters, by P.G. Wodehouse, “How perfectly foul.”
Well put!
Ever the pedantic annoyance, I am compelled to point out that it is spelled Christina Hoff Sommers.
There is so much to be done, isn’t there?
i also was just reading this quote yesterday, rosin’s little boy said that people who use book-titles like that are “bullies”
again, as always over the past 40 loooong years — the problem isnt ignorance or misapprehension, the problem is much worse: willful denial
her own son tells her that she (and her male-hating nation) ARE THE PROBLEM . . . not the patriarchy, not abusers, not criminals, not Somebody Else, but YOU ms. rosin, and the millions like you, ARE THE PROBLEM
but Hannah and her SSisters are NOT going to hear their sons, anymore than they will suffer to hear the voices of the other boys and men who they have crushed in order to attain the heights of status and wealth in their victimocracy
the same reason that rosin’s son called her (indirectly, let’s remember she still has absolute control over him) a bully is the same reason men (especially white men) didnt vote in the “election” and want nothing to do with amerikan k-k-kulture
the solution of rosin and her nation is more empowerment of women and other Protected Classes, more femprop in Medea, and more shaming and hating of males (with offers of re-education, so they can be told, again, how they need to become more like women in order to be acceptable to the New World)
with hannah’s hero obama confirmed as Punisher in Chief for another four years of Beatdown, amerika’s fate is sealed
Some years back I came across Summers’ book “The War Against Boys”, and did what I usually do when I encounter one of the recent plethora of “What’s wrong with men?” books: I looked in the index under C for “circumcision”. Not even an entry. I am willing to grant that Summers “means well”, but if she hasn’t even noticed this near-universal pre-emptive, surgical first strike in the very war she claims to have discovered, I don’t find I can take her very seriously. I didn’t start this war, and want none of it, though it was carved into my infant flesh when I was born, simply for the crime of being male. If any of you ladies are seriously interested in declaring a truce, you can start with what American women do with their babies—of both sexes (e.g. “cry it out”, bottle feeding, general neglect while pursuing a “career”, etc.). It’s not just a “war against boys”, it’s a war against humanity.
Circumcision reduces the likelihood of the man catching AIDS
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/malecircumcision/
There is a lot of controversy surrounding the study that says so. Numerous clinicians and researchers have taken issue with the study methodology. I don’t know if it’s true or not, but the politics involved, much like the anthropogenic global warming theory, make me extraordinarily suspicious.
“Circumcision reduces the likelihood of the man catching AIDS”
AIDS? Another “We’re all gonna die!” promoted by the media. AIDS is almost exclusively a problem for homosexuals and IV drug users. BTW, whatever happened to all the other “We’re all gonna die!” scenarios, like the ozone layer, global warming, overpopulation, the various flus, ad infinitum, ad nauseum?
“AIDS is almost exclusively a problem for homosexuals and IV drug users.”
Maybe in this country, but certainly not in South Africa.
BobH… The supposed connection between circumcision and AIDS has been debunked. The continued mutilation of males in Africa is a political and power/control issue, not a health issue.
10 Reasons Why Circumcision Is a Dangerous Distraction in the Fight Against HIV http://intactamerica.org/sites/default/files/10%20reasons%20for%20AIDS%20CONFERENCE_072412.pdf
“I want to convince people that some men out there need our help, since it’s not so easy for them to ask for it.”
Tyrants ALWAYS find ways to justify their tyranny.
And with that kind of help, who in their right mind would ask for it!!! When the Tyrants are also idiots…….
Yawn. Still seems men do most of the great work (and at the highest levels, damn near ALL) in the areas that have most interested me since I was a child: discoveries in math, physics, computer science, or just about any other area of technology, mechanical things, even the greatest music, starters of businesses, etc.
I think we should recognize that our extreme performers are and have always been, largely men. And that we need a healthy supply of them to compete in the world economy. I don’t think these guys get much appreciation from the popular culture.
Ever since I was 12 years old in the 6th grade, I’ve lived by a very simple philosophy. Whenever I meet a girl with a bad attitude, I leave. I am not going to argue with her. I’m certainly not going to hit her. I’m just simply going to walk away and never have anything to do with her.
After my father died, I had to resign from teaching and go into real estate to help my mother run the family company. It was a difficult transition, needless to say, but we’ve been very successful.
The last girl I dated I met at a board meeting. She was attractive and approachable, so I asked her out. She was all over me, and I figured, well, it has been awhile, so I took her to a hotel and banged her brains out.
The next day, and I mean not even 12 hours later, she calls me and says, “You need to get into commercial real estate, that’s where the real money is. I set up an appointment for you with a commercial realtor. He’ll show you how to get into the business. And I set up a business dinner for us with the real estate commissioner for Friday.”
Now, this is how stupid this girl is. I’m already a commercial realtor. I’ve managed and sold buildings. And who is this guy she wants to introduce me to? Oh, yeah, I know him. He comes to the office two or three times a month. And the real estate commisioner, do I know him? Yeah, as a matter of fact I do. I’m the guy who videotaped his wife’s dance recital.
It’s ridiculous. My family owns the company. It’s worth millions. We not only sell commercial real estate, we also sell new homes, existing homes, repossessed homes, ranch homes, acreage. Why limit yourself to one corner of the market? The real money is in working the whole market.
But I take this girl out and take her to bed ONCE. And the next morning she’s planning my career for me? Her idea for advancing my career is to introduce me to people I already know so we can discuss deals I’m already involved with. How stupid is that?
The real point is how indicative this is of the bad attitude of the modern American girl. She thinks it’s her place to tell a man how to live his life, and I for one will not put up with it.
Here’s how the end of our last conversation went: “Well, I’m not going.”
“But this is a business dinner.”
“I don’t have any business with you, and I don’t have any business with the commisioner.”
“But I care about you! I want to help you!”
“Are you my wife?”
“But … but … but”
“Are you my wife?”
“… no.”
“Then go home, little girl. Play with your doll.” Click.
Girls with bad attitudes, feminists, I just ignore them. So that is not the issue. I’ve met several women over the last 40 years that would have made perfectly good wives. But I refused to marry them. Why? The law.
You should devote at least a chapter of your book on this subject, Dr. Helen. The marriage contract is exploitative of men and the courts are discriminatory against men. Presumptive paternity, abortion on demand, no fault divorce nullify the contract. Why get married if you’re going to be required to pay child support for another man’s bastard? Why get married if your wife is going to kill your baby before it’s born because raising it would interfere with her career? Why get married if she can change her mind for any reason or no reason and walk away with half of everything? Why? There is no reason for a man to expose himself to betrayal, abandonment and bankruptcy.
And don’t give me all that crap about religion, responsibilities, blah, blah, blah. None of that has anything to do with the problem. I believe in the sacraments. I accept my responsibilities without question. I also understand my obligations under the law. The real problem is with the law. I do not agree to the terms and conditions of the marriage contract, and I cannot comprehend why any man would. Until the law is changed, marriage is a loser proposition.
This is the real reason why men are not getting married.
Actually, Gawain’s Ghost, you can be lucky you didn’t get a false rape accusation. You slept with a woman once – who wasn’t your girlfriend – and then told her “No”. I think in reality Mike Tyson spent years in prison for doing exactly that.
But to the broader point: Lots of men are still getting married because they are saps. They want to be in the harness. They want to serve the Queen Bee. I see those types of men all the time on social media sites – trying to be cool friends to women in a transparent attempt for something more, being obsequious todies and generally putting women way up on a pedestal. Men have to get more self-esteem in general and start telling women “NO”.
I agree, but the more we say no, the more they will just go to Big Daddy Government to beat us down.
Yes, well, any time you have sex with a woman she can accuse you of rape. All she has to do is say the word.
This is why I only have sex in hotels. There is only one reason why a woman would enter a hotel room with a man–because she wants to have sex. Therefore, consent is implied when she enters the room. Yeah, she can make the accusation, but it won’t hold up in court. She came on to me. I took her to a hotel. No jury would find that a crime.
It might cost money to defend myself, but I know several top notch lawyers. And I will sue her into bankruptcy, for legal fees and court costs, slander and defamation of character, after the not guilty verdict.
The larger point is this. The modern American girl, you take her out and you take her to bed. The next morning she assumes that it’s her place to plan your career for you. She assumes that it’s her place to plan your life for you. I don’t put up with attitude like that.
Who is this girl to me? She’s just some stupid girl I met and took to a hotel, who woke up thinking she could control my life. Um, I don’t think so.
Does she own anything? No. Is she a realtor? No. She’s a loan processor at a mortgage company. Yet she assumes that she knows better than me how to advance in my career.
This is so typical. I’ve been putting up with attitude like that since I was in the 6th grade. The thing is, I don’t put up with attitude like that. I just walk away. I’m rich, so why should I care what she wants, thinks or believes? She offered me sex. I had sex with her. End of story.
She could have been pleasant. She could have been polite. She could have been courteous. She could have been respectful. Instead, she copped an attitude, so I left. It’s that simple.
She could have had a serious relationship with a millionaire, and her children would have nothing to worry about. But, no, she had to cop an attitude, and now she’s on her own.
But even if she didn’t cop an attitude, I still wouldn’t marry her. Because of the law. This is the thing, and it really is the thing. I will not agree to the terms and conditions of the marriage contract. Period. I will not.
Women cannot grasp this simple fact. And refuse to even discuss it. The problem is with the law. If women want to be serious about marriage, the sacrament, then they will start advocationg changing the terms and conditions of the contract. Because those terms and conditions are completely unacceptable to me, and they should be to all men.
Love and marriage, love and marriage . . . give me a break. We’re not talking about love here. We’re talking about money.
“Therefore, consent is implied when she enters the room. Yeah, she can make the accusation, but it won’t hold up in court. She came on to me. I took her to a hotel. No jury would find that a crime.”
——
Ummmm … let me guess. You’re not “officially” a lawyer, but you know it all.
Am I close?
“This is why I only have sex in hotels. There is only one reason why a woman would enter a hotel room with a man–because she wants to have sex. Therefore, consent is implied when she enters the room. Yeah, she can make the accusation, but it won’t hold up in court. She came on to me. I took her to a hotel. No jury would find that a crime.”
–
Mike Tyson was convicted of rape for doing exactly what you did … IN A HOTEL ROOM. Allegedly the beauty queen said, “I guess you’re my boyfriend now”, and Tyson threw her a $20 for cab fare to get the hell out. I can give you a whole list of guys who were convicted of rape from sex in hotel rooms.
You are truly a moron, but a self-righteous windbag moron at that.
And you are an asshole.
The larger point is this. I know what I’m doing. I fully understand that every time I enter into a sexual relationship a child could be the result. I accept my responsibilities without question, and I will support and raise every child I conceive, after a paternity test.
I couldn’t care less about Mike Tyson. The man is an idiot. Why should I care what happens to him? I only care about what happens to me.
The law is the problem. Until or unless men and women are willing to address the problem, then marriage is out of the question.
If you don’t like it, then you can suck me.
When women honor the sacrament, then they’ll be respectable. Presumptive paternity, abortion on demand, no fault divorce are completely unacceptable.
If you can’t wrap your mind around that, then you’re just an asshole, farting out of your mouth.
Do you have any respect for yourself? Do you not understand the law? Have you ever even dated a modern American girl?
You’re the loser in this equation. I’ll just take the money and retire wealthy. She can kiss my rich white ass, and so can you.
And that’s the way it will all end. I’ll be rich. You’ll be poor. You’ll be paying child support for another man’s bastard, and complaining about it.
Yeah, that’s the marriage contract. The husband is resonsible for every child his wife conceives. That’s the law.
Me, I’m only responsible for every child I conceive. As it should be. The simple fact is that the marriage contract is completely unacceptable.
Either change the contract or shut up.
Gawain’s Ghost, you made some credible-sounding assertion that if you have sex with a woman in a hotel room, you can’t be convicted of rape.
You were then given a counter-example. There are plenty of counter-examples. This isn’t about Mike Tyson himself.
I don’t know how certain people can so confidently assert things that just aren’t true. Ya’ know, gullible people are going to believe the stuff you are saying.
Actually, what I said is that any time a man has sex with a woman, whether she’s his wife or if it’s in hotel, he can be accused of rape. That’s the law, that’s the culture, that’s the attitude of the modern American girl. All she has to do is say the word.
Since that is the case, I vote for only having sex in hotel rooms. There is only one reason why a woman would enter a hotel room with a man, and that’s to have sex. I know it, she knows it, everyone else knows it.
She can cry rape all she wants. All sex is rape to the feminist mind. But good luck proving it in court. And good luck living on what’s left after I sue you into bankruptcy for slander and defamation of character.
She offered me sex. I had sex with her. What’s the crime in that?
All of you people are missing the point. The problem is with the law. Either change the law or STF up.
You are trying to obfuscate now with a threatening-sounding, wild verbal rampage.
The issue on this mangy little sub-thread is that you are the Minister of Misdirection.
You say lots of stuff that isn’t true, you say it on lots of different threads and, even worse, you say it with extreme confidence.
I don’t know why some people do that, but they do. Most men, at least on this website, probably agree with your point that the laws are unfair to men, but your factually abysmal presentation produces the opposite effect. A few former sympathizers may rethink their position if such a factually sloppy person is making these claims.
My suggestion and a pro tip: Either tighten up factually or quit posting, because you are actually having the opposite effect.
One more comment: It’s not the laws that work against plenty of men in many cases in family law, but their own in-borne chivalry.
If you put some woman up on a pedestal, tell her that you will do all the work and she can sit home watching The View and Dr. Phil (well, not in those words) – because your self-esteem is low and you think that’s the only way you can get a woman to stay with you – then the result in family court is really pre-programmed.
You have just created an over-entitled, lazy housewife who is going to be “financially dependent” on you well after the divorce. Some of us other men don’t appreciate it, frankly. Women are just human beings, and the men who “pedestalize” them are not just harming themselves, but other men, with this continuation of the myth of the virtuous sit-at-home woman. They aren’t the paragon of virtue, they are expoitive, childish, greedy pieces of shit who should get a bill for being supported during a marriage, not an entitlement to continue to be supported after a marriage has ended.
And to you “chivalrous” men who don’t get it: I hope you really get everything you deserve in life. And in family court.
“Women are not just catching up anymore; they are becoming the standard by which success is measured.”
Not when the hurricane hits.
Not when the US economy has 50 million unemployed in 2016…
No Tom Leykis wonder had five million listeners every night!
The only way to stop monsters like Rosin is to grow the mens movement.
http://www.avoiceformen.com
Take two.
No wonder Tom Leykis had five million listeners every night!
Women are superior to men. That’s why they voted in an incompetent marxist who literally treats them like vaginas.
This society cannot collapse fast enough.
help speed things up – get your obamaphone while they last.
Interesting comment with respect to the white vote. If 3 million sat out, is that a version of Going Galt?
Dr. Helen’s posts tend to end up with 2 entirely separate comment sections, so I’m crossing this over from the less-replied to version :
The issue with this is that so many men now are such concern trolls (wanting to appear properly ‘progressive’) that they’ll willingly participate in their own march to irrelevance.
They buy the “Even if somehow you ever get raped, you can’t get pregnant from it, so you will always be the oppressors!” card when it’s played, and then play it THEMSELVES against other men if it should ever be pointed out that women tend to get favored treatment in the court (whether child & family, or criminal justice) systems.
They respond with “You just REFUSE to let women have their day and their issues, thinking you’re oh so important that you have to override it with YOUR male privilege!”
“Male Feminists” don’t seem to understand that their enabling of Misandry in order to “level the playing field” is actually a worse misogyny of their OWN action.
In their constant need to concern-troll, it shows that they themselves do not think of women as being anywhere close to equal footing, and therefore THEY must step in to ‘elevate’ or otherwise White Knight for them; advocating for institutionalized “positive discrimination”. If they truly believed in women as being ‘equal’, they’d understand that said women don’t need them to step in and fight their battles for them.
All it is, is another form of male Self-Loathing.
Why would any woman go on to publish under such a title when her own son has made such a cogent criticism. Oh, he’s male, and his opinion means nothing. Love ya, Mom.
I think Hanna Rosin and others have a serious misunderstanding about the so-called rise of women and the “new” economy.
The majority of women in the work place work in the “soft” fields (education, healthcare, etc.) as well as in areas of regulatory compliance. The “hard” fields (ANY and ALL engineering, most cutting edge bio-medicine, etc.) are still as dominated by men today as in the 1980′s. It is largely the expansion of the regulatory state and the “soft” fields of education and healthcare that has led to the rise of women in the workplace. In a deregulated economy (1980′s) with emphasis on real creation, women would have about the same participation and influence as they did during the 1980′s. Hence, Rosin’s much-ballyhooed “rise” of women is more hype than anything else.
BTW, I am an automation control system engineer (PLC’s and SCADA/HMI) and have worked in semiconductor and conventional manufacturing industries. I can tell you that real wealth creation industry (engineering and manufacturing) is still completely dominated by males and will remain so into the foreseeable future. I can tell you Rosin’s “rise of women” thesis is a load of hype.
I absolutely agree.
An example of what is occurring: Man develops better computer, earns money and is heavily taxed on that income. That money is used to create a women’s studies professorship – so the woman can write about how stupid men are.
No, those two jobs are not equal. Women are getting artificially propped up today in society.
There always have been some women who really contribute – the number of female winners of the Nobel Prize in physics was about the same from 1900 – 1950 as it was from 1950 – 2000.
The difference is the women who don’t contribute, but who are being artificially propped up today. A woman who would have been a man-hating, gossiping housewife 60 years ago is the same today, except that she has an office and a nice salary for the exact same thing.
Peter Thiel wrote a paper some years ago about the problems of the regulatory state where he stated that there are NO political solutions to any and all of our socio-economic problems. He believes, as do I, that the only solutions to any and all problems can be found only through decentralized technological innovation. The upside to this is that the tools of science and technology, particularly biotechnology, are both improving and becoming cheaper such that technological innovation that could only be done by governments and large corporations can increasingly be done by individuals and small companies. Examples of such enabling technologies are microfluidics in biotechnology and 3-D printing/additive manufacturing for manufacturing in general. These technologies could lead towards the development of a generalized manufacturing/biomedical nanotechnology that will make much of the current socio-economic infrastructure (and related institutions) completely obsolete.
The recent election results have reinforced the conviction that I have increasingly come to believe over the last few years that this technological trend represents the ONLY hope for expanded personal capability and individual liberty in the foreseeable future. I very strongly believe this is the case.
As corollary to this, I consider both liberal-left and social conservative ideologies to be brain-dead. Why? Because both of these ideologies are based on the efficacy of large-scale social institutions. ALL large scale human institutions are bureaucracies and it is the inherent nature of all bureaucracy to be dysfunctional. Hence, any ideology or worldview that is based on the efficacy of such is inherently brain-dead.
The future will not be created by governments or even large corporations. It will be created by private individuals and small organizations.
You strike me as a very Max Weber kind of guy.
One of the reasons why I detest both the liberal-left as well as the non-libertarian conservatives is that they believe that human institutions have intrinsic value. This is complete hogwash. The value of any institution is exclusively the value-added accomplishments that it produces. For example, I have some money and want to develop fusion power or radical extension. In the first case, I would hire plasma physicists, control system engineers and the like to develop one of the FRC concepts (Tri-Alpha or John Slough’s concepts, for example). In the second, I would hire biotechnology people to develop the SENS therapies. Private organizations exist to develop both of these capabilities. In other words, I create or join any given organization in order to accomplish a specific goal I have in mind. The value that any given organization has to me is ONLY its ability to help me accomplish my specific goals. There is NO other value in any human institution other than the accomplishment of my specific tasks and goals.
I will also say that the government funded big science projects have completely failed in their objectives. NASA has yet to open up the solar system to human settlement. NIH and the associated medical bureaucracies have failed to develop effective anti-aging therapies that would allow us to live indefinitely youthful life spans. The Tokamak program has not resulted in commercial fusion power.
On the other hand, recent years has seen the formation of private organizations and companies dedicated to all of these objectives. There are private non-profits working to develop and commercialize the SENS therapies. There are at least 5 start-ups developing hot (plasma) fusion as well as 5 developing LENR (yes, the cold fusion phenomenon is real, although it is not fusion). Space X has been successful in developing commercial space launch services. All of this tells me that private efforts work. Government efforts do not. 3D-printing, contour printing, and associated technologies may make the ocean city-state concept technically and economically feasible by 2030. In short, we don’t need government and religion to create the possibilities of the open, unlimited future. Indeed, It is my personal experience that governments and religions have often been quite hostile to my dreams and objectives in life. Hence, I regard them as parasitical entities that are to be avoided as much as possible.
“Mommy, Why Would You Write a Book With Such a Mean Title?”
——-
Because Mommy wants to make money, and she knows that titles like that sell like hotcakes to today’s “educated” feminist women.
I was a computer analyst for thirty years. When it’s two o’clock in the morning and the system is crashing – you call the most knowledgeable person. When the government drops new regs on you and the system needs to be changed – FAST – you call the most knowledgeable person.
The phrase ‘alpha geek’ gets used sometimes to describe that person.
In 30 years I’ve seen a lot of those people. I’ve been that person 3 or 4 times.
In 30 years I HAVE NEVER ONCE SEEN A WOMAN BE THE PERSON WHO GETS CALLED WHEN THERE IS A BIG PROBLEM. NEVER.
But they do get first shot at promotions, training, management openings, etc.
I spent my entire working career watching men get screwed and women get money, advancements, and opportunities they had not earned.
Yeah, ‘the patriarchy oppresses all women’. Right.
Rosin can take a long walk….on a busy highway for all I care. she’s one of the first ones screamin’ “where are all the good men?” and totally clueless to the fact that she’s also one of the main reasons we’re disappearing. I’m going my own way and if she’s supposed to be a reason to come back, then color me gone.