Dr. Helen

Dr. Helen

Whistle if You Have Survived Whistling Abuse…

August 14th, 2015 - 9:04 am

Amy Alkon: Are You a “Survivor”— of Whistling?:

But yes, for realz, at UCSB, the activities now on the list of things that constitute sexual assault include, in the “Cat Calls” category:

…verbal advances that include whistling, shouting, and/or saying sexually explicit or implicit phrases or propositions that are unwanted by the survivor.

Yes, whistling. Really.

Tinder and The Dating Apocalypse

August 12th, 2015 - 10:13 am

Vanity Fair has an interesting article on Tinder and how it is creating a dating apocalypse (via Newsalert):

“I think that iPhones and dating apps have really changed the way that dating happens for our generation,” says Stephanie, the one with an arm full of bracelets.

“There is no dating. There’s no relationships,” says Amanda, the tall elegant one. “They’re rare. You can have a fling that could last like seven, eight months and you could never actually call someone your ‘boyfriend.’ [Hooking up] is a lot easier. No one gets hurt—well, not on the surface.”

They give a wary laugh.

They tell me how, at their school, an adjunct instructor in philosophy, Kerry Cronin, teaches a freshman class in which an optional assignment is going out on an actual date. “And meet them sober and not when you’re both, like, blackout drunk,” says Jane. “Like, get to know someone before you start something with them. And I know that’s scary.”

They say they think their own anxiety about intimacy comes from having “grown up on social media,” so “we don’t know how to talk to each other face-to-face.”

Sad stuff.

Roosh: A Hero for Men

August 9th, 2015 - 9:58 am

Vox Day has a post on Roosh’s world wide tour (more on Roosh here if you don’t know of him):

You may not like Roosh. You may not approve of him. You may not agree with him about much. But the next time you bite your tongue because you are afraid of saying something that a woman or an SJW might look at you funny for saying, or perhaps even confront you and call you a name, remember that this is a man who was denounced, falsely accused, publicly unwelcomed by the mayor of Montreal, protested, and physically attacked, and he still stood up and spoke for his beliefs concerning the interests of men.

Before you dismiss Roosh for one reason or another, ask yourself ‘what am I doing? Why is evil not objecting to my presence? Why are the SJWs not seeking to silence and discredit me?’

Roosh is so dangerous to the SJW cause, and is so effective in exploding their attempts to control the very thoughts and behavior of men, that they actually tried to play the “we’ll totally be your friend if only you’ll denounce him” game with me!

That should be sufficient to convince anyone who supports freedom of speech and freedom of thought to stand up for the man, regardless of any reservations you might have about pickup artistry or neomasculinity. After all, he’s standing up for you.

A reader poses an interesting question:

Dr. Helen,

Do you ever think or worry (not that this is the right way to couch it) that where we are going with the feminizing of males, vs. the world at large, i.e. ISIS etc. what the long term implications are for America?

I spent 6 years in the military, enjoyed every minute of it and never a second thought would we ever be in a place where I was actually concerned about the country’s ability to defend itself. I’m not so sure I’m there anymore. Being a male is not so easy.

Thoughts?

I worry about this defense question often when thinking about what is happening politically in the larger world and with our military and culture in general. Here are a few of my thoughts: As the U.S. military becomes more and more PC, will it discourage more masculine men from joining up? And if more masculine men join, will they be so hindered by PC rules and regulations that they will become discouraged, and simply give up on defending the country? Or will they be punished if they try to do the right thing in terms of defense, thus making what might be a good tactical move one that is hindered by politics?

As for men in general, are we becoming a nation so used to the easy life that no one has much fight left in them to defend anything except a bag of Cheetos? Not that individual men have a duty to defend the country, but if no one wants to or can, then where does that leave our republic? And maybe women should be held just as liable and serve in whatever capacity they can?

I am reading a copy of Tod Lindberg’s new book titled The Heroic Heart: Greatness Ancient and Modern and he has some insightful thoughts. Lindberg says that we enjoy a measure of peace and personal security unknown to mankind before modern times. “Instead of preparing mentally and physically for the inevitable recurrence of times of strife, we can take to our couches and busy ourselves with the enjoyment of the leisure time the modern world generously allows us.”

Lindberg makes the point that we watch heroes on TV or video games and maybe even get wild and coach a Little League game if extremely motivated — but what happens if an “old-school slaying hero” decides to “…conquer the world, that is, our world–to conquer and subjugate us”?

Good question. I don’t have all the answers but one thing I know is that to take the hero out of men (and women) and to replace it with complacency and submissiveness is definitely not the answer. It is a road to destruction.

What are reader thoughts on whether or not our country will continue to be able to defend itself given the feminization of men and the PC of the culture in general?

Horrible Feminists Are #NotAllWomen

Over at CNBC, there is an article from Jake Novak entitled “Want to get rich? Grow up!”:

When we address the newer and wider wealth gap between the old and young, a lot of experts rightly point out the effects of much higher student loan debt and the recent Great Recession. But it’s not just economics, there is something else at play that is contributing to the generational wealth gap that combines economic, cultural and even emotional factors. And that is the fact that younger Americans are more and more likely to delay their passage into adulthood and the earning power that goes with being a grown up. …

Why is this happening? I’ve discussed before how economics are often just a convenient excuse for delaying those commitment-laden milestones listed above. Again Ladies, if your boyfriend keeps telling you he can’t marry you because of his student loans… well, he’s just not that in to you. It’s not just the economics, but the fact that it’s become more culturally acceptable to behave a certain way past a certain age. And this generally childlike failure to commit is keeping our kids emotionally young and also keeping them financially poor.

Naturally, Novak thinks that men are immature good-for-nothings who have no reason not to marry women and “get rich.” Even when male readers try to enlighten him, he won’t listen and white knight that he appears to be uses a female reader’s letter to show what losers men are as he whole-heartedly agrees that men are a liability to marriage and not necessarily an asset. It’s no wonder millennial men tune out opinions like Novak’s and decide that “growing up” (in other words, providing for and/or serving a female) might not be their best investment.

In today’s anti-male climate, will millennial men get rich by marrying?

I thought about this as I read the title of an article at CNBC: “Is your office too cold? Blame men”:

Complaints about cold offices finally have some basis—it’s likely your male colleagues are to blame.

According to a new research by Maastricht University, the standard used to determine the ideal indoor temperature is based on the body heat of the average man.

Current calculations for building temperatures try to balance average body heat—which is dictated by the body’s metabolic rate—and that of the room or office, in order to find the ideal level of warmth. …

“By taking into account the actual metabolic rate of women, a crucial step can be made in creating more energy-efficient buildings and a more comfortable working area for women,” the release explained.

I like the first comment to the article from William Wallace: “Or they could put on a sweater…”

But that would be too easy and take the fun out of blaming men for all of women’s discomfort in the world.

Do you ever get those statements from Social Security or log online to see how much you are entitled to at different years from 62-70? I have done so and learned that if I wait until I am 70, I am supposed to get $3114.00 a month. “Fat chance of that,” I often think. There is a National Review article circulating about a woman who was surprised (really?) to learn that her benefits might only be 77% of what she is supposed to get on the SS information form she is sent. She must not get out much.

I figured I would receive nothing and have planned financially with that in mind. That said, I decided to be proactive. My husband ordered a new book that might help many of us who were born after 1960 (or before) to get back some of the money we put into this (Ponzi scheme) system.

The book is called Get What’s Yours: The Secrets to Maxing Out Your Social Security and is written by economics professor Laurence Kotlikoff, Philip Moeller and Paul Solman. I read through some of the chapters and found them fairly straight-forward, although there are 2728 core rules in the operating manual of Social Security and any number of mathematical formulas that make it worth one’s time to read up on how to maximize your own personal benefits.

From the description:

Learn the secrets to maximizing your Social Security benefits and earn up to thousands of dollars more each year with expert advice that you can’t get anywhere else.

Want to know how to navigate the forbidding maze of Social Security and emerge with the highest possible benefits? You could try reading all 2,728 rules of the Social Security system (and the thousands of explanations of these rules), but Kotlikoff, Moeller, and Solman explain Social Security benefits in an easy to understand and user-friendly style. What you don’t know can seriously hurt you: wrong decisions about which Social Security benefits to apply for cost some individual retirees tens of thousands of dollars in lost income every year.

How many retirees or those nearing retirement know about such Social Security options as file and suspend (apply for benefits and then don’t take them)? Or start stop start (start benefits, stop them, then re-start them)? Or—just as important—when and how to use these techniques? Get What’s Yours covers the most frequent benefit scenarios faced by married retired couples, by divorced retirees, by widows and widowers, among others. It explains what to do if you’re a retired parent of dependent children, disabled, or an eligible beneficiary who continues to work, and how to plan wisely before retirement. It addresses the tax consequences of your choices, as well as the financial implications for other investments.

The book has lots of examples of when and how to take Social Security depending on your individual situation along with that of your spouse, if you have one. It’s definitely worth a read if you are near retirement age or thinking about these issues. However, it’s only worth so much time to contemplate these formulas as the system cannot sustain itself the way things are going.

With that in mind, please take the following poll about my future chances of getting my benefits at age 70 ( I was born in the early 1960s):

Will Dr. Helen get $3114.00 monthly Social Security Benefits at age 70?

 
pollcode.com free polls

James Taylor: Before This World

July 29th, 2015 - 5:08 am

I went to see James Taylor in Knoxville last night and it was a great show. He was promoting his new album Before This World and opened with several songs from the new CD. I thought the crowd would be mostly baby boomers and it was, but there were many younger people there who seemed to know and love his music. Of course, mainly the crowd (myself included) wanted to hear “Fire and Rain” or “Carolina in my Mind” and he did not disappoint, with some of these old songs mixed in with the new ones. It was a lot of fun and though I haven’t been to a concert in years, I was glad I went to see him.

Have any readers seen any good concerts lately?

July 28th, 2015 - 2:11 pm

Milo Yiannopoulos: Does Feminism Make Women Ugly?:

Certainly, feminists in the public sphere have acquired a reputation for being brazen about their unconventional looks. The cult of “body positivity” has encouraged many young women to embrace excess weight. Feminist writers like Lindy West celebrate their fatness, while Lena Dunham has made a career out of looking wobbly and horrible.

While the sisterhood might not condemn women for piling on the pounds, men definitely do. But the weight gain, bizarre hair colour, piercings and “genderqueer” fashion trends in feminism aren’t, it seems to me, enough on their own to explain why women who strongly identify as feminists are so often either physically unappealing or mistaken for men.

I thinks so. Here is an interesting post by PJM’s Walter Hudson who had this to say:

The questions of who should get married to whom and under what circumstances need not be decided by “a liberal democracy,” but by individuals entering into unions and the communities with whom they freely associate. I don’t need an entire democracy to legitimize my relationship with my wife. Our relationship is ours, recognized by our God. All we require from others is the recognition of our rights as individuals, same as if we were single, same as if we were business partners. In the eyes of the law, all that should properly matter is our consent.

What do you you think? Should government get out of marriage altogether?