Get PJ Media on your Apple

Dr. Helen

Over 600 People Walk by Two Lost Girls: Can You Blame Them?

March 26th, 2014 - 5:33 am

In the Daily Mail, there is a story about an experiment where two little girls say they are lost and more than 600 people at a shopping mall walk by them:

Hidden cameras recorded Uma, seven, and Maya, five, who took it in turns to look lost.

Astonishingly, over the whole hour only one person, a grandmother, took a moment to find out if there was a problem. All of the 616 other passers-by completely ignored the girls.

Heartbreakingly for the mother of the sisters – who was watching from a hiding place nearby – passing couples even split apart to walk around either side of the ‘lost’ girls and people wheeling suitcases took evasive action to avoid Maya and Uma, not thinking to check if they needed help.

Who can blame them? The authorities have spent years making it clear that adults, in particular male adults, are suspect –and now they want those same adults to stand up and help kids with no regard for their own welfare:

Experts said the reluctance of the passers-by was partly explained by people being busy, and partly a fear – especially among men – of any help they offer a child being misinterpreted.

But the NSPCC said a child’s welfare was more important than worrying about being labelled a ‘stranger danger’.

A spokesman said: ‘We have got to get a message out to adults that they have a responsibility to protect children and that must supersede any concern you have for other people’s perception of why you are reaching out to help that child.’

Bullshit — responsibility is a two-way street. It’s not just a “perception by people” that men and even women are a danger to kids, it is a reality that men (and some women, but mostly men) are charged with abuse and face real jail time, job loss and separation from their families for sex abuse charges so readily that they have become immune to the cries of kids. Who can blame them? I can’t. Can you?

More from Dr. Helen: 

Men on Strike in L.A.?

Can You Teach Charisma?

March 24th, 2014 - 11:59 am


A new book entitled The Charisma Myth: How Anyone Can Master the Art and Science of Personal Magnetism says “yes”:

The charisma myth is the idea that charisma is a fundamental, inborn quality—you either have it (Bill Clinton, Steve Jobs, Oprah) or you don’t. But that’s simply not true, as Olivia Fox Cabane reveals. Charismatic behaviors can be learned and perfected by anyone.

Drawing on techniques she originally developed for Harvard and MIT, Cabane breaks charisma down into its components. Becoming more charismatic doesn’t mean transforming your fundamental personality. It’s about adopting a series of specific practices that fit in with the personality you already have.

The author believes there is no magic to charisma, but rather it is a set of learned behaviors. She gives lists of pointers to achieve a charismatic personality — for example, in the beginning of the book, she simply gives three quick tips to achieving charisma in a conversation: lower the intonation of your voice at the end of your sentences, reduce how quickly and often you nod, and pause for two full seconds before you speak. The book seems like a worthwhile read if you desire more charisma in your life.

What do you think, can charisma be learned?

Men on Strike in L.A.?

March 20th, 2014 - 7:48 pm


I was at an L.A. cafe rooftop deck where a couple of guys were sitting with two pretty twenty-something women. The men got up after chugging a few beers and laughing with the women. They left and the girls stayed drinking and smoking (!) for a bit. Finally, the waiter came over to one of the girls to bring the check. The pretty brunette in a knit hat looked up and asked, “Did the guys pay for their beers?” “Yes”, the waiter said. “But only their own beers?” asked the girls. “Yes, only for their own beers,” the waiter said.

The girls looked annoyed and reluctantly pulled out their wallets, realizing that the two guys they had been laughing with over drinks had paid for themselves and split. I watched the girls, amused at the idea that they figured two cute girls were entitled to free drinks wherever they went. Apparently, many twenty-something girls think that it’s up to the guy to pay for their drinks. But perhaps it never entered these L.A. guys’ minds to do that. It was refreshing. I sat back and ate my salad, thinking that in some way these guys were either onto the game or just on strike.

Also read: 

How Would the Male Pill Change Things?

How Would the Male Pill Change Things?

March 18th, 2014 - 8:58 am

Hans Solo over at JustFourGuys blog explores how the male pill will change the reproductive rights of men:

Let’s imagine what life would be like with a male “pill”:
Men will only become fathers if they choose to.
Gold digging whores will lapse into depression as they fuck rich men over and over to no avail–the child-support lottery will be closed.
Men will laugh in the face of women when they’re caught red-handed poking holes in the condom. Agree and amplify: ”Here, use these” as you hand her a pair of scissors.
Putting all young males on this would do away with most unwanted teen pregnancies.
Fewer unintended pregnancies…and fewer intended abortions.
Statutory female rapists would no longer get child support from their younger male victims because they wouldn’t have gotten pregnant in the first place.

Negotiating while Stupid

March 17th, 2014 - 10:25 am

Over at Slate, there is a ridiculous article about a female academic who asks for too much and is rejected for the job. Naturally, it’s because she is female. Seriously, after looking at the list of demands she wants, who would want her?:

As you know, I am very enthusiastic about the possibility of coming to Nazareth. Granting some of the following provisions would make my decision easier[:]

1) An increase of my starting salary to $65,000, which is more in line with what assistant professors in philosophy have been getting in the last few years.

2) An official semester of maternity leave.

3) A pre-tenure sabbatical at some point during the bottom half of my tenure clock.

4) No more than three new class preps per year for the first three years.

5) A start date of academic year 2015 so I can complete my postdoc.

The dumb advice given by feminists and books like Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead might make women feel good but no one, male or female, does themselves any favors being this entitled when looking for a job. Would you hire this list of demands, male or female? Leave your answer in the comments section.

Vox Day emails:

After some extended discussion with both the VP readers and a group of
pro SF writers, the list of Greatest Living SF Writers was narrowed down
to 10. I thought perhaps you and your readers might be interested in
voting on the matter: poll here.
The poll will run all weekend and the winner announced on Monday.

Who would your choice be? Is he or she on the list?

They say two can live cheaper than one but I never believed this. In this CNBC article, there is discussion of the marriage penalty and how it can be expensive at tax time to be married for some:

Some wealthy and low-income married couples are losing out at tax time, but experts say eliminating the so-called marriage penalty is more complicated than you might think.

“It’s just impossible to get rid of it with the tax system that we’ve got,” said Roberton Williams, senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center think tank.

That’s because the U.S. tax system is progressive, meaning that people pay more taxes as their incomes go up, and also factors in whether people are married or single when it comes to filing taxes.

Williams suspects that more couples get a marriage bonus than a marriage penalty, meaning that their overall tax bill is lower because they are married. But he said there’s no question that some people would have a lower tax bill if they were single instead of married. ….

Some same-sex spouses will be getting a bonus or paying penalty for the first time this year, because this is the first tax season that the Internal Revenue Service is recognizing those unions. Cain said tax implications are not keeping same-sex couples she knows from getting married in states where it is legal.

“Most of the people I know say it’s the price of equality,” she said. “We get to get discriminated against in the tax system just like opposite sex couples.”

Notice that when “equality” means progressive politics and increased taxes, suddenly marriage is a good thing and no one stops to think about the incentives much. Really?

Interview with Just Four Men Blog

March 12th, 2014 - 6:21 am

Obsidian over at JustFourMen Blog interviews me about “Men on Strike.”

An article from the Christian Science Monitor discusses how social scientists have been studying the wrong variable when it comes to cohabitation and divorce:

For years, social scientists have tried to explain why living together before marriage seemed to increase the likelihood of a couple divorcing. Now, new research released by the nonpartisan Council on Contemporary Families gives an answer:

It doesn’t. And it probably never has. …

As it turns out, those studies that linked premarital cohabitation and divorce were measuring the wrong variable, says Arielle Kuperburg, a professor at the University of North Carolina, Greensboro, who produced much of the research released Monday. The biggest predictor of divorce, she says, is actually the age at which a couple begins living together, whether before the wedding vows or after.

Kyle Smith at the NY Post has an interesting article on the emasculation of men in our society:

“Free to Be . . . You and Me” was a piece of Ms. Foundation-produced feminist propaganda disguised as entertainment for children that first appeared on ABC 40 years ago this week, on March 11, 1974. It drew big ratings, leading to platinum status for an associated album, a best-selling book, and many repeat airings of the show…..

The show, which is of course unwatchable today except perhaps in states with generous attitudes toward self-medication such as Colorado and Washington, was an hour-long special that meant to tell little girls they could be anything they wanted, and little boys they could be anything they wanted too, provided that what they wanted was to be girls.

The program’s most searing and indelible moment was the horrifying sight of Rosey Grier, a huge man once known as one of the most ferocious players in the NFL, strumming a guitar, smiling like a brain donor and singing “It’s All Right to Cry.”…

The climactic close to “It’s All Right to Cry” is a montage of real people (the vast majority male) shedding tears. Lads, open the waterworks! To women of today who are wondering why men must act like little boys, this is as good a moment as any to pinpoint as the start of the epidemic.

This trend continues today with the PC trend of sports, particularly football, and men being told that only the emotions of girls are acceptable unless they themselves actually act like one and then they are mocked by other men and women for their weakness. It’s confusing and disturbing that men are so emasculated on one hand and on the other, are supposed to “act like men” when convenient for women and society.