Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJ Lifestyle

Helen Smith

Helen Smith is a psychologist specializing in forensic issues in Knoxville, Tennessee, and blogs at Dr. Helen.
Follow Helen:

Gender Affects Types of Crashes for Young Drivers

Saturday, August 30th, 2014 - by Helen Smith

shutterstock_116316175

A study finds that the gender of young drivers plays a role in the types of crashes they are involved in:

(HealthDay News) — The types of vehicle crashes involving young drivers often vary by gender, a new study has found.

Researchers analyzed data from 2007 to 2011 for all crashes involving drivers between the ages of 16 and 24 in Kansas and found a number of differences between male and female drivers.

Young women were 66 percent more likely to wear a seat belt, 28 percent more likely to drive on a restricted license and they had more crashes at intersections and with pedestrians. They were also more likely to have crashes on weekdays.

Young men, on the other hand, had more crashes at night, more off-road crashes and were more likely to have crashes on weekends, according to the study published recently in the Journal of Safety Research.

“There are often different risk factors for young male and young female drivers because their behavior and attitudes are generally different,” lead researcher Sunanda Dissanayake, a civil engineering professor at Kansas State University, said in a university news release.

The article mentions education materials being aimed at each gender to help them reduce car accidents: perhaps more instruction for girls are how to prevent driving errors at intersections and around pedestrians and instructions for guys on why wearing a seat belt is important, though this may or may not work. Any ideas on how to get guys to wear seat belts? It seems to be a big problem for them in fatal crashes.

****
Cross-posted from Dr. Helen

Read bullet |

College Men ‘Going on Strike’?

Tuesday, August 26th, 2014 - by Helen Smith

shutterstock_134605736

Amy Alkon:

You’ve come a long way, baby — and then gone all the way back and then some.

Ashe Schow writes in the Wash Ex about the fallout from the campus sexual assault hysteria:

Thanks to an increased focus on sexual assaults on college campuses – mostly due to an overblown statistic claiming 20 percent of college women have been sexually assaulted – young college men are starting to rethink how they talk to women.

At first glance that might seem like a good thing – men learning to be more respectful of women and not be so rapey – but that’s not what this is.

This is about men actually avoiding contact with women because they’re afraid a simple kiss or date could lead to a sexual assault accusation.

Bloomberg reporters John Lauerman and Jennifer Surane interviewed multiple men from colleges like Harvard and Stanford who expressed concern over what was once known as a “hook-up culture” but is now labeled by feminists as “rape culture.” The change in terminology ensures that all responsibility is placed on men, just because of their gender.

Take Malik Gill of Harvard University, who said he wouldn’t even give a female classmate a beer.

“I don’t want to look like a predator,” Gill told Bloomberg. “It’s a little bit of a blurred line.”….

As I’ve written before, women used to demand to be treated as equals; now they demand to be treated like eggshells.

Count me out.

Yeah, me too. We will keep hearing the question from women, “where have all the good men gone?” as they live in their cocoons, never understanding that the guys went on strike a while back and many have left for good. Are college women to blame for this? Yes, because as Martin Luther King says: Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. If college women do not understand the injustices they are witnessing against men in our colleges today and strive to help, then they are part of the problem. They reap what they sow.

*******

Cross-posted from Dr. Helen

Image via shutterstock / auremar

Read bullet |

The Adventures of Sky Diving, Walking on Fire and Eating Out Alone

Saturday, August 23rd, 2014 - by Helen Smith

shutterstock_112201838

52 Things, 52 weeks is a blog where the author describes herself as “Entertainment attorney. IP nerd. Foodie. Coffee lover. Mac enthusiast. Yoga addict. Insomniac. Shutterbug. World traveler.” After reading my recent post, she decides this is the week she will try eating out alone:

Normally when I do something outside of my comfort zone on this blog it involves jumping out of a plane, walking on fire, or plunging into an ice-cold lake. While this week’s post seems mundane by comparison, it actually made me really uncomfortable to think about it. When I saw an article asking “Are You Ashamed to Eat Out Alone?” I decided it was time to mark this one off of the list.

Yes, I’ve grabbed a quick bite here and there by myself before. I have a favorite lunch spot back home that I sneak off to each time I visit and I’ve spent hundreds (probably thousands) of hours studying alone at coffee shops. But I have never gone to a nice restaurant and enjoyed an entire meal alone.

I set up a few ground rules:

How adventurous! Maybe next time, she should take along a copy of Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking just to complete the evening.

*****

cross-posted from Dr. Helen

image illustration via shutterstock / CandyBox Images

Read bullet |

Is Suicide Genetic?

Sunday, August 17th, 2014 - by Helen Smith

shutterstock_135434210

Some researchers say yes:

No one could have predicted that Oscar-winning comedian Robin Williams would kill himself.

Or could they?

When someone commits suicide, the reaction is often the same. It’s disbelief, mixed with a recognition that the signs were all there. Depression. Maybe talk of ending one’s life.

Now, by studying people who think about committing suicide, as well as brains of people who actually did, two groups of genome researchers in the U.S. and Europe are claiming they can use DNA tests to actually predict who will attempt suicide.

While claims for a suicide test remain preliminary, and controversial, a “suicide gene” is not as fanciful as it sounds.

The problem is that suicide samples are small and I often wonder how much gender plays a role in the lack of studies and data on suicide:

“We seem to be able to predict suicidal behavior and attempts, based on seeing these epigenetic changes in the blood,” says Kaminsky. “The caveat is that we have small sample sizes.”

Kaminsky says that following the report, his e-mail inbox was immediately flooded by people wanting the test. “They wanted to know, if my dad died from suicide, is my son at risk?” he says….

The bigger problem, says Dracheva, is that there are simply not enough brains of suicide victims to study. Unlike studies of diabetes or schizophrenia, where scientists can call on thousands or tens of thousands of patients, suicide studies remain small, and their findings much more tentative.

It’s because they don’t have DNA from enough people who committed suicide that researchers, including those at Hopkins and Max Planck, have had to try connecting the dots between DNA and whether or not people have suicidal thoughts. Yet there’s no straight line between the contemplation of suicide and actually doing it.

Of the more than 38,000 suicides in this country, over 30,000 are by men, yet the suicide studies remain small? Why?

*****

cross-posted from Dr. Helen

image illustration via shutterstock /  Youjin Jung

Read bullet |

How Does Institutional Bias Affect Men?

Thursday, August 7th, 2014 - by Helen Smith

shutterstock_152179922

I wondered about this a few weeks ago as I watched a Question and Answer session for perspective students at a large Washington D.C. Law School. The Q&A was about an hour and the admissions speaker was a lively woman who seemed very oriented to students and happy to answer questions about the LSAT, the law school and how to do one’s best in the application process. The future students were eager to ask questions and hands around the room went up quickly. There were around 50 people, about half men, half women in the room. But I noticed that the speaker mainly called on the women students, even if a man had raised his hand first. She even said “I will get to you in a minute” to a male student but then called on a couple of women instead: one woman was even called on three times! I wondered if the speaker even knew she was doing this.

I must admit that part of the problem was the way that the guys in the room were trying to ask questions. Their hand did not go up as aggressively as the girl’s hands nor were their voices as strong or as loud. They were softer and more hesitant than the women’s and I often could not hear them as well. Is this a function of men with softer voices applying to enter law school or were they more timid in this particular setting? Were they picking up that they were the underdogs in this situation and that they were not getting the same attention? If I am observing this behavior in one academic setting, how many more men are being affected by academics and administrators around the country who may be treating them differently?

Read bullet |

How Deadlifts and Squats Changed My Life

Friday, August 1st, 2014 - by Helen Smith

I have been following Mark Rippetoe’s Starting Strength program twice a week now for a few months. I have to say it has worked really well for me.

Since having a heart attack many years ago, I was afraid to do squats and deadlifts with much weight, if at all. However, Mark gave me the confidence to feel that I could indeed, do them again, albeit with some modifications. I have been using lighter weight, mainly just the 45 pound bar for deadlifts and the same for squats. Yeah, it’s light but sometimes I add five pounds on each side if I feel like it. I do three sets of five reps of each of the exercises with rest in-between as Rippetoe suggests. At first, I thought it didn’t seem like this plan would do much but I have noticed subtle changes over the past few weeks.

My lower back rarely hurts and my legs are much stronger. I have been doing overhead presses also that help me keep my posture in line and my upper body no longer hurts from the computer as much as it did. I feel better and can easily squat down now to lift things more readily. The idea of these exercises is to give one more functional ability in his or her daily life and they definitely have done that for me. I am still doing some yoga and other exercise for variety but I think the squats and deadlifts have really been key to helping me achieve the goals that I wanted–less pain and more ability to do tasks in my daily life. Thanks Mark!

*****

Cross-posted from Dr. Helen

Check out some of Mark Rippetoe’s biggest hits at PJ Lifestyle:

You Only Need These 6 Things For a World-Class Home Gym

Why You Should Not Be Running

Maybe, You Should Gain Weight

Forget What You’ve Heard: 4 Reasons Why Full Squats Save Your Knees

Read bullet |

Which Variables Most Influence Where You Choose to Live?

Monday, July 28th, 2014 - by Helen Smith

shutterstock_113349139

It seems that people pick places to live on other variables than happiness:

If New York is so unhappy, why do so many people keep living there? That’s one of the many questions at stake in a new working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Researchers from Harvard and the University of British Columbia used people’s self-reported life satisfaction data from the CDC to try to determine a geography of American happiness. What they found is that among the biggest metropolitan areas, the Big Apple is the unhappiest. Scranton, Pennsylvania, takes the honor of the least happy metro area of any size. Meanwhile, Richmond is the happiest large metro area, and Charlottesville, Virginia, is the happiest of any size…..

The data also carries in it an insight into how people make major life choices. If people only sought to live in happy places, cities like Richmond and Charlottesville, Virginia would be swamped with people, while New York would be desolate. Clearly, that hasn’t happened.

“One interpretation of these facts is that individuals do not aim to maximize self-reported well-being, or happiness, as measured in surveys, and they willingly endure less happiness in exchange for higher incomes or lower housing costs,” they write.

That said, places with low income growth and low population growth also tend to be particularly unhappy, both currently and historically.

“[C]ities that have declined also seem to have been unhappy in the past, which suggests that … these areas were always unhappy — and that was one reason why they declined,” write the authors.

The upshot seems to be that people make decisions based on happiness, but only on a limited basis. So at least in the economics world, there’s more to life than being happy.

It seems that people go where the money or jobs are earlier in life and then often move to places that make them happy or that have lower taxes when they retire or maybe lower taxes makes them happy as they have more time to do other things with their money. The problem is that people ruin these places such as NYC etc. with their politics and then move to the lower tax states such as the South to retire and then try to ruin these places with their politics and the cycle continues.

*****

Cross-posted from Dr. Helen

image illustration via shutterstock / Ollyy

Read bullet |

How to Excel at Math and Science (Even if You Flunked Algebra)

Saturday, July 19th, 2014 - by Helen Smith

9780399165245

I have been reading Barbara Oakley’s new book A Mind for Numbers: How to Excel at Math and Science (Even If You Flunked Algebra) this week. It’s a fascinating and fun read if you want to learn math, science, or, like me, just want to improve your memory.

I was actually pretty decent at math as my father was a mathematician and I grew up learning to love numbers. However, I had no natural talent, just no fear, which is important in learning math. Oakley makes this point throughout the book as she believes most people can learn math (and science) with the right tools and mindset. She is an engineering professor who failed her way through high school math but tackled these skills as an adult. Here is more about the book:

In A Mind for Numbers, Dr. Oakley lets us in on the secrets to effectively learning math and science—secrets that even dedicated and successful students wish they’d known earlier. Contrary to popular belief, math requires creative, as well as analytical, thinking. Most people think that there’s only one way to do a problem, when in actuality, there are often a number of different solutions—you just need the creativity to see them. For example, there are more than three hundred different known proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem. In short, studying a problem in a laser-focused way until you reach a solution is not an effective way to learn math. Rather, it involves taking the time to step away from a problem and allow the more relaxed and creative part of the brain to take over. A Mind for Numbers shows us that we all have what it takes to excel in math, and learning it is not as painful as some might think!

Relaxing while trying to learn math sounds counterintuitive but it works, according to the book. One of my favorite chapters is called “tools, tips, and tricks” and it gives the reader positive mental tricks to use to their advantage in learning. She tackles procrastination and gets tips from experts regarding their student, such as “No going onto the computer during their procrastination time. It’s too engrossing,” “Before procrastinating, identify the easiest homework problem,” and “Copy the equation or equations that are needed to solve the problem onto a small piece of paper and carry the paper around until they are ready to quit procrastinating and get back to work.”

All this seems to lead to being a bit more creative and perhaps a bit more relaxed. Come to think of it, the above tips would be helpful in writing a blog post except the writer has to use the computer and cannot avoid it. Anyway, the book is great and goes into more detail about how to increase your memory with metaphors and visualization. Pick it up if you want to know more about how to succeed at math and science or if you just need to improve your memory and learning ability.

*****

Cross-posted from Dr. Helen’s blog

Read bullet |

Want to Get Rich? Buy a Walgreens

Tuesday, July 8th, 2014 - by Helen Smith

9781619697256

I am reading a book by Tom Wheelwright called Tax-Free Wealth: How to Build Massive Wealth by Permanently Lowering Your Taxes (Rich Dad Advisors) and trying to figure out how to reduce taxes. Many of the strategies are a bit too complicated and risky for many people, including myself.

For example, in chapter nineteen on “The Magic of Real Estate,” the author suggests that you find a Walgreens to buy. You buy Walgreens property, they find the land, build the building, sell the land and building to the investor, and lease them back for 30 years. Okay, so now, you as the investor pay the mortgage. Then Walgreens sends you a check that you deposit in your account. “So you don’t have to do anything. You travel all over the world with the investment income for your Walgreen’s property til a ripe old age.”

The next paragraph goes into how one can use depreciation deductions to further shelter your taxes. All this “sounds” easy, right? Wrong, not to me anyway. You need accountants that are hard to get in touch with, constant documentation, and tax planning that sounds pretty complicated. In addition, I thought there was a depreciation recapture which means some of the money will have to be paid back at some point if you sell it. It sounds like a headache. And what if Walgreens goes bankrupt? What do you do then? Books like these always make it sound like nothing will go wrong.

Don’t get me wrong, the book is good, interesting and makes some good points about how to save on taxes but dealing with so many professionals, their costs and all of the accounting really sounds time consuming and if time is money, as the book mentions, aren’t you just trading one form of work for another?

If you have some simple tax saving strategies, please share them below (legal ones please!).

*****

cross-posted from Dr. Helen’s blog

Read bullet |

My Experience at the First International Men’s Conference So Far

Sunday, June 29th, 2014 - by Helen Smith

0 (6)

I have been at the men’s conference sponsored by A Voice for Men in Detroit for the past couple of days. It has been quite a delight to meet up with so many like-minded people on men’s issues. I met in person many of my personal heroes including paternity fraud activist Carnell Smith, columnist Barb Kay, author Warren Farrell, and more.

The crowd of what looked to be about two or three hundred people were diverse and ranged from all ages to all ethnic backgrounds. There were more men there but almost as many women it seemed! There were young men attending the conference who quietly came up and asked me to sign books and middle-aged and older who just stopped by and told me they had read my book and felt that it helped them in some way.

I met the young women who call themselves the Honey Badgers who fund-raised enough money to pay their expenses to go to the conference. Many people at the conference had sacrificed a lot to be there whether it was paying their own way, taking time off from work or struggling with physical problems that limited their ability to travel. I was in awe and amazed at the great group of intellectual speakers and the audience who asked questions that were critically thought out and challenging.

My only concern with the conference was the media that was present. I’ll explain on the next page.

Read bullet |

VIDEO: The War Against Men’s Sports

Wednesday, June 25th, 2014 - by Helen Smith

****

Cross-posted from Dr. Helen’s blog / image illustration via shutterstock /  Alan Bailey

Read bullet |

Great Advice from Clint Eastwood

Tuesday, June 17th, 2014 - by Helen Smith

shutterstock_44906746

I am looking forward to seeing Eastwood’s new movie, Jersey Boys, and saw this article on his thoughts of directing as he gets older:

You have more experience as you get older. You have more to draw on, as long as you don’t lose your faculties. You can play on that if you’re lucky enough genetically or you take good enough care of yourself, or a combination of the two. You can go ahead and experiment with things. There’s so many different stories to tell out there. You can be 21 or 81. … If you tell yourself, “I’m too old to do that” bulls—. You’re not too old to do anything.

I have always wondered why people and our society in general try so hard to get older people to give up in life and often times, at a pretty early age. My experience is that once you hit 37, people start telling you that you are too old to do so many things. If you live to be Eastwood’s age (84), that is almost 50 years of negative messages coming one’s way. Good thing he probably never listened.

****

Cross-posted from Dr. Helen’s blog

Image via: cinemafestival / Shutterstock.com

Read bullet |

Dating is War

Monday, June 16th, 2014 - by Helen Smith

goodmannersbookcover

I have been reading and re-reading the book this week and her chapter on dating was particularly interesting.

In a section called “Dating is War,” Amy describes dating rudeness and perceived rudeness. She makes a good point: “The truth is, in dating, a good bit of the hurt and anger people feel is caused not by rude behavior but by misconceptions about the opposite sex and the way things ‘should’ work as opposed to the ways they actually do.” The war between the sexes, according to the book, is one that goes back millions of years and has to do with the ensuing differences in what sex can end up costing us. Women want men who can provide if she gets pregnant and men like the sight of a good looking woman. Well, it’s more complicated than that, but you get the idea.

She says we need to accept that men act like men and women act like women when it comes to dating and that it is evolutionary. Perhaps, but then, many things are “evolutionary” but we strive to be better than that or to change our response to something that may have served us well as cave men but now, not so much.

That said, Amy has great advice for those who are dating, for example: Don’t date people you aren’t attracted to, assume that everyone you meet on the Internet is lying their ass off until proven otherwise, and how to politely tell a potential sexual partner that you have an STD (prior to having sex is the first step). Luckily, she provides good advice on how to deal with each of these areas so that you come out of the dating experience with some dignity!

The book is loads of fun and very entertaining. If you want to learn manners on anything from dealing with a bad neighbor to eating, drinking and socializing in modern times, read it.

******

Cross-posted from Dr. Helen’s blog

Read bullet |

‘As a Male You’re Supposed to Enjoy It…’

Friday, June 13th, 2014 - by Helen Smith

A 36 -year- old woman in New Zealand gave birth to the baby of an 11 year old boy but not much can be done about it (via A Voice for Men):

An 11-year-old boy fathered a child after sex with a school friend’s 36-year-old mother.

Both the father and child are now understood to be in care after the principal at the boy’s school raised the alarm.

The case has caused counsellors working in the area of child sexual abuse to highlight the lack of attention given to women as potential offenders.

It has prompted Justice Minister Judith Collins to step in saying she will seek more information on the law. “This case raises an important point. I will seek advice from officials on whether or not a law change is required.”….

Male Survivors of Sexual Abuse manager Ken Clearwater said if the case were proved, the woman should be held accountable for her actions. Making charges able to be brought dependent on the gender of the offender was wrong and the law should be changed. “It is a huge issue for us.”

He said male victims of sex abuse carried out by women were equally as damaged as any other victim of rape.

“As a male you’re supposed to enjoy it but we don’t say that about young girls. Males are not seen as victims. The psychological damage is huge – and they carry extra shale because it’s a woman and you’re supposed to enjoy it.”

Mr Clearwater said most abuse of the sort in this case was not reported.

And it has also highlighted disparity in the law of rape, which makes it impossible for a woman to be accused of the crime.

This is a sad case and an unfair one. The law should be changed and as soon as possible.

****

Cross-posted from Dr. Helen

thumbnail illustration via shutterstock / Sebastian Kaulitzki

Read bullet |

Should Halle Berry Pay Child Support of $16,000 a Month?

Thursday, June 12th, 2014 - by Helen Smith
shutterstock_106620305

Actress Halle Berry and her ex-boyfriend, Canadian model Gabriel Aubry.

A reader alerted me (thanks) that Halle Berry has been ordered to pay child support to her ex-boyfriend:

A judge has approved a settlement between Halle Berry and her ex-boyfriend over child support payments for their 6-year-old daughter.

The agreement approved by Superior Court Judge Scott Gordon on May 30 calls for Berry to pay ex-boyfriend Gabriel Aubry $16,000 a month or nearly $200,000 a year to support their daughter, Nahla. The Oscar-winning actress will also pay for their daughter’s tuition, but the former couple will split health care expenses.

The order also calls for Berry to pay her ex-boyfriend a retroactive payment of $115,000 and $300,000 to his attorneys to cover the costs of their custody dispute.

Berry and Aubry, a model, were involved in a custody dispute in 2012, and a judge blocked her from moving their daughter to France.

Gordon’s order only affects child support payments.

While these big custody and child support cases like this make headlines, the truth is, women still pay a small percentage of child support. I was recently watching the Independents, a Fox business show about the “War on Men” and Jill Filipovic of the Feministe blog said that women are now paying a great deal of the alimony and child support. This is hardly true. It may seem like it as the media and women complain if they have to pony up the cash, but men still pay the majority of child support and women rarely pay alimony.

What do you think? Is the settlement in the Berry case fair or unfair?

******

Cross-posted from Dr. Helen’s blog

Image via: s_bukley / Shutterstock.com

Read bullet |

Greg Gutfeld Reveals How to Defeat the Hipster Elite

Tuesday, May 6th, 2014 - by Helen Smith

mKE-W_GgKOvoNK35_FhZsCA

I am reading Greg Gutfeld’s new book Not Cool: The Hipster Elite and Their War on You. It’s a very funny book that looks at how our culture is infiltrated with those who think that being cool is the only way to be. The book’s premise is that being cool is not only annoying, it is dangerous. “We used to consider the right thing to do; now we consider the cool thing to do.” Rather than help parents through tough times, people adopt a tiger through the World Wildlife Fund. Rather than do anything hard, just do something cool, it is easier and gets one liked without sacrifice or risk.

According to Gutfeld, the cool conformists, mostly liberals, try to make you believe the following:

How do the cool enslave you? By convincing you that:
- If you don’t agree with them no one will like you.
- If you don’t follow them you will miss out on life.
- If you don’t listen to them you will die a lonely loser.

I laughed as I read this, thinking back to a few hipsters I had worked with once who told me that if I didn’t do what they wanted, I wouldn’t be invited to parties. I was dumbstruck. “Do I look like I care?” was all I could think of saying. But their behavior was intriguing to me, as well as a bit revolting. Who would respond to this type of incentive? Are they used to persuading people this way? If so, it must normally work. Why would anyone go along with this type of manipulation?

Gutfeld’s book explores why people desire so much to be cool and it seems to boil down to the fact that many people are conformists who would rather do something easy that makes them feel good about themselves than take a stand and risk not being liked: “Coolness is a replacement for a strong ego and operates as a safe ambivalent response to evil in the world. The result: We are left with a dreary planet of self-esteem sponges more interested in capturing the approval of phonies than actually doing something real or positive with their lives.”

My question is: Is being liked so important that people will risk everything this country used to stand for in order to be invited to the party?

*****

Cross-posted from Dr. Helen’s blog

Read bullet |

Is Discrimination Against Boys Ruining the Economy?

Friday, May 2nd, 2014 - by Helen Smith

shutterstock_22531345

This is an important question, but the more important one is “does the current government care?” “Probably not,” I thought, as I read this recent article at the New York Times titled “A Link Between Fidgety boys and a Sputtering Economy?”:

By kindergarten, girls are substantially more attentive, better behaved, more sensitive, more persistent, more flexible and more independent than boys, according to a new paper from Third Way, a Washington research group. The gap grows over the course of elementary school and feeds into academic gaps between the sexes. By eighth grade, 48 percent of girls receive a mix of A’s and B’s or better. Only 31 percent of boys do….

By kindergarten, boys already fare much worse on social and behavioral measures than girls. The gender gap is even larger than the class gap and some racial gaps…

And in an economy that rewards knowledge, the academic struggles of boys turn into economic struggles. Men’s wages are stagnating. Men are much more likely to be idle — neither working, looking for work nor caring for family — than they once were and much more likely to be idle than women.

We reported last week that the United States had lost its once-enormous global lead in middle-class pay, based on international income surveys over the last three decades.

The traits that boys have in our current school system are seen as destructive and annoying. Our society does not reward “knowledge” as much as it rewards conformity and feminized traits. Teachers who don’t like the way boys act, particularly female teachers, give boys bad grades.

Add to this discrimination the current administration’s war against college men and you have a recipe for men bailing out of the system, going to the underground economy, or saying “to hell with it” and getting disability payments. Perhaps this is the plan of the current regime.

Boys and men are marginalized (unless they take up with the PC ruling class as many do), the politicians are made to look like they are helping girls and women who turn to them for ever more goods and services, and the economy not only sputters but starts to sink. People groan about the poor economy, not realizing that they are the ones contributing to it by their compliance, and the circle is complete. Will we break it before it is too late?

What do you think?
*****

Cross-posted from Dr. Helen’s blog

Read bullet |

Why Men Cannot Trust Feminist Academics Who Write on Men

Thursday, May 1st, 2014 - by Helen Smith

Too many evenings hanging with these guys kept us from seeing too many movies this year.

I read with interest (and quite frankly, disgust) an interview with Michael Kimmel, author of books such as Guyland and Angry White Men, over at Just Four Guys blog. It made me realize why men should not trust Uncle Tims like Kimmel. Here is a summary of where academics like Kimmel stand:

PROF. KIMMEL: The United States has never been more gender equal. We’ve never been more sexually equal. We’ve never been more racially equal. Sure, on each front, we have a long way to go for full equality. There is still lots of discrimination against women, LGBT people, and people of color. But we have never been more equal. And we will be more equal tomorrow than we are today. And I’m happy to report that we are not going to go forward into the past. Women are not going to have some V8 moment in which they say “Oh, yeah, this equality stuff sucks, I hate voting, and driving, and serving on juries, and having a job, and having my own bank account, and having orgasms.” Let’s go back the way it used to be on Mad Men.

So the question for men, in my view, is simple: we can be dragged kicking and screaming into that more equal future, or we can walk courageously into that future, knowing that our lives, as men, will, be better for it, that the more equal we are, the better our relationships with our friends, our wives and partners, our children will be. Gender equality is not a zero-sum game; it’s a win-win. I support gender equality not only because it’s right and fair and just and patriotically American – which it is – but because I also know it is in my interests to do so.

No, Kimmel, men have real issues right now that you have not addressed. Campuses accusing them unfairly of rape without due process, fathers being torn from kids due to abusive family courts, men forced to pay for children that are not their own, and boys growing up without male role models. You talk about how teens like Trayvon Martin etc. need help from the men’s rights movement. Bullshit. Men like Chris Mackney need and deserve our help. I will be there to help them, will you? Somehow, I doubt it.

*****

Cross-posted from Dr. Helen’s blog

Read bullet |

Should Dads Keep Their Sons Away from Oprah?

Tuesday, April 29th, 2014 - by Helen Smith

shutterstock_81770914

Tucker Carlson doesn’t want his son watching Oprah:

Over the weekend, Fox News host Tucker Carlson shared a personal decision he made to protect his young son: No more Oprah Winfrey. During a discussion about a father who decided to “break up” with rap music for the sake of his baby girl, Carlson said he did the same with Winfrey for his son.

“I know the feeling,” Carlson said, commiserating with the man who was fed up with the “misogyny” of rap music. “When I had a son, I stopped watching Oprah because it was just too anti-male, and I felt like I didn’t want to bring him up in a home where Oprah was constantly attacking men.”

Good for you, Tucker. Women like Oprah tend to treat men as foreign beings who are accessories to women at best and outright predators and perverts at worst. On the other hand, it might help to explain to a boy the psychological dynamics of what these women are doing so that he can learn to protect himself as he gets older. Or you can give him a copy of my book…

******
Cross-posted from Dr. Helen

Read bullet |

Heavy Metal Rockers

Friday, April 25th, 2014 - by Helen Smith

I am often amazed at how many talented and resourceful professionals read this blog or my husband Glenn’s blog and let us know the amazing things they are doing. I recently acquired two beautiful heavy metal rocking chairs that my friend Hodge Golson, a business psychologist designed with the help of artist Andrew Crawford. Here is what Hodge had to say about his vision:

Many years ago I stumbled across a metal rocking chair that was as much a piece of sculpture as furniture. It was an immediate emotional reaction. I loved it. But would it be comfortable? Amazingly so, I discovered as I settled into it and rocked a bit. But I couldn’t afford the $3,000 price tag. Although I left the chair in the store, I couldn’t let go of it….

Serendipity introduced me to Andrew Crawford, a blacksmith sculptor who was eager to take on the project. As a point of reference, he pointed me in the direction of Sam Maloof, an artist he had known who had quite a professional career designing and building great wooden rockers. So I designed my own version of my original obsession.

I have to say the chairs are amazing, beautiful, comfortable and a piece of art that have wowed everyone that has seen them. If you want to check them out, you can take a look at the website at HeavyMetalRocker.com.

rockers2024

Cross-posted from Dr. Helen

Read bullet |

How Do You Decide Which Exercise Works for You?

Thursday, April 24th, 2014 - by Helen Smith

shutterstock_144741580

I thought about this as I read Mark Rippetoe’s fascinating discussion of why running is not the panacea that so many people think it is:

This highly informative discussion is intended for those people who have taken seriously the advice of doctors, physical therapists, exercise physiologists, and the popular media’s dutiful reporting on these sources of common misinformation about what kind of physical activity is best for your long-term health and continued ability to participate in the business of living well.

Rippetoe goes on to make the case against running and for strength training. Okay, fair enough. I get that we need to be strong, especially as we get older; and strength training helps with this. But I can’t help that feel that a balanced approach is also good if you want to address Rippetoe’s concern that “the more you run, the better you are at running and the worse you are at being strong.”

I have a number of training goals and they change all the time. For example, right now, I want to run a 13 minute mile which I know is not good, but is about the best I can do. It’s important to me. Why? Because running is a skill that can help in situations such as running fast away from something or someone, or running to catch a subway or bus, or running after a kid or adult who needs help, etc.

Do I need to run long, slow distance? No, probably not. I also want to know self-defense because it is important to me and I would like to take more Krav Maga lessons. I suppose these goals take away from strength building but I don’t have time for all of it. So what do you focus on? If being good at strength building builds strength, that’s good, but will it help me to run faster or be better at self-defense? Wouldn’t practice of these “sports” or exercise be the most helpful? Or maybe a balanced approach that focused on strength and practicing running and Krav Maga would be best. If we only strength train, is that enough or does it depend on one’s goals?

*****
Cross-posted from Dr. Helen

image via shutterstock / Maridav

Read bullet |

Do Men and Women Practice Medicine Differently?

Wednesday, April 23rd, 2014 - by Helen Smith

shutterstock_176461523

That is a question posed by this CNBC article looking at the differences in how many services male and female doctors perform with Medicare patients:

The diagnosis: a serious case of medical gender gap.

Male doctors on average make 88 percent more in Medicare reimbursements than female physicians, according to an analysis of recently released government data, which suggests that the gender of a medical provider could play a role in the number of services they provide patients.

The NerdWallet research found that male physicians on average were paid $118,782 in Medicare reimbursements by the federal government in 2012, compared with $63,346 for women doctors.

Naturally, the “alarming” headline of the article is that male doctors are paid more in Medicare reimbursement than female doctors. However, the real question might be:

“This certainly begs the question of whether men and women practice medicine differently,” Ositelu said. “The bottom line is patients may experience higher costs through doctors who bill for more services per patient.”

Higher costs or tests run that save lives or just make them better? Why are more procedures worse? Maybe men are more willing to ask for procedures that their female counterparts do not? Also, note that men see many more Medicare patients, an average of 512 per male doc and only 319 per female doc. Why is that? Are females less willing to see Medicare patients or less able to take on more of them as clients? And if you see more patients, don’t you charge for more services? This is a troubling article, one that doesn’t look at the quality of medicine and the reasons behind why procedures are being performed, but rather, wonders why women docs are getting less money than men from the government Medicare program.

******

Cross-posted from Dr. Helen’s blog

image via shutterstock / Edyta Pawlowska 

Read bullet |

Have Dogs Replaced Children For Today’s Women?

Friday, April 11th, 2014 - by Helen Smith

What?!

I saw this NY Post article (via Drudge) about women having dogs instead of having kids:

America’s next generation of youngsters should be called “Generation Rex.”

If you’re wondering why playgrounds around the city are so quiet and dog runs are packed, a new report has an answer: More and more US women are forgoing motherhood and getting their maternal kicks by owning handbag-size canines.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that a big drop in the number of babies born to women ages 15 to 29 corresponds with a huge increase in the number of tiny pooches owned by young US women, reports the business-news site Quartz….

“I’d rather have a dog over a kid,” declared Sara Foster, 30, a Chelsea equities trader who says her French bulldog, Maddie, brings her more joy than a child.

“It’s just less work and, honestly, I have more time to go out. You . . . don’t have to get a baby sitter.”

The federal data behind the report show that over the past seven years, the number of live births per 1,000 women between ages 15 and 29 in America has plunged 9 percent.

Given that fewer and fewer men want to marry, I wonder how much of this dog substitute for a child is because fewer men want to marry and there are fewer choices for partners for women? Or have women just bought into the feminist propaganda that life with a dog is just better? Maybe it is for now, but will it always be?

This article says that “in the U.S., 40 percent of women near the end of their childbearing years have fewer children than they would like”:

So what’s driving this gap between ideal and actual family size? Among others things, delays in childbearing, which may be caused by increases in educational attainment, or by the lack of a suitable partner, may play a role. Starting childbearing at a later age means that there are fewer years for a woman to meet her fertility ideals, plus it increases the risk of age-related infertility.

Are women really happy being dog owners for life or is it a phase? What about when they are 40? Will Fluffy be enough?

A spoiled #siberianhusky #maura and her defeated #yoda #starwars toy this morning after a good run.

******

Cross-posted from Dr. Helen’s blog

Read bullet |

Would Legalizing Prostitution Free Men’s Sexuality From Female Control?

Tuesday, April 8th, 2014 - by Helen Smith

deadwoodreinvention

I have been thinking about this lately after a reader of my book pointed out to me that he felt prostitution should be made legal in order to give men more freedom from marriage and being tied down to a relationship in the hopes of getting sex. If prostitution were legal, men could get sex more readily and not be so dependent on getting involved with women. Given how dangerous it can be these days for men, between being called a rapist, a sexual harasser or a pervert, it makes sense that legal prostitution might be a good solution for some men that want to avoid the risks inherent in taking on a wife or long term (or short term) relationship with a woman. I looked at a couple of articles about why prostitution was illegal and found this article at Slate:

In 1999, Sweden made it legal to sell sex but illegal to buy it—only the johns and the traffickers can be prosecuted. This is the only approach to prostitution that’s based on “sex equality,” argues University of Michigan law professor Catherine MacKinnon.

It treats prostitution as a social evil but views the women who do it as the victims of sexual exploitation who “should not be victimized again by the state by being made into criminals,” as MacKinnon put it to me in an e-mail. It’s the men who use the women, she continued, who are “sexual predators” and should be punished as such.

….Sweden’s way of doing things is a big success. “In the capital city of Stockholm the number of women in street prostitution has been reduced by two thirds, and the number of johns has been reduced by 80%.” Trafficking is reportedly down to 200 to 400 girls and women a year, compared with 15,000 to 17,000 in nearby Finland. Max Waltman, a doctoral candidate in Stockholm who is studying the country’s prostitution laws, says that those stats hold up. He also said the police are actually going after the johns as ordered: In 2006, more than 150 were convicted and fined. (That might not sound like many, but then Sweden has a population of only 9 million.)

For feminists like MacKinnon (with whom Waltman works), this sure looks like the solution: Go after the men! Take down Eliot Spitzer and leave the call girls alone! On the other hand, the group SANS, for Sex Workers and Allies Network in Sweden, doesn’t like the 1999 law.

My question after reading this mind-numbing drivel? How can it be legal to sell sex but illegal to buy it? Who are you selling sex to if no men are allowed to buy it? Of course, any time one sees a feminist of the Catherine MacKinnon ilk, all logic goes out the window as long as men are rounded up and put in jail. This is sick, twisted logic and has no place in a free society. It was a group of women who apparently banned prostitution in the US according to this Wikipedia entry:

Originally, prostitution was widely legal in the United States. Prostitution was made illegal in almost all states between 1910 and 1915 largely due to the influence of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union.

Perhaps women don’t want the competition from prostitutes for resources from men? Or they just feel disgusted that a man might be able to get sex so easily? I do wonder if men were able to go freely to prostitutes without fear of jail time if it would free them sexually from female and (and state) control? Or do you think there would be more problems caused by it?

****

cross-posted from Dr. Helen’s blog

Read bullet |