And if so, is it a good thing? It doesn’t sound like it from this article:
Economics is becoming less of a man’s world, and new research implies that as more women enter the profession that could lead to changes in economic policy.
“Without a doubt it will change policy,” said Ann Mari May, an economics professor at University of Nebraska in Lincoln and one of the study’s authors.
May and her co-authors surveyed hundreds of members of the American Economic Association for the study, which is due to be released in an upcoming issue of the journal Contemporary Economic Policy.
What they found was surprising: Despite similar training and background in economic principles, male and female economists tended to hold sharply different views about some of the biggest and most hotly debated economic issues.
For example, female economists were more likely to say employers should provide health insurance and that income distribution should be more equal. They also were more likely to disagree with the use of educational vouchers.
Women also were far more likely to conclude that job opportunities for men and women are not equal, and that specifically the economic profession favors men over women….
May thinks that as more women enter the field their voices will start to be heard when politicians and others craft economic policies. A more diverse group of expert opinions could lead to more rigorous debate and, perhaps, different ways of thinking about the nation’s major economic challenges.
It basically sounds like the female economists have socialistic tendencies that are at odds with liberty, freedom, and a capitalist society. In what way is their socialism going to help the economy and with “crafting economic policies?” In no positive way that I can see.
Image courtesy shutterstock / Jozsef Szasz-Fabian
When economists talk about boosting productivity, they usually talk about increasing the adoption of new technologies and optimizing workflows. Japanese researchers, however, have come up with a very offbeat approach: Showing workers lots of pictures of adorable, fuzzy, baby animals.
A team of researchers at Hiroshima University recently conducted a study where they showed university students pictures of baby animals before completing various tasks. What they found, in research published today, was that those who saw the baby animal pictures did more productive work after seeing those photographs – even more than those who saw a picture of an adult animal or a pleasant food.
Well, I guess it’s time to view the One Cute Thing a Day blog for inspiration.
More cuteness at PJ Lifestyle:
Political affiliation has become a bigger deal now than it was during the last election,” says the CEO of Selective Search Inc., which is based in Chicago and has offices in 28 cities. Ms. Adler calls it a “party-line dating trend.”
Gone are the days when a Republican such as Mary Matalin might fall for a Democrat like James Carville, or vice versa.
“We’ve always screened for political views but now more than ever it’s showing up in the searches as a deal breaker if someone has polar-opposite viewpoints,” says Ms. Adler…
And I thought Obama was supposed to bring us all together…
I like reading college newspapers to get a feel for the culture on campus. Today, I was reading The Stanford Daily and an article on the front page caught my eye. The article, “Groups react to sexual batteries” under “crime and safety” reminded me of how advice from politically correct women’s groups can actually be harmful to women. Unfortunately, I could not find the article online but I will summarize it for you.
A male suspect has been groping and attempting to sexually assault women — two of whom were in public places and another who was on a foot path. The police believe the same man may have perpetrated these three incidents and recommended that pedestrians be more aware of their surroundings and “women jog in pairs or small groups whenever possible.”
Good advice, right? “No” according to the Stanford Sexual Assault and Relationship Abuse (SARA) office: “To suggest that someone can employ certain tactics to ward off an offender–particularly when caught off guard during blitz attacks such as these–can be victim-blaming.”
This office goes on to encourage students to do whatever makes them feel “safe and empowered in public spaces and behind closed doors, but prefer not to give advice on self-defense.” The director of the Women’s Community Center at Stanford stated “We don’t advocate using self-defense as a prevention measure for a sexual assault or rape or relationship abuse because it’s not prevention.”
Huh? The woman attacked on a secluded foot path struggled out of a bear-hug by a perpetrator. Is that too much self-defense for these damsels of political correctness? They would rather a woman not use or learn self-defense to protect herself because to do so would somehow be victim-blaming? Do they really think the perp doing this is going to stop himself and say “no, this is wrong?” Perhaps if these sanctimonious women would come out of their cocoon long enough to join us in the real world, they would realize that the police officers’ advice is sound. There will always be people in the world, both men and women, out to harm others. You cannot wish that away, no matter how much you may wish to do so.
I was interviewed for a piece by the Independent Women’s Forum on my new book, the war on men and why men are “Going Galt.” Here are a few highlights:
Smith has a book coming out from Encounter Books entitled Male Strike: Society’s War on Men. The thesis of the book is that the deck is so stacked against men that they are “going Galt,” as Smith puts it. The term comes from Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged in which society’s productive members went on strike—led by John Galt—because they were being exploited.
“In the case of men, the government and the politicians work in cahoots with women to extract money from men,” Smith says.” And then men aren’t entitled to a lot of the benefits, such as WIC (Women, Infants and Children Program) or a lot of welfare.”
The male strike can take the form of not marrying, not going to college or working at low-paying jobs and taking up hobbies to avoid paying into a system that uses state and federal programs to transfer men’s taxes to women. And taxpayer money doesn’t just go to what we regard as traditional welfare programs. Smith cites the Violence Against Women Act, which funnels taxpayer dollars to organizations staffed by activist women.
Cassy Fiano has a post here at PJ Lifestyle entitled “Five Things Men Do That Secretly Annoy Women.” I have to say that I read it with amusement, especially when Fiano’s main question seems to be “What’s the deal with all the toilet time?”:
…what is it about men and taking forever in the bathroom? Now that there are smart phones and tablets, the problem’s even worse. There are endless forms of bathroom entertainment nowadays for men to take advantage of, which means that men have an excuse to take even longer to spend an hour doing something that really, should only take two minutes. And why is that? Sure, you can sit in there and play Angry Birds to your heart’s content. But couldn’t you just do that, I don’t know, on the couch or something?
When I was researching my forthcoming book called “Male Strike:” Society’s War on Men,” I wrote a section on the decline of male space, even in their own home. Brett McKay, the author of The Art of Manliness: Classic Skills and Manners for the Modern Man had this to say about a man’s lowly position in their own house in modern times:
The rise of suburban culture with its emphasis on creating a domestic nest, usually meant sacrificing male space for the good of the family. Home designs in the 1950s exchanged the numerous, smaller rooms of the Victorian home for fewer, larger rooms. The goal was to create more open space where families could congregate together and bond while watching the Honeymooners on TV.
With no room to call their own, men were forced to build their male sanctuaries in the most uninhabitable parts of a home. Garages, attics, and basements quickly became the designated space for men, while the women and children had free reign over the rest of the house.
Commenters to Fiano’s post on all that bathroom time reiterated what many men feel, they have no space at home of their own so they have taken to using the toilet as a sanctuary:
I heard one older guy claim that his wife had completely taken over the rest of the house so the bathroom was the only place he felt was his own.
I remember my grand dad– when he got home from work, he’d have a glass of bourbon and read the paper. Today… if a man ever sits down in the presence of his wife, she’ll (a) complain about how tough her life is, (b) start a fight about something, or (c) iterate through the “honey do” list.
So men have made the toilet into their sanctuary. Maybe asking why these “annoying” men spend so much time in the toilet is the wrong question and the right one is: why don’t men have anywhere else in the house to go to get some peace and quiet?
I saw that Hanna Rosin has a new book out entitled The End of Men: And the Rise of Women. I have to say that I really dislike and find distasteful the derogatory titles that these new books on men seem to find acceptable. Do authors lately ever have a title that makes men sound good, or decent or even likable? Are there any that don’t include women in the title or refer to how men relate to women? Just asking.
Seriously, titles like Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men into Boys or Save the Males: Why Men Matter Why Women Should Care or even Why Boys Fail: Saving Our Sons from an Educational System That’s Leaving Them Behind give the reader negative images of men that lead them to believe that men have no agency — that is, they are not autonomous, independent beings who deserve better, but rather immature characters who can’t hack it in the current system.
I am sick of these titles and wonder why anyone would buy a book that is geared toward men as failures. Certainly, few men are reading these books as most publishers only want books about men for women and therefore, take those books that make women feel good and make men look like losers for their female customers only.
If male, would you buy a book entitled The End of Men?
Related at PJ Lifestyle on Rosin:
Every time I go to a medical procedure that is not covered by insurance, I have a much better experience. While this is not unusual or unexpected, I am always surprised at the difference. Today, I went to the dermatologist to have some skin treatment and to have them look at some spots on my face. Grand total: $75 out of pocket but more importantly, the treatment I got going to the side of the office that was self-pay was so different than the treatment received on the other side where the insurance patients sat.
I strolled into the left side of the office at my designated time and only one person was ahead of me. I looked through the door to my right at about twenty or more patients waiting on the other side with a couple of slightly harried-looking receptionists dealing with them and the paperwork. Last time I was there, I went to the ”insurance” side. It wasn’t fun. It was tedious with paperwork to fill out, annoyed tones when I asked a few questions and a rushed session with a nurse practitioner where half my questions weren’t answered. This time, in the self-pay area? A polite assistant took me to a back room immediately, asked me how my day was and brought in the aesthetician to work her magic and look at the spots on my face. There was no rush and I left feeling happy and relaxed. Yes, I know going to the cosmetic side is much different than doing an actual medical procedure but honestly, not that much. Sometimes, you just want to go to a dermatologist and say, “what is this spot on my face and what do I do about it?” You just typically won’t get a cheerful reply or good treatment when you ask.
Reduced Screen Glare
Most tablet displays are made up of two pieces of glass – an LCD on the bottom and a touch sensor on the top, separated by an air gap. With an air gap, light reflects off of every surface as it passes through from the front, creating multiple distracting reflections that reduce display contrast. Kindle Fire HD solves this air gap problem by laminating the touch sensor and the LCD together into a single layer of glass, creating a display that’s easy to view, even in overhead light.
One of my pet peeves with the Kindle has been the glare that often causes eye strain, at least for me. For that reason, I don’t use the Kindle as much as I would like, though we have several. I am hoping that this new one solves that problem. I look forward to trying it out.
So I went to the nail salon today and watched as the manicurists tried to fix a broken credit card machine. It wouldn’t take anyone’s credit card and not one woman there except me had cash to pay. Some wrote checks and other’s weren’t sure what to do if they couldn’t get the machine up and running again. What surprised me is that people don’t even carrry 12 bucks plus a tip to get their nails done or for other “emergencies.” ( I know, a broken nail or chipped polish is not really an emergency, but for some, it is).
This incident got me thinking about what Dave Voda, author of Inflation-Proof Your Portfolio: How to Protect Your Money from the Coming Government Hyperinflation said as far as protecting your privacy and assets: that it is better to use cash as no one has a record of what you buy. I guess most people don’t care about privacy or think that in some situations, cash can still be necessary.
There are a number of issues that will result from a cashless society. For example, should the government and others be tracking what you buy? And if cash is no longer used, what will drug dealers and others who work “off the books” do? Maybe having to use credit cards or debit cards will help keep people from being able to cheat on their taxes. But it is probably not hard to come up with other forms of cheating.
Cash becoming obsolete? What do you think? Good, bad or neutral?
With expanding reproductive choices, we can expect to see more women choose to reproduce without men entirely. Fortunately, the data for children raised by only females is encouraging. As the Princeton sociologist Sara S. McLanahan has shown, poverty is what hurts children, not the number or gender of parents.
That’s good, since women are both necessary and sufficient for reproduction, and men are neither. From the production of the first cell (egg) to the development of the fetus and the birth and breast-feeding of the child, fathers can be absent. They can be at work, at home, in prison or at war, living or dead. …
Meanwhile women live longer, are healthier and are far less likely to commit a violent offense. If men were cars, who would buy the model that doesn’t last as long, is given to lethal incidents and ends up impounded more often?
Is this a serious article? What kind of misandrist pens this type of sexism? Common to the NYTs, sure, but his dismissal of men and suck-up-ness (no, it’s not a word, I made it up) to women and his audience is pretty clear. What is his malignant purpose?
Image courtesy shutterstock / Dietmar Hoepfl
More on Men and Women at PJ Lifestyle:
At the suggestion of science fiction author John Ringo, I am reading his book The Last Centurion. I am not a big fiction reader so this book was a good start for me as I like its “bloggy” first person style. The book takes place in the second decade of the 21st century with a world enduring two catastrophes: a mini-ice age and a plague. The book describes a possible future and all the political and military problems and limitations that exist during a catastrophe. As a psychologist, I was struck by how people and society behaved during these crises.
The main character, an American army officer, gives his observations about how important trust is in a society when there is a disaster. “Americans form voluntary random social alliances. Other societies do not. Low trust societies in the U.S. do not.” In other words, in America, groups of random strangers will get together to aid other people for no direct benefit to themselves. In a disaster, it is imperative for people to help each other to get through it and save as many lives as possible.
So says Mike Gallagher in his new book 50 Things Liberals Love to Hate. I picked up the book and started reading after taking a look at the inside cover that stated “America, how does the liberal hate thee. Let me count the ways….”
Gallagher says that liberals love to hate things most Americans love, and “spend the rest of their lives endlessly trying to take those things away from us. And they are convinced they do it all because they love us.” I had to laugh when I read about the disdain that Gallagher says liberals feel for:
McDonalds: The stranger in the playground handing out candy to children.
Football: War with cleats
The V-8 Engine: There’s just something plain wrong about all that power and freedom under the control of one person.
The book has a chapter on why liberals hate girls that is rather funny, if not downright sad. Gallagher discusses that though girls are doing better in academic pursuits, they are psychologically, “a mess.” This is a partly a result of being told by liberals that half the time they are superwomen, and the other half, they are told they are victims who are “rape targets and oppressed minorities who are one spiked drink away from being ravaged by the Duke lacrosse team.. It’s no wonder the typical American girl wants to lose herself in junk food, Paxil, and the Twilight novels.”
The book has an interesting take on how liberals see the world and have changed the culture in ways that leave many groups of Americans feeling simultaneously self-entitled, yet worse off in many ways.
Follow your passion. That’s become the mantra of today’s society. It’s also a potential pitfall.
The issue is that people often have similar underlying passions. This means they flock to the same careers. And this means lots of competition—often for very low level jobs centered on our most elementary passions. ….
So if you’re smart, you love people, and you want to study psychology, do yourself a favor. Avoid well-meaning advice from humanities and social science professors to “follow your passion.” Instead, run the other way and develop new passions.
Oakley suggests that psychology majors think about engineering. It certainly makes sense in today’s job market where degrees like psychology or sociology at the undergraduate level are often worthless.
Cross-posted at Dr. Helen’s blog.
I am at the beach and stopped in at a candy shop in Palm Beach. As I went to pay for some frozen yogurt, I noticed a pack of gum at the counter stating “I Kissed a Republican” with a girl vomiting into the toilet. I picked it up and looked for the equivalent gum with I Kissed a Democrat but didn’t see one. I found both of them at Amazon however. Yeah, I know, it’s supposed to be a “joke” but having only the former gum displayed at the counter is more of an insult to many customers who may be on the right side of the aisle. But for all I know, they sold out of the Democrat ones. I could have made a stink like I did here but I didn’t.
I saw this article at MSN (from Current Biology) on why women live longer than men and thought it was worth sharing with readers:
New research reveals that mutations to the DNA of the mitochondria cause men to age faster than women — a finding that may explain why women, on average, outlive men.
The researchers from Monash University in Australia examined male and female fruit flies that carried mitochondria — the part of the cell that converts food into energy — of various origin. They found that genetic variation in the mitochondria predicted life expectancy in males, but not in females. The investigators concluded that several mutations within the DNA of mitochondria affect how quickly men age as well as their longevity. …
…Our results therefore suggest that the mitochondrial mutations we have uncovered will generally cause faster male aging across the animal kingdom.”
Luckily, these researchers (unlike the New York Times) seem fine with finding ways to help men live longer:
The study authors said they plan to continue their research and explore ways to negate the genetic mutations that negatively affect men’s life expectancy.
As my husband always says, “faster, please.”
Image courtesy shutterstock / Liew Weng Keong
I was reading an article on the 7 health risks for men over 40 and one of them was “being single”:
Numerous surveys have shown that married men, especially men in their 50s, 60s, and 70s, are healthier and have lower death rates than those who never married or who are divorced or widowed. Never-married men are three times more likely to die of cardiovascular disease, for example. After 50, divorced men’s health deteriorates rapidly compared to married men’s, found a RAND Center for the Study of Aging report.
What’s the magic in the ring? The social connectedness of marriage may lower stress levels and depression, which lead to chronic illness. (Women tend to have more social ties outside of marriage.)
Oops: Unmarried men generally have poorer health habits, too — they drink more, eat worse, get less medical care, and engage in more risky behaviors (think drugs and promiscuous sex). Exception: It’s better to be single than in a strained relationship, probably because of the stress toll, say researchers in Student BMJ.
Maybe the older men who stayed married had wives who didn’t cause as much stress, hence the better health. The thing is, as marriage becomes more stressful for younger men, is it better to stay single for your health?
Another thought: Men are living longer than ever and marrying less and less often, is there a connection?
A reader sent me a link (thanks!) to this article on the pay gap betweeen male and female doctors and after doing a study, the authors reached the following conclusion:
Male doctor earns more per hour relative to the male PA than the female doctor earns relative to the female PA. However, a big part of the difference comes from an hours gap. The vast majority of male doctors under the age of 55 work substantially more than the standard 40 hour work week. In contrast, most female doctors work between 2 to 10 hours fewer than this per week.
It’s hard to compare wages when one group (men) are working more than 40 hours a week and another group (women) are working 2-10 hours less than 40 hours per week. Warren Farrell has been making this point for years.
Why is this so hard for feminists to understand, unless they want something for nothing? Oh, never mind.
I saw on CNBC that more people would rather save for their vacation than for the kid’s college fund:
“We have seen this in recession eras before,” says Larry Hugick, chairman of Princeton Survey Research Associates, which conducted the interviews with 1,508 financial decision makers over two weeks in May. “People want to give themselves some sort of treat. They want their vacation.”
Hugick also speculated that short-term goals, like a new car or vacation may seem attainable by comparison to college expenses. The rapid rise in tuition in recent years has seemed to dwarf the most conscientious saver’s account balance, and Americans wouldn’t be blamed for feeling hopelessness toward covering their children’s college expenses.
Who can blame them? A fun vacation might be worth more today than a college education tomorrow. At least the family will have the fun memories vs. the potential debt of college and no certainty about a job from all that money for the kid. Another reason for the reluctance to save is that the less parents have in their bank accounts or savings by college time, the more financial aid junior might receive. Savings in this country often makes one a sucker, so why scrimp and save to pay full freight when your neighbor gets aid or financial help for making more impulsive decisions?
Chateau Heartiste (AKA Roissy) has a provocative post called “Porn Is A Portent Of Sexbotopia” that I read with interest:
Sexbots. The very word sends chills down the spines of low sexual market value women. They fear competition or, worse, replacement….
Sexbots that can simulate real women are still one silicone foot in the fantasy world, but the tech is rapidly progressing. Whoever said necessity is the mother of invention was wrong; the male sex drive is the mother of invention. (Though, I suppose you could argue that satisfying the male sex drive IS necessity.) So, for now, the agog crowd can rest easy that no major sexbot invasion is about to storm our shores….
What sexbots will do is widen the already growing chasm between the sexes, until only the fittest of the fit — and fitness is whatever gets one’s genes to the next generation, whether beneficial to civilization or not — can successfully leap across it to woo a human companion in the way that our genetic overlord intended.
When I was researching for my forthcoming book, I found (with the help of Vox Day) that the 80/20 rule really applied. Twenty percent of the alpha males were getting about 80% of the women. Those men who have more trouble getting women turn to porn and seem to ignore or be oblivious to women. I wonder how sexbots will further change the landscape?
What do you think? Will sexbots be an asset or libility to men in the future? What about to society? These are the important questions.
And see more visions of the future at PJ Lifestyle:
Updated: related today at PJ Lifestyle:
My husband Glenn got a FitDesk that lets you exercise while working on your laptop. We finally got around to putting it together (well, he did, sadly, I watched, handed out tools and cleaned up). Anyway, I have had a great deal of hand and back pain from all the time I spend at the computer and thought this would be a great way to change up my routine. It turns out I was correct to think so.
The pedals are smooth and fluid — you just adjust resistance with the knob. It tracks distance, time, and calories. There are elastic bands to hold your laptop in place.
It’s easy to ride and it’s easy to blog or surf from a laptop while you’re on it. I can see how spending just 20 or 30 minutes at a time on this several times a week would help you lose weight and improve your fitness. Will I stick with it? Stay tuned.
A reader sent me an article about sudden cardiac arrest in those who seem healthy and athletic:
Athletic, healthy, fit –– sudden cardiac arrest often picks the least likely victims. Just ask Marla Sewall.
By 2011, the 42-year-old had 11 marathons under her belt. She’d also made quite the name for herself on the tennis court. By Labor Day weekend, the University Park mother was even combining the two, running 20 miles one day and then competing in a three-hour tennis tournament in the next.
For good measure, Sewall ran 10 miles the day after that and played in the same tennis tournament for three more hours. Which is why it was so shocking when her husband found her face-up unconscious in the family’s tub one night.
This woman’s husband luckily knew CPR and saved her life. I often think how important it is to keep up with these skills. The last time I had a CPR class was probably 15 years ago. I need a refresher. If you are reading this, perhaps you need one also. I am lucky that, like the woman described in the story, I have a built in defibrillator in my chest, but most people don’t. Saving a loved one’s life is certainly worth the time to take a course or there are even CPR books, CDs and products that might be helpful or if you want to be even more prepared, you can even buy your own defibrillator. Even if you or your family seems fairly young and healthy, it’s good to be prepared.
I don’t think of myself as any kind of “Crunchy Con,” author Rod Dreher’s phrase for those who live a kind of hippy, organic lifestyle but who are conservative in their outlook and politics. I like meat and guns, and I am a libertarian rather than a conservative for the most part, though I often think of myself as conservative since that’s what others say I am and I lean to the right on most fiscal and defense issues (though not on many social ones). What it really means, of course, is that I don’t follow or believe much about liberal dogma; thus, I am the “other.” But one thing I have found is that my lifestyle is often similar to someone on the other side of the aisle, and I find it puzzling that lifestyle choices are often reflective of one’s politics because — for me — they are not.
I am reading Hank Reinhardt’s Book of Knives: A Practical and Illustrated Guide to Knife Fighting. Reinhardt describes the “quick and dirty business” of knife fighting and has chapters on “The Street Knife,” “Knife Concealment”, “Wounds” and “Using the Knife.”
There is good information in each chapter, it seems, though I am certainly no expert. In the chapter on “Using the Knife,” Reinhardt makes the point that some instructors have decided the best way to hold a knife is in the “icepick grip” with the blade lying flat along the underside of the forearm. He is not a fan of this hold. “The first thing it costs you is reach. When you try to close in on an opponent, and you’re holding your knife in that way and he isn’t, he will probably cut you first. That’s the second thing it costs you.” The author says it’s important to hold the edge down and elaborates on why.
If you want to learn more about knives, basic skill and some history, this book seems like a good one. There are a number of instructions and illustrations that make it easy to understand what the author is telling you about how to master knife skills.