Friday, August 12, 2011

Amy Alkon has an interesting post on whether or not short men should wear lifts:

Women, across cultures, are typically attracted to men who are taller than they are. Some women will date and marry shorter men, although it seems to help greatly if a man makes up for what he lacks in height by having piles of money and a private jet.

My question: What if a guy's the perfect man -- minus three four inches (in height, ya gutterbrains)?

What if he makes up for some of that with lifts in his shoes?

And let's say he would always wear those lifts, except at the beach and in bed.

Would you be able to overlook the actual height difference if he made himself taller in that way? Would it be a turnoff?


I never had a height preference when it came to men, but many women do. Would you wear lifts? It seems kind of absurd to me but then, I don't have to deal with the problem.

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Question of the Day

I read that French President Nicolas Sarkozy disrupted his vacation to fly back to Paris for an emergency meeting to review "the economic and financial situation." Remember the French heat wave of 2003 when thousands of elderly people died in their homes while the administration and families stayed on vacation in August? I thought that "socialists" were supposed to care more about people than money. Or is this just a lie?

Men Living Longer: Women and minorities hardest hit?

The New York Time's opinion page has one of those Onion-like titles that really makes you shake your head just hoping it's a parody: "Is America Ready for More Old Men?" (via Instapundit):

A recent Times article noted that the number of men age 65 and older increased by 21 percent from 2000 to 2010, nearly double the 11.2 percent growth rate for women in that age group.

What are the implications -- the benefits and the costs -- of having more men around longer? While most experts say it may be only a blip, some demographers say that a surprisingly rapid rise in the number of men could cost society even more in retirement costs, since they earned more than women and would collect more, and they would add to the long-term care problem.


But it's not a parody, it's dead serious and a bunch of "experts" pose a debate about how men dying as quickly and efficiently without bothering women is the best outcome--oops, I mean the debate asks, "How might this narrowing gap change society and male-female relationships?"

Opinions seemed to focus much on the negative aspects of men's longer life on women. For example Stephanie Coontz, author of A Strange Stirring: The Feminine Mystique and American Women at the Dawn of the 1960s says " .... a woman trapped in an unhappy marriage might not find her husband’s extended lifespan very beneficial. Among unhappy couples, even a few extra minutes a day with one’s spouse raises blood pressure and lowers immune functioning. So imagine the toll that extra years can take."

Another paragon of compassion, Susan Jacoby, author of Never Say Die: The Myth and Marketing of the New Old Age seems to think men's sole purpose in life is to care for women. The man's death is a "price to be be paid by a woman." His life is not important in and of itself. Only women seem to have that autonomy. She says, "When a husband dies, the price for women -- and society -- is both economic and emotional. Women will likely face their closing, sickest years without a partner to help care for them. That’s one reason nursing home residents are overwhelmingly female." Note no mention of the huge cost to keep women in nursing homes. Most older men are dead. I guess this is better in her mind.

As they say, living well is the best revenge. If I were male, I would strive to live as long as I could and collect as much of the Social Security benefits and other entitlements as possible. After all, men in the past have been putting into the system for years only to die and give their benefits up--usually to older women. Now perhaps the tables are turning and more men will be collecting. It's only fair.


Does Meredith Whitney Read?

I was surprised to see a story at CNBC with the title: "Tea Party Made Up of 'Freaked Out White Men': Whitney:"
“Call it Tea Party, whatever you will, the fringe element is I characterize (as) freaked-out white men who are unemployed and have been unemployed for three years and they’re scared to death,” she said. “Three to four million of them are about to roll off unemployment benefits in the next three to four months. This is only going to get worse.”

Democrats looking to hold the White House and regain full control of Congress will need to take note.

“For this reason you have to deal with the structural issues,” Whitney said. “If you are a Machiavellian Democrat you want do deal with this issue and defuse the Tea Party as fast as you possibly can because this poses the biggest threat to their re-election in 2012.”


If Whitney read at all, she would know that not only was the Tea Party started with the help of female bloggers and activists but the face of the Tea Party is female:

Many of the tea party’s most influential grass-roots and national leaders are women, and a new poll released this week by Quinnipiac University suggests that women might make up a majority of the movement as well.

I wonder what Whitney's agenda is for calling the Tea Party a bunch of "freaked out white men?" Even if men are involved, why the hate?

Is she just trying to show what a “trooper” she is because she is tired of being attacked by Democrats and this is her way of sucking up? If so, what a coward.

Cross-posted at the PJ Tatler.

Labels:

Tuesday, August 09, 2011

Making College Pay

I am reading a very helpful book about choosing colleges entitled Making College Pay: Strategies for Choosing Wisely, Doing Well & Maximizing Your Return. The great thing about this book is that it looks at college in a rational business manner and tries to help the reader take the emotion out of choosing a college. Most colleges, the authors (two savvy sisters involved in business and academia) say send the brightest students and others glossy brochures making it look like college is one big party. Maybe it is but it's an expensive one that might leave you with a hangover.

The book focuses on the real cost to families, rather than just the student and how a family may not get a good return (or any at all) on their investment. "Separating Fact from Fiction" is a good chapter warning the reader about the real facts of attending college such as:
Only 57 percent of students who enroll full time at a four-year college actually graduate within six years.

More than one-quarter of students who start college drop out before the second year.


The book shows with side by side comparisons how many of the classes at the "elite schools" are not much different than those at the university no one has ever heard of. There is a chapter on "comparison shopping" that helps a student narrow down his or her choices and focus on three basic goals:

1 )Finding a college that appeals to your interests, fits your aptitude and improves your marketability; 2) Choosing a school that fits your family's financial resources and minimizes cost, and 3) making sure that you increase the odds that you finish and get the degree.

Overall, this is a great book for parents and students looking to get through college without going broke.

Cross-posted at the PJ Lifestyle blog.

Labels:

Monday, August 08, 2011

CNBC: "The ten most hated jobs." Note that most of them are performed by men.

Sunday, August 07, 2011

Is the Economy Stressing Your Family Out?

I saw over at Rasmussen Reports (via Instapundit) that 67% of respondents felt that their family was being stressed by the economy:
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 67% of American Adults say the state of the economy is causing more stress on their family. That finding is up 10 points from this time last year . Twenty-seven percent (27%) say the economy isn’t causing their family more stress.

The survey also indicated more arguments with friends and family members:
Still, 43% of adults say they have gotten into an intense argument with a friend or family member about economic conditions in the country. That's up six points from 37% last year. Fifty-five percent (55%) say they have not gotten into a heated argument with a friend or family member about who is to blame for the state of the economy and how it should be fixed.

Senator Marco Rubio recently discussed the split in this country "between those who believe the government's job is to promote 'economic justice,'" i.e., the redistribution of wealth, that the government's job is to determine the equality of outcomes in people's lives, "and those who believe the government's job is to promote 'economic opportunity.'" Rush Limbaugh points out correctly that "economic justice" is not moral--it is socialism or Marxism and I agree with his point. But that is a separate issue.

As for family arguments about the economy, my guess is that family members are most likely to argue along these lines. Those who believe in "social justice" are arguing with those who believe in economic opportunity. It is sort of like the fight between Ayn Rand's characters in Atlas Shrugged. There are those who believe in taking from others and those who believe in the right to their own production. This isn't a fight that will be resolved easily and the bad economy is emphasizing the differences between how family members feel about these issues.

Is the economy stressing out your family members? Do you argue with them about the economy or just try to keep the peace?

Cross-posted at PJ Lifestyle.

Labels: