March 25, 2012

"Why Men Opting-Out Should Make You Angry"/"Puppies You Need More Than A Man."

HuffPo headlines, more or less inconsistent.

The first link is via Instapundit, who adds, sarcastically, "Apparently, women should always be angry." Now, now, with puppies, that need not be so.

72 comments:

cubanbob said...

if judging by the article, now would be a good time to go in to the pet food business. another schlocky article that you would expect from the HP or shine.

Phil 3:14 said...

Men learned a long time ago, you can't have it all.

I guess women are just now catching on.

Sorun said...

The puppy article is stupid, but the comments to it include some funny wife jokes.

Tom Spaulding said...

So... a room full of angry, yet more reasonable women with better-than-a-man puppies and state-funded birth control.

Enchanting.

Big Mike said...

I read the article. Here's what she misses: there have always been some number of men who have gone into work one day, looked around, and concluded that life was too short to put up with this ration of shit. Many who reached that conclusion stayed on anyway, for the sake of the kids and the stay-at-home wife, but these days the wife may make more than he does so why not opt out?

Beyond that, Glenn Reynolds' comment is pithy and dead on target.

Big Mike said...

Lisa Belkin's article, that is. I couldn't be bothered with the other one.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Schadenfreude...

The great vision is crumbing and for someone committed to it, that must really stink. I think of when the Iron Curtain came down, how some of the hard-core devotees of the communist system must have felt.

Meanwhile, we have a massive machinery continuing the great feminist cause, despite the dramatic changes on the ground. We have men becoming minorities in more and more academic disciplines, their sports are being dissolved because of federal law, their place in the family being marginalized.

And then we have lots of men who--surprise!--are more than happy to let the women do it. Don't be surprised to find, before long, military women will be in every combat situation. Men will let them do that, too.

Meanwhile, the government will pay to spay everyone.

Cui bono?

Baronger said...

It's the conflicting points of view of the movement.

The whole view of, "women don't need a man." and "women can have it all, including a perfect husband/boyfriend."

I agree that men have long ago figured out that they can't have it all. They used to sacrifice a home life and put in long hours at work. However, mostly they were not happy doing that, and would rather be off fishing.

Giving a chance to opt out men, would jump at the chance. Which of course goes against the basic desire of a woman's need for a successful man.

What women want is a Trophy husband/boyfriend that can be shown off but doesn't disagree with her and does everything she says.

rhhardin said...

Man's response, looking for puppies, at the bottom of page 1, "page 1 of 11": typical woman.

Puppies are cute but they don't know anything.

Old dogs know everything.

leslyn said...

Baronger said,

"It's the conflicting points of view of the movement. The whole view of, 'women don't need a man.' and 'women can have it all, including a perfect husband/ boyfriend.'"

What's in conflict about that? One is "need," the other is "have." I read "have" as "want." You'll have a hard time convincing me that I believe I "need" that perfect husband or boyfriend, because don't.

bagoh20 said...

"You'll have a hard time convincing me that I believe I "need" that perfect husband or boyfriend, because don't."

Good, because men are very quickly deciding they don't want to be one anymore than women want to be a barbie doll.

We'll all be better off.

bagoh20 said...

Maybe this whole relationship thing is obsolete.

Can't we all just be friends...with benefits?

Fr Martin Fox said...

BagofH20:

Well, when we're all spayed courtesy of Obama and Sebelius, we can all plug into virtual reality and live the lives of our dreams. Perhaps we can all live indefinitely in cyberspace, never troubled with dealing with any other actual people, shaping our "reality" to our wishes, never fully departing this life, never entering heaven or hell--at least, not heaven...

Won't it be loverly?

leslyn said...

@Big Mike, 11:48 a.m.: Totally with you that one. Quote from the article:

"But one segment have left the workplace for reasons Mundy celebrates --educated men who describe themselves as less ambitious, less likely to believe that men should earn more than women, and more interested in spending time with their children, and increasingly aware that the workplace, as constructed, makes it much too hard to do it all."

The only caveat I would make is that values about work vs family life have changed. Men may leave or limit their role in the workplace because of these values; not because it is "much too hard to do it all," but because the value of the sacrifices is viewed differently.

The Drill SGT said...

This one line summarizes why this whole line of culture is going to end porrly for society:

The resulting changes in "the economy and the workplace," she writes, "will shape human behavior by challenging some of the most primal and hard-wired ways men and women see one another,

HW always trumps SW.

leslyn said...

@bagoh20, 12:21 p.m.

Oh, well played!

edutcher said...

Men have been treated like dirt by womyn, right down to the dumb man jokes (the female brain is used) and now the womyn are mad because men are showing they really are smarter and voting with their feet (among other things).

The old line, "You get what you pay for", still holds.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Schadenfreude...

The great vision is crumbing and for someone committed to it, that must really stink


Padre, it isn't just for the womyn, it's across the board for all the Lefties, so I have to disagree when you speak about, "massive machinery continuing the great feminist cause", because it's all coming down at once.

This will be a crash heard for milennia.
leslyn said...

You'll have a hard time convincing me that I believe I "need" that perfect husband or boyfriend, because don't

Sounds not so much like "have", "need", or "want" as much as "can't get".

cubanbob said...

The 30 something feminists are starting to realize the wisdom of the adage that warns one of being careful for what they wish for.

leslyn said...

Edutcher said

"leslyn said... You'll have a hard time convincing me that I believe I 'need' that perfect husband or boyfriend, because don't Sounds not so much like 'have', 'need', or 'want' as much as "can't get".

Believe what you like, edutcher! :-) :-) :-) & etc.

madAsHell said...

Wow!

I couldn't finish reading the opting-out article. I think it said, "Here's whats wrong with your life, and here is who to blame."

I would like to propose Critical Sex Theory which states that "EVERYTHING is sexist until I say it's not!"

Chip Ahoy said...

The thing is puppies grow up to be dogs so you have to be okay with dogs.

I'm okay with baby angel fish but not okay with adult angel fish. I can actually take them back when they grow up and exchange them for babies. In the fish world that's considered a bad trade. Imagine doing that with puppies. They're so adorable. Then they grow up. Switch with another adorable puppy. Keep doing that for a continuous string of puppies.

damikesc said...

After that headline about why dogs are better than men --- is anybody stunned that the author is single?

What's in conflict about that? One is "need," the other is "have." I read "have" as "want." You'll have a hard time convincing me that I believe I "need" that perfect husband or boyfriend, because don't.

Men see no point in dealing with women who are constantly unhappy. Men don't need the headache.

Marriage has a lot of flaws and with few benefits to men (and while I am married, I recognize this is reality): Men will lose half of everything when they get divorced. They will be forced to pay for kids, even if they are not his. The woman will frequently turn their bio kids against them. And men are still expected to play the traditional husband role while women have no similar expectations.

I got lucky --- but why should I recommend any man to get married? Way too many risks with way too few benefits for the man.

Men are simply adapting to society. A lot of women don't like that things change.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The 30 something feminists are starting to realize the wisdom of the adage that warns one of being careful for what they wish for.

Yes. I believe it is a generational thing.....AND I believe it to be a regional (urban versus suburban/rural)thing.

Young women have been sold a bill of goods, told a fairy tale by older militant feminists. Told they can have it all with no work. That they deserve the dream job, perfect children, compliant subservient husband. That it is demeaning to adhere to traditional male female roles. That your husband desiring your body is somehow an insult. It goes on and on.

It is all about them, the young women, their desires, wants and needs. It isn't about being a partnership and supporting each other. The needs and wants of the man are not even considered.

Now that they have the dream within reach....the realization is that it is a nightmare and that their compliant man toys are not really interested in their self delusional narcissistic vision.

Women and men who are not in that rarified strata of the Gloria Stienems, professional grudge feminists, work together to build a life and realize that they need each other.

Man and woman are ying and yang. The need each other to compliment and complete the whole.

edutcher said...

Agree with DBQ.

I've said before the milennials have had a chance to see what works and what doesn't and you can see how the paradigm is shifting already.

James Taranto's views on the Roe Effect and social conservatism are proof of this.

Bruce Hayden said...

Well, when we're all spayed courtesy of Obama and Sebelius, we can all plug into virtual reality and live the lives of our dreams. Perhaps we can all live indefinitely in cyberspace, never troubled with dealing with any other actual people, shaping our "reality" to our wishes, never fully departing this life, never entering heaven or hell--at least, not heaven...

We are actually seeing this, to some extent already. In the slacker generation, a substantial number of guys seem to prefer living in cyberspace, gaming, etc., superior to dealing with women.

But, we are also seeing a large number of guys go in almost the opposite direction in their opting out - playing almost full time outdoors. They work just enough to be able to play. I meet a lot of these guys at the ski area. They may work a night job, or they may work summers so that they can ski the winter.

Not sure which is better or worse - the guys opting out in cyber space, or doing so outdoors.

As I noted in the thread yesterday, males have traditionally traded marriage with access to sex, but it was marriage and fatherhood that drove them to socialize properly and ultimately to spend their lives at work, very often work that they don't really like. So, with access to sex now effectively decoupled from marriage, etc., no wonder so many are opting out.

bagoh20 said...

You can't read the content over there and still believe the war is on women. Men have never been as openly hostile in public or private toward women as the articles over there are toward men. While reading that I get the distinct feeling that, if possible, they would have us all turned into dog food, and still blame men for how bad it smells.

A serious chip on those shoulders, and really unattractive. Was part of the plan to make women terribly unappealing? Could that be a part of the problem?

Bruce Hayden said...

Meanwhile, we have a massive machinery continuing the great feminist cause, despite the dramatic changes on the ground. We have men becoming minorities in more and more academic disciplines, their sports are being dissolved because of federal law, their place in the family being marginalized.

And then we have lots of men who--surprise!--are more than happy to let the women do it. Don't be surprised to find, before long, military women will be in every combat situation. Men will let them do that, too
.

Said very well, though I remain unconvinced that women will be able to take over ground combat duties any time soon. Upper body strength, and all that. But, that still leaves a large majority of the military for them. Should be interesting to see what happens to such a male structured organization.

~N. said...

What women want is a Trophy husband/boyfriend that can be shown off but doesn't disagree with her and does everything she says.

Yes, well...

Men had their trophy wives/girlfriends that could be shown off but didn't disagree with them and did everything they said long enough.

Our turn now. How does it feel...?

Not that I want that, nor, I suspect, does any real woman. Nor did any real man back in the day.

These kinds of articles only mean anything to people who take them seriously.

bagoh20 said...

I guess I'm one of the opt-outers. I spend zero time pursuing a romantic relationship with a women. I work, I play, I help wherever I can. I would love to have the perfect woman to share and enjoy life with, but so many women seem to want to compete or prove their capability and strength all the time. I'm busy, I'm happy, I'm straight, I don't need a competitor, or a trainer.

ed said...

Pre-Liberation men worked away from home and their loved ones until they died during which time they suffered endless amounts of grief and bullshit in order to provide a lasting home.

Post-Liberation women announced that they wanted some of that.

Post-post-Liberation women are catching on that this crap sucks and they got sold a shoddy bill of goods.

It's amusing, tragic, ironic and absurd. All you need now is some lottery numbers and we've got the making of a fortune cookie.

The Drill SGT said...

Bruce Hayden said...Said very well, though I remain unconvinced that women will be able to take over ground combat duties any time soon. Upper body strength, and all that. But, that still leaves a large majority of the military for them. Should be interesting to see what happens to such a male structured organization

Ultimately, the society that feminizes its military is the society that goes quietly into the night via a pillage and rape.

The non-Orwell paraphrased quote of: "Gentlewomyn sleep peacefully in their beds (with their babes and No Man), because rough men are prepared to do violence on their behalf.

In the future after these college educated womyn have done away with the civilizing concept of marriage with those unneeded men, and the middle and underclasses have dissolved into a disfunctional abyss of womyn only families on the Federal dole, some more coherent traditional society is going to kick their ass and those womyn are going to end up in some believer's harem.

Feminisim will be argued about in the Harem for a generation or two as the philosophy of slaves.

ed said...

"Men had their trophy wives/girlfriends that could be shown off but didn't disagree with them and did everything they said long enough." - ~N

When did that happen? I must have slept through it because I don't think I've ever met any woman that matched that description.

Seriously. Are we talking about a scene from a Disney movie here?

~N. said...

Well, then, let me re-phrase...

A-list men had their trophy wives/girlfriends that could be shown off but didn't disagree with them and did everything they said...

Sorry you didn't make the cut.

Moose said...

Previously, women were crazy, but worth the effort to create a relationship.

Now, women are a whole bag of crazy and they're not happy with their "empowerment". No siree.

My son is going to be dating soon and I'm at a loss to tell him what to do.

leslyn said...

@ Bruce Hayden:

The services are seriously reviewing which Military Occupational Specialties (MOS's) ought to be reclassified from "noncombat" under current law and policy. The recognition is that women already serve in these MOS's and are subject to the same combat injuries as men, etc. A fundamental precept of the Marine Corps, for example, is that a Marine is a Marine, whether male or female, and that every Marine is a rifleman.

I think this story is an interesting illustration:

Face of Defense: Marine is MP by Day, Mechanic by Night.

ed said...

"A-list men had their trophy wives/girlfriends that could be shown off but didn't disagree with them and did everything they said..." - ~N

Hate to point this out but I work with a lot of A-listers and was one myself before my illness. That still doesn't match the description of any woman I've ever met. And that includes quite a few Russian and Ukrainian women too who would otherwise be considered classic "trophy wives".

In fact the Russian and Ukrainian women are the most likely to give ten kinds of hell to their man when they felt like it.

~N. said...

ed, I suspect I'm considerably older than you. ;~)

Russian women were still locked behind the Iron Curtain back in the days I'm talking about.

The Drill SGT said...

leslyn said...
@ Bruce Hayden:

The services are seriously reviewing which Military Occupational Specialties (MOS's) ought to be reclassified from "noncombat" under current law and policy.


Leslyn, I think you are clueless about the job requirements of a combat arm. Dismounted Infantry, Armor, and Field Artillery

ed said...

"My son is going to be dating soon and I'm at a loss to tell him what to do." - Moose

*shrug* what can you tell him? Don't take anything seriously because girls/women today aren't serious about anything. It's all about the BBD - Bigger Better Deal and it's all about status. Money equates in part to status because it allows for designer clothes, shoes, shopping trips and specialty cosmetics and shops. Being good looking helps in conferring status to her. A nice car does so as well.

But girls calculate status all the time. Every damn minute they calculate status. They calc status amongst themselves and order themselves in hierarchial groupings that depend on relative status. This is why women tend to dress to impress other women. To show status.

If he is dating a girl and she meets someone who will enhance her status then that's pretty much going to be it. That relationship is doomed unless she calcs that her effort to gain that source of status is destined to fail. Even then you can bet she'll nag the hell out of your boy in order to make him gain status for her.

This whole insane calculation is also why so many wives divorce. A divorced wife can have more relative status than a married woman depending on the relative status value of the husband.

It also explains why Desperate Housewives is so popular amongst women.

Frankly probably the best thing you could do is have your boy read Roissy with a jaundiced eye and then read sites such as TheFrisky and other women oriented sites. A few days of that and you won't have to explain anything.

ed said...

@ ~N

"ed, I suspect I'm considerably older than you. ;~)"

*shrug* I'm 47.

"Russian women were still locked behind the Iron Curtain back in the days I'm talking about."

Then what precisely is the relevance of these observations to what is life today? The USSR collapsed in 1989. We're 20+ years from then with an enormous number of changes in society.

Considering the pace of societal change if we're going to discuss how society was in the late 1980's then we might as well delve further back and go right ahead to post-WWII.

Sorun said...

"My son is going to be dating soon and I'm at a loss to tell him what to do."

Apply the Golden Rule, that's what he should do.

leslyn said...

@The Drill SGT:
I think you're wrong.

Lem said...

Dirty Old Egg Suckin' Dog - Johnny Cash

Dante said...

"If we flip the power to women, we'll just end up with the same role responsibility burdens and imbalanced lives," Amy told me, only with the genders reversed.

Oh, so now all that "power" comes with significant disadvantages. How capricious of feminists. They want their cake and to eat it too.

LakeLevel said...

Here's some weird shit: last night at exactly one minute before midnight, I was driving in a lefty neighborhood when I saw several women, each with a puppy on a leash, in a circle, gesturing in unison. After I glanced at the clock, I thought was hmmm, some sort of dumbass pagan ritual where dogs replace men.

Dante said...

@Drill Sgt

No doubt the negative consequence haven't been discussed honestly. I am waiting for leftists to decide that a man and a woman are important to raising kids.

Meanwhile, I still think this whole "sexual revolution" was pushed onto women by horny hippies on women who felt they had to go along or be "bad" people. And out of that rose feminism. It's a weak philosophy, and in my view not good for men or women.

But hey, if women want to give up family, and work being barren, that's fine so long as they don't cost me or my kids welfare money.

The Drill SGT said...

leslyn said...
@The Drill SGT:
I think you're wrong.

3/25/12 3:10 PM


I'm a former combat arms officer with combat experience who used to work for the Center of Army Lessons Learned. (CALL)

Here is their load study:

http://www.antipersonnel.net/links/R008.pdf

from 2003 of A-stan light infantry loads. The average is 132 pounds, carried at altitudes of up to 18,000 feet (ever been at 18,000 feet? (not unless you've climbed Alaska's high peaks, or Nepal, or fought in A-stan?). Altitudes there range above 24,000 ft. The max 149 pounds.

How much do you weight? Can you carry your own weight up a mountain for 12 hours at a time?

I can't carry 132 poumds in those environments and I'm 6'1'' and over 200 lbs.

I have a fair understanding of what it takes to fight in sustained ground combat. Personally, professionally and academically.

If you're an olynpic athlete or an ex-A-stan MP or combat light infantry Medic, I apologize in advance. If not, respectiflly, you have no clue.

leslyn said...

@Lake-Level:

Nah, it was just trying to get the dogs to poop.

LakeLevel said...

leslyn: "Nah, it was just trying to get the dogs to poop".

That's what I thought at first, then I thought, wait a minute, why are they gesturing in unison and not paying any attention to the dogs?

leslyn said...

The Drill SGT said:

"Leslyn, I think you are clueless about the job requirements of a combat arm. Dismounted Infantry, Armor, and Field Artillery."

Respectfully, your statement was about knowledge of the job requirements.

You have more experiential knowledge of those requirements than I do.

And no, I can't meet requirements for mountain warfare either. I get altitude sickness over 9,000 feet.

Michael K said...

It may be of interest that, given this subject and all the gnashing of teeth that seems to be going on, there are more couples, and families with children, cruising (on their own boat) the coast of Mexico and the world than ever before. It is very cheap, as most countries that are on the cruising routes are very cheap living, you take your house with you, and you see a lot of wonderful places. There are thousands of such couples and families, not a lot in terms of the womyn's revolution but interesting, all the same.

leslyn said...

Lake Level:

Must be some kind of FemiNazi conspiracy, then. No other explanation. Notify Rush Limbaugh immediately!

LakeLevel said...

leslyn,
wow, sorry to offend you. I just thought that was something really weird to see at exactly midnight and shared it with this blog. I hope you're OK. If you have some other explanation why they were gesturing in unison for the 10 seconds I saw them, please do share it with us.

leslyn said...

Lake-Level:

Given our forum: It's a joke! It's a joke!

Thank you for your generous courtesy.

DADvocate said...

We all know Glenn Reynolds puts puppies in blenders.

http://www.imao.us/archives/000567.html#000567

deborah said...

"My son is going to be dating soon and I'm at a loss to tell him what to do."

When my son was in his mid-teens, and we were at the market, I would go past the baby aisle and point out how expensive formula and diapers were. I'd tell him that if he gets a girl pregnant, he'd better hope she was a nice girl, because she would get half his money for the baby, and she could spend it on drugs instead of the baby.

Society is definitely morphing along the lines of extended adolescence, which I think is a good idea as far as men marrying when they're a little older, early thirties, or so. They'll have been around the block and more able to estimate the personality of a younger woman.

Ken said...

I want half,Eddie!!

The Drill SGT said...

leslyn said...
The Drill SGT said:

"Leslyn, I think you are clueless about the job requirements of a combat arm. Dismounted Infantry, Armor, and Field Artillery."

Respectfully, your statement was about knowledge of the job requirements.


Leslyn, FWIW, my wife is a retired Colonel. I respect women as soldiers. They make excellent soldiers in some MOS's. They serve bravely in combat. They are not, as a group, capable of serving in the 3-4 combat arms (if you include combat engineers).

Being shot at is not the same as being in a combat arm. Being an MP, and fighting in an ambush from the turret of a Hummer is worthy of great respect, but it is not the same as pick up 130 lbs of gear and heading upslope, while not losing track of the SA needed to keep you and your squadies alive. It's being able to dismount the M1 and unsling the tow cable and get a tow in place alone. It's being able to prep 98 lb 155 howitzer shells for 18 hours straight.

Synova said...

I tried to figure out why anyone was talking about the military. I still have no idea.

But when it comes to women serving, there are about 10% last I ever heard a number, and that sounds just about right. I don't see that number going up all that much. Even if it doubles over time, it's still only 20%.

The only thing limiting the number of women in the military *now* is that they don't walk into a recruiter's office. Feminists would have us believe that if there is a numerical difference, then that means something is wrong.

Not true.

Synova said...

And what I actually liked best about the military was that it was a man's world. It is where I feel most comfortable.

Ralph L said...

My son is going to be dating soon and I'm at a loss to tell him what to do.
Masturbate often, with lube and his imagination.

John Lynch said...

People are so demanding. The world always has to change, never ourselves.

I deliver pizzas to work around my wife's crazy schedule. Why? Because we have a son. That's life. You do what you have to do. If family really does come first that means you have to sacrifice.

If you need more time, work less. If we're being fair, then you'll make less money. I took a pretty big financial hit to stay home with my son. No use railing about it, my son is worth it.

I don't understand why people who choose to work more should be penalized to support those who work less. That's really what this is about- keeping rewards away from those who make their career their life (who are usually men). That doesn't bother me. If people work more and sacrifice more they should be paid more.

Otherwise, rewards become a matter of politics rather than merit. That sucks, and it's dishonest, and I distrust anyone who seeks such a result.

Saint Croix said...

Boy that puppy article was hostile to men. I predict the princess is going to have issues with her new dog.

You know he's going to pee on your carpet?

And shit!

Also, fleas!

And you're going to have to bathe him.

And when there's thunder, he's going to climb into bed with you.

And lick you with his toilet bowl tongue.

If you can't handle a man, you are so not ready for dog.

Just wait till he starts humping the bitches.

Fen said...

I remain unconvinced that women will be able to take over ground combat duties any time soon. Upper body strength, and all that

10% more body fat
10% less hemoglobin
and less bone density, leading to stress fractures.

Having served as an 0313 in the Marines, I can back up Drill Sgts posts.

Even as a LAV Crewman, you must be able to dead lift the 60 pound feeder assembly from a sitting position. Maybe future cannon designs will consider the possibility of female gunners and reduce the weight.

Its a catch-22 with women. Officers that serve in combat units are promoted (and kicked out) at a faster rate.

DADvocate said...

Feminists like getting male puppies. Then they castrate them. They call it having the puppy "fixed." It's a living metaphor for the relationship they want with men. I bet most of you thought feminists like puppies because puppies are cute and cuddly.

DADvocate said...

Rodney Carrington explains why a pickup truck is better than a wife.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE2qN7A7Fk0

Keystone said...

We've already seen this movie. It's called the black family.

SGT Ted said...

We are actually seeing this, to some extent already. In the slacker generation, a substantial number of guys seem to prefer living in cyberspace, gaming, etc., superior to dealing with women.

Thats because there's s sense of "fair play" and "playing by the rules" in computer gaming. Not so much with dealing with modern females.

SGT Ted said...

Drill SGT,

Lots of males pick up the slack for the females that are allowed to be MPs. We just don't talk about it, because it does no good. There are very few MP females that are the equal of the men, physically. In my 26 years I knew of only one female MP team that was the equal of the men and they were all big strapping athletic girls. That was in the 1980s, when an M-60 was the heaviest weapons system we had.

Just ask some of them to deploy a MK-19 from ground to vehicle in a combat drill. Or the reverse. Most never have the upper body strength to be able to truly hack it as a team member in combat. None of them could drag a man very far in combat gear. None of the gunners were female. They couldn't hack it dismounted with a SAW for very long. But, Mission First. Adapt and overcome. FIDO. We were fortunate that we didn't have to conduct any serious sustained MOUT missions. That is an MPs dismounted bread and butter.

Peter said...

"Feminists like getting male puppies. Then they castrate them. They call it having the puppy "fixed." It's a living metaphor for the relationship they want with men."

Any evolutionary biologist will tell you that womeon really want two men- a reliable, boring one to provide and protect, plus an exiting bad boy for sex and reproduction.

With the death of marriage (have you seen the stats on out-of-marriage births?), the genetic future belongs to the bad boys, and any men who go for the provide-and-protect role will be suckered.

And women will either have to do the protecting and providing stuff for themselves, or use government to force anonymous men to do it for them.

leslyn said...

Hmm. Althouse's original post included :

"The first link is via Instapundit, who adds, sarcastically, 'Apparently, women should always be angry.' Now, now, with puppies, that need not be so."

Perhaps, but based on this thread, Instapundit's quote should read, "Apparently men should always be angry."

One commenter said,

"Feminists like getting male puppies. Then they castrate them. They call it having the puppy 'fixed.' It's a living metaphor for the relationship they want with men. I bet most of you thought feminists like puppies because puppies are cute and cuddly."

Would it make all y'all feel better to get female puppies and have them spayed?

That could reduce the number of discarded and mattered dogs. And if you want unconditional loyalty and love, you can't do better than adopting a rescued dog.

Just a thought.

leslyn said...

The end of that post was supposed to say "maltreated" dogs.