Kept up with tracking, but not publishing out into the ether, what I've read this year. Last time was in February, apparently. Wild ride in 2020, many distractions. Not to mention moving back overseas and related complications. Regardless, something like a book a week, give or take. On average. Plus comics. And OCD surfing of the internets. Lot of fiction this year, apparently. Coping mechanism for the stresses of the 'real' world? Possibly. Reread a bunch of Crichton this summer. Reminded me of my dad, who I got the 'reading habit' from - and who got it from his mom - and who used to read all the Crichton, Clancy and Griffin he could get his hands on. A handful of biographies, some financial literacy, some positive psych. We'll see if in 2021 I can post up more often, maybe monthly. Onwards.
Gladiator by Philip Wylie
Anno Dracula by Kim Newman
Anno Dracula: The Bloody Red Baron by Kim Newman
Anno Dracula: Dracula Cha Cha Cha by Kim Newman
Helltown by Dennis O'Neil
Richard Dragon: Dragon's Fists by Jim Dennis (Dennis O'Neil and James R. Berry)
Devolution: A Firsthand Account of the Rainier Sasquatch Massacre by Max Brooks
The Stranger by Harlan Corben
Anno Dracula: Johnny Alucard by Kim Newman
Peace Talks (Dresden Files Book 16) by Jim Butcher
World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War by Max Brooks
Rising Sun by Michael Crichton
The Greatest Miracle in the World by Og Mandino
Travels by Michael Crichton
Congo by Michael Crichton
Timeline by Michael Crichton
A Newcomer's Guide to the Afterlife: On the Other Side Known Commonly as The Little Book by Daniel Quinn and Tom Whalen
Sum: Forty Tales from the Afterlives by David Eagleman
The Mystery of the Iron Samson: The Life and Training of Strongman Alexander Zass by Yuri Shapshnikoff (Author), A. Drapkin (Author), Logan Christopher (Editor), Professor "Stone" Paul (Translator)
A Feast Unknown (Secrets of the Nine #1 - Wold Newton Parallel Universe) Book 1 of 3: Secrets of the Nine by Philip Jose Farmer
The Psychopath Test by Jon Ronson
Resurrected Destiny (The Last Witness Book 1) by Gerald Welch
Ballistic Kiss: A Sandman Slim Novel by Richard Kadrey
Playing with FIRE (Financial Independence Retire Early): How Far Would You Go for Financial Freedom by Scott Riecken
The Holy by Daniel Quinn
Dirty Jokes and Beer: Stories of the Unrefined by Drew Carey
Battle Ground: The Dresden Files 17 by Jim Butcher
8 Mins: An Anthology of the Last Eight Minutes of Earth by Victor Dandridge
After Dachau by Daniel Quinn
The Sentinel: A Jack Reacher Novel by Lee Child & Andrew Child
Levon's Home by Chuck Dixon
Art in the Blood (A Sherlock Holmes Adventure, Book 1) by Bonnie MacBird
Unquiet Spirits: Whisky, Ghosts, Murder (A Sherlock Holmes Adventure, Book 2) by Bonnie MacBird
Uncaged: My Life as a Champion MMA Fighter by Frank Shamrock
Shamrock: The World's Most Dangerous Man by Jonathan Snowden
The Devil’s Due (A Sherlock Holmes Adventure, Book 3) by Bonnie MacBird
The Size of Your Dreams: A Novel that Transforms Lives by Dave Mason and Chana Mason
The Cash Machine: A Tale of Passion, Persistence, and Financial Independence by Dave Mason and Chana Mason
The Mandibles: A Family, 2029-2047 by Lionel Shriver
The Motion of the Body Through Space by Lionel Shriver
--
The Way of the Househusband, Vol. 1 & 2 by Kousuke Oono
Savage Wolverine Vol. 1: Kill Island by Frank Cho
Second Coming: Volume One by Mark Russell, Richard Pace, Leonard Kirk, Andy Troy
Skybourne by Frank Cho, Marcio Menyz
Black Hammer Volume 4: Age of Doom Part Two by Jeff Lemire, Dean Ormston, Dave Stewart
Green Arrow: War of the Clans by Jeff Lemire, Andrea Sorrentino
Secret Volume by Jonathan Hickman, Ryan Bodenheim, Michael Garland
Punisher: Soviet by Garth Ennis, Jacen Burrows, Paolo Rivera
Wonder Twins Vol. 1: Activate! by Mark Russell , Stephen Byrne
Captain America: White by Jeph Loeb, Tim Sale
Scott Pilgrim Vol. 1 (of 6): Scott Pilgrim's Precious Little Life by Bryan Lee O'Malley & Nathan Fairbairn
The Complete Jon Sable Freelance Volume 1 by Mike Grell
Absolute Planetary V1 by Warren Ellis & John Cassaday
Green Lantern: Legacy by Minh Le & Andie Tong
Doomsday Clock: The Complete Collection Paperback by Geoff Johns & Gary Frank
Jacked by Eric Kripke & John Higgins
Serenity: The Shepherd's Tale by Zack Whedon, Joss Whedon, Chris Samnee
The Comedians: Drunks, Thieves, Scoundrels, and the History of American Comedy by Kliph Nesteroff
Yourdrum by Kevin Stock
The Rescue (Ryan Decker Book 1) by Steven Konkoly
Obvious Adams: The Story of a Successful Businessman by Robert Updegraff
Destroy the Opposition: Programming for Powerlifting by Jamie Lewis
Sleep Like a Lion: How to Go From Average Sleep to Awesome Sleep with a Scientifically-Proven System of Sleep Tips, Tactics and Routines by Paul French
The Soul of a Chef: The Journey Toward Perfection by Michael Ruhlman
ALPHA: A Black Flagged Thriller (The Black Flagged Series Book 1) by Steven Konkoly
Monster Hunter International (Monster Hunters International Book 1) by Larry Correia
Monster Hunter Vendetta (Monster Hunters International Book 2) by Larry Correia
Monster Hunter Alpha (Monster Hunters International Book 3) by Larry Correia
Monster Hunter Legion (Monster Hunters International Book 4) by Larry Correia
Monster Hunter Nemesis (Monster Hunters International Book 5) by Larry Correia
Monster Hunter Siege (Monster Hunters International Book 6) by Larry Correia
-----
The Wild Storm Vol. 3 Paperback by Warren Ellis, John Davis-Hunt
Atomic Robo Presents Real Science Adventures: The Flying She-Devils in Raid on Marauder Island by Brian Clevinger, Lo Baker, Wook Jin Clark
Atomic Robo Presents Real Science Adventures: The Nicodemus Job by Brian Clevinger, Meredith McClaren
Atomic Robo and the Spectre of Tomorrow by Brian Clevinger, Scott Wegener
Atomic Robo: Real Science Adventures Volume 1 TP by Brian Clevinger, John Broglia, Ryan Cody, Scott Wegener, Jeff Powell
Kill or Be Killed Volume 1-4 by Ed Brubaker, Sean Phillips, Elizabeth Breitweiser
Shazam!: Origins by Geoff Johns, Gary Frank
Batman vs. Deathstroke by Christopher Priest, Diogenes Neves
Deathstroke Vol. 3-5 by Christopher Priest, Joe Bennett, Carlo Pagulayan, Diogenes Neves
Titans: The Lazarus Contract by Christopher Priest, Dan Abnett, Brett Booth
"Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, author of Everybody Lies, a new book that
uses data on America’s Google habits as an insight into our national
consciousness.
Two findings from the book dominated the conversation: America is
riddled with racist and selfish people, and there may be a self-induced
abortion crisis in this country.
But there was plenty more revelatory data in the book that we didn’t
cover. So I wanted to follow up with Stephens-Davidowitz to talk about
some of the other provocative claims he is making.
I was particularly interested in sexuality and online porn. If, as
Stephens-Davidowitz puts it, “Google is a digital truth serum,” then
what else does it tell us about our private thoughts and desires? What
else are we hiding from our friends, neighbors, and colleagues?
A lot, apparently.
Among other things, Stephens-Davidowitz’s data suggests that there are
more gay men in the closet than we think; that many men prefer
overweight women to skinny women but are afraid to act on it; that
married women are disproportionately worried their husband is gay; that a
lot of straight women watch lesbian porn; and that porn featuring
violence against women is more popular among women than men...
It’s interesting. Some sexual preferences I first learned about on The
Jerry Springer Show, which featured really poor, uneducated people.
People attracted to animals or family members or the elderly. But, now
from seeing porn data, I realize those preferences also exist among
wealthy, educated people. Wealthy, educated people are more cognizant of
contemporary social norms, which means if you have such an attraction,
you hide it..
All right, give me a couple of unusual desires you noticed — one from
men and one from women.
It is really amazing how much tastes can vary. There are women who just
watch porn featuring short, fat men with small penises. There are men
who just watch porn featuring women with enormous nipples.
How about other countries?
The number one Google search in India that starts "my husband wants ..."
is "my husband wants me to breastfeed him." Porn featuring adult
breastfeeding is higher in India than anywhere else. In just about every
country, just about every Google search looking for advice on
breastfeeding is looking how to breastfeed a baby. In India, Google
searches looking for breastfeeding advice are about equally split
between how to breastfeed a baby and how to breastfeed a husband.
After I published this finding, some journalists interviewed people in
India. Everyone denied this. But I am sure, based on the data, that
there are a reasonable number of adult Indian men desiring to be
breastfed. It is really amazing that this desire can develop in one
country without ever being openly talked about.
Any other findings from countries not named America?
Japanese men have recently become obsessed with tickling porn. More than
10 percent of Pornhub searches by young Japanese men are for
“tickling.”"
"The data from porn tells us that everybody is weird. Thus, nobody is weird."
Any other surprising findings about women in America?
About 20 percent of the porn women watch is lesbian porn. A lot of
straight women watch lesbian porn.
That’s not very surprising.
Porn featuring violence against women is also extremely popular among
women. It is far more popular among women than men. I hate saying that
because misogynists seem to love this fact. Fantasy life isn't always
politically correct.
The rate at which women watch violent porn is roughly the same in every
part of the world. It isn’t correlated with how women are treated.
So what’s the future of online porn? Where is it going?
I think anal sex will pass vaginal sex in porn within three years. That's what my data models suggest.
Somehow that feels like a perfect point on which to end."
Why Can't People Hear What Jordan Peterson Is Saying?:
"My first introduction to Jordan B. Peterson, a University of Toronto clinical psychologist, came by way of an interview that began trending on social media last week. Peterson was pressed by the British journalist Cathy Newman to explain several of his controversial views. But what struck me, far more than any position he took, was the method his interviewer employed. It was the most prominent, striking example I’ve seen yet of an unfortunate trend in modern communication.
First, a person says something. Then, another person restates what they purportedly said so as to make it seem as if their view is as offensive, hostile, or absurd.
Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, and various Fox News hosts all feature and reward this rhetorical technique. And the Peterson interview has so many moments of this kind that each successive example calls attention to itself until the attentive viewer can’t help but wonder what drives the interviewer to keep inflating the nature of Peterson’s claims, instead of addressing what he actually said.
...in the interview, Newman relies on this technique to a remarkable extent, making it a useful illustration of a much broader pernicious trend. Peterson was not evasive or unwilling to be clear about his meaning. And Newman’s exaggerated restatements of his views mostly led viewers astray, not closer to the truth.
Peterson begins the interview by explaining why he tells young men to grow up and take responsibility for getting their lives together and becoming good partners. He notes he isn’t talking exclusively to men, and that he has lots of female fans.
“What’s in it for the women, though?” Newman asks.
“Well, what sort of partner do you want?” Peterson says. “Do you want an overgrown child? Or do you want someone to contend with who is going to help you?”
“So you’re saying,” Newman retorts, “that women have some sort of duty to help fix the crisis of masculinity.” But that’s not what he said. He posited a vested interest, not a duty.
“Women deeply want men who are competent and powerful,” Peterson goes on to assert. “And I don’t mean power in that they can exert tyrannical control over others. That’s not power. That’s just corruption. Power is competence. And why in the world would you not want a competent partner? Well, I know why, actually, you can’t dominate a competent partner. So if you want domination—”
The interviewer interrupts, “So you’re saying women want to dominate, is that what you’re saying?”
The next section of the interview concerns the pay gap between men and women, and whether it is rooted in gender itself or other nondiscriminatory factors:
Newman: … that 9 percent pay gap, that’s a gap between median hourly earnings between men and women. That exists.
Peterson: Yes. But there’s multiple reasons for that. One of them is gender, but that’s not the only reason. If you’re a social scientist worth your salt, you never do a univariate analysis. You say women in aggregate are paid less than men. Okay. Well then we break its down by age; we break it down by occupation; we break it down by interest; we break it down by personality.
Newman: But you’re saying, basically, it doesn’t matter if women aren’t getting to the top, because that’s what is skewing that gender pay gap, isn’t it? You’re saying that’s just a fact of life, women aren’t necessarily going to get to the top.
Peterson: No, I’m not saying it doesn’t matter, either. I’m saying there are multiple reasons for it.
Newman: Yeah, but why should women put up with those reasons?
Peterson: I’m not saying that they should put up with it! I’m saying that the claim that the wage gap between men and women is only due to sex is wrong. And it is wrong. There’s no doubt about that. The multivariate analysis have been done. So let me give you an example––
The interviewer seemed eager to impute to Peterson a belief that a large, extant wage gap between men and women is a “fact of life” that women should just “put up with,” though all those assertions are contrary to his real positions on the matter.
Throughout this next section, the interviewer repeatedly tries to oversimplify Peterson’s view, as if he believes one factor he discusses is all-important, and then she seems to assume that because Peterson believes that given factor helps to explain a pay gap between men and women, he doesn’t support any actions that would bring about a more equal outcome.
Her surprised question near the end suggests earnest confusion:
Peterson: There’s a personality trait known as agreeableness. Agreeable people are compassionate and polite. And agreeable people get paid less than disagreeable people for the same job. Women are more agreeable than men.
Newman: Again, a vast generalization. Some women are not more agreeable than men.
Peterson: That’s true. And some women get paid more than men.
Newman: So you’re saying by and large women are too agreeable to get the pay raises that they deserve.
Peterson: No, I’m saying that is one component of a multivariate equation that predicts salary. It accounts for maybe 5 percent of the variance. So you need another 18 factors, one of which is gender. And there is prejudice. There’s no doubt about that. But it accounts for a much smaller portion of the variance in the pay gap than the radical feminists claim.
Newman: Okay, so rather than denying that the pay gap exists, which is what you did at the beginning of this conversation, shouldn’t you say to women, rather than being agreeable and not asking for a pay raise, go ask for a pay raise. Make yourself disagreeable with your boss.
Peterson: But I didn’t deny it existed, I denied that it existed because of gender. See, because I’m very, very, very careful with my words.
Newman: So the pay gap exists. You accept that. I mean the pay gap between men and women exists—but you’re saying it’s not because of gender, it’s because women are too agreeable to ask for pay raises.
Peterson: That’s one of the reasons.
Newman: Okay, so why not get them to ask for a pay raise? Wouldn’t that be fairer?
Peterson: I’ve done that many, many, many times in my career. So one of the things you do as a clinical psychologist is assertiveness training. So you might say––often you treat people for anxiety, you treat them for depression, and maybe the next most common category after that would be assertiveness training. So I’ve had many, many women, extraordinarily competent women, in my clinical and consulting practice, and we’ve put together strategies for their career development that involved continual pushing, competing, for higher wages. And often tripled their wages within a five-year period.
Newman: And you celebrate that?
Peterson: Of course! Of course!
Another passage on gender equality proceeded thusly:
Newman: Is gender equality a myth?
Peterson: I don’t know what you mean by the question. Men and women aren’t the same. And they won’t be the same. That doesn’t mean that they can’t be treated fairly.
Newman: Is gender equality desirable?
Peterson: If it means equality of outcome then it is almost certainly undesirable. That’s already been demonstrated in Scandinavia. Men and women won’t sort themselves into the same categories if you leave them to do it of their own accord. It’s 20 to 1 female nurses to male, something like that. And approximately the same male engineers to female engineers. That’s a consequence of the free choice of men and women in the societies that have gone farther than any other societies to make gender equality the purpose of the law. Those are ineradicable differences––you can eradicate them with tremendous social pressure, and tyranny, but if you leave men and women to make their own choices you will not get equal outcomes.
Newman: So you’re saying that anyone who believes in equality, whether you call them feminists or whatever you want to call them, should basically give up because it ain’t going to happen.
Peterson: Only if they’re aiming at equality of outcome.
Newman: So you’re saying give people equality of opportunity, that’s fine.
Peterson: It’s not only fine, it’s eminently desirable for everyone, for individuals as well as societies.
Newman: But still women aren’t going to make it. That’s what you’re really saying.
That is not “what he’s really saying”!
In this next passage Peterson shows more explicit frustration than at any other time in the program with being interviewed by someone who refuses to relay his actual beliefs:
Newman: So you don’t believe in equal pay.
Peterson: No, I’m not saying that at all.
Newman: Because a lot of people listening to you will say, are we going back to the dark ages?
Peterson: That’s because you’re not listening, you’re just projecting.
Newman: I’m listening very carefully, and I’m hearing you basically saying that women need to just accept that they’re never going to make it on equal terms—equal outcomes is how you defined it.
Peterson: No, I didn’t say that.
Newman: If I was a young woman watching that, I would go, well, I might as well go play with my Cindy dolls and give up trying to go school, because I’m not going to get the top job I want, because there’s someone sitting there saying, it’s not possible, it’s going to make you miserable.
Peterson: I said that equal outcomes aren’t desirable. That’s what I said. It’s a bad social goal. I didn’t say that women shouldn’t be striving for the top, or anything like that. Because I don’t believe that for a second.
Newman: Striving for the top, but you’re going to put all those hurdles in their way, as have been in their way for centuries. And that’s fine, you’re saying. That’s fine. The patriarchal system is just fine.
Peterson: No! I really think that’s silly! I do, I think that’s silly.
He thinks it is silly because he never said that “the patriarchal system is just fine” or that he planned to put lots of hurdles in the way of women, or that women shouldn’t strive for the top, or that they might as well drop out of school, because achieving their goals or happiness is simply not going to be possible.
The interviewer put all those words in his mouth.
The conversation moves on to other topics, but the pattern continues. Peterson makes a statement. And then the interviewer interjects, “So you’re saying …” and fills in the rest with something that is less defensible, or less carefully qualified, or more extreme, or just totally unrelated to his point. I think my favorite example comes when they begin to talk about lobsters. Here’s the excerpt:
Peterson: There’s this idea that hierarchical structures are a sociological construct of the Western patriarchy. And that is so untrue that it’s almost unbelievable. I use the lobster as an example: We diverged from lobsters evolutionarily history about 350 million years ago. And lobsters exist in hierarchies. They have a nervous system attuned to the hierarchy. And that nervous system runs on serotonin just like ours. The nervous system of the lobster and the human being is so similar that anti-depressants work on lobsters. And it’s part of my attempt to demonstrate that the idea of hierarchy has absolutely nothing to do with sociocultural construction, which it doesn’t.
Newman: Let me get this straight. You’re saying that we should organize our societies along the lines of the lobsters?
Yes, he proposes that we all live on the sea floor, save some, who shall go to the seafood tanks at restaurants. It’s laughable. But Peterson tries to keep plodding along.
Peterson: I’m saying it is inevitable that there will be continuities in the way that animals and human beings organize their structures. It’s absolutely inevitable, and there is one-third of a billion years of evolutionary history behind that … It’s a long time. You have a mechanism in your brain that runs on serotonin that’s similar to the lobster mechanism that tracks your status—and the higher your status, the better your emotions are regulated. So as your serotonin levels increase you feel more positive emotion and less negative emotion.
Newman: So you’re saying like the lobsters, we’re hard-wired as men and women to do certain things, to sort of run along tram lines, and there’s nothing we can do about it.
Where did she get that extreme “and there’s nothing we can do about it”? Peterson has already said that he’s a clinical psychologist who coaches people to change how they related to institutions and to one another within the constraints of human biology. Of course he believes that there is something that can be done about it.
He brought up the lobsters only in an attempt to argue that “one thing we can’t do is say that hierarchical organization is a consequence of the capitalist patriarchy.”
At this point, we’re near the end of the interview. And given all that preceded it, Newman’s response killed me. Again, she takes an accusatory tack with her guest:
Newman: Aren’t you just whipping people up into a state of anger?
Peterson: Not at all.
Newman: Divisions between men and women. You’re stirring things up.
Actually, one of the most important things this interview illustrates—one reason it is worth noting at length—is how Newman repeatedly poses as if she is holding a controversialist accountable, when in fact, for the duration of the interview, it is she that is “stirring things up” and “whipping people into a state of anger.”
At every turn, she is the one who takes her subject’s words and makes them seem more extreme, or more hostile to women, or more shocking in their implications than Peterson’s remarks themselves support. Almost all of the most inflammatory views that were aired in the interview are ascribed by Newman to Peterson, who then disputes that she has accurately characterized his words.
There are moments when Newman seems earnestly confused, and perhaps is. And yet, if it were merely confusion, would she consistently misinterpret him in the more scandalous, less politically correct, more umbrage-stoking direction?"
"Charitably, let’s say her misunderstanding of Jordan’s positions is willful and deliberate, although I rather think not. My experience with most feminists is that they think critical thought is the same as arguing in a high school debate class, where techniques like derailing and turning constitute a ‘win’, which feminists then misconstrue as ‘understanding’. The winning condition for a feminist is never to understand. It is to feel. Angry, avenged, justified, vindicated, outrageous, virtuous – whatever the feeling, that’s how feminists argue. This particular feminist seems oblivious to how patiently Peterson lets her hang herself. At one point she is so flummoxed, she doesn’t know what to feel, and is therefore speechless. “You’ve got me,” she says, almost giddy in Peterson’s power."
"As we close out 2017, let’s take some time to reflect on lessons learned over the past 12 months. In an act of no holds barred brutal honesty, this year completely obliterated the myth of the male feminist. Though these men claim to be champions of women’s rights, we’ve seen time and time again how they are nothing but wolves in sheep’s clothing.
In the last several months, Harvey Weinstein, Joss Whedon, Louis C.K., Matt Lauer and Charlie Rose have all fallen into this camp. In the case of writer Michael Hafford, who has been accused of physically assaulting four women, he went as far as authoring a column for Vice’s women-focused site, Broadly, in 2015 titled “Male Feminist Here,” parodying the deceitfulness of this very group of men. [Editor’s Note: Hafford is a former contributor to Playboy.com; the company was unaware of the allegations made against this individual during the brief time he contributed to the website.]
From an evolutionary perspective, the approach has been described by the late evolutionary biologist John Maynard Smith as the “sneaky fuckers” strategy, referring to the way in which subordinate males manage to accomplish mating with females—which they otherwise might not get to do—by taking advantage of instances in which dominant (and more appealing) males are preoccupied, fighting off intruders.
This has been observed across multiple species in the animal kingdom and in humans, it takes the form of feminist men.
These men know by rote all of the right things to say in order to gain a woman’s trust. They pride themselves on being sensitive, socially conscious “allies,” calling out “male privilege” and “problematic behavior” by the “patriarchy.” They will subvert any hint of their masculinity...
I’ve encountered a healthy number of male feminists in my day and they never fail to disappoint when it comes to posturing. Many proudly declare how much they admire “strong women” and will be sure to randomly insert inspirational yet irrelevant quotes into everyday conversation, like “Well-behaved women seldom make history,” or name Judith Butler as one of their favorite authors. (Yes, these men actually exist.) In doing so, they’re attempting to atone for the atrocious behavior of other men when really, they are engaging in their own special form of projection.
A research paper published in Motivation and Emotion earlier this year suggests that virtue-signaling—commonly seen in men apologizing for the behavior of other men—is a reflection of a person’s own moral failings. Voicing outrage at unethical behavior is a way for people to alleviate guilt, essentially through overcompensation...
When it comes to the hot topic of gender in particular, they know that
men and women are different, but they will proclaim otherwise, saying
nonsensical things like there are no differences between the sexes or
that differences are socially constructed, because doing so will win
them points and secure them sexual partners.
But pretending these
differences don’t exist only leads to a wider chasm between the sexes.
In a dating context, it hampers our ability to understand one another
and form any genuine or meaningful connection.
So, going back to the intersectional feminist dating checklist, I
guarantee any guy who touts the “right answer” to each of these bizarre,
social justice-related questions will reveal himself in time to be
hideously deceptive.
Thankfully, it seems women, including female
feminists, have become wary of these red flags. They even inspired their
own SNL skit last year, wherein a bunch of “male feminists” approach a
woman in a bar only to call her “bitch” when she rejects them.
Women deserve equality and to be treated no differently from men, and
there are plenty of decent men out there who agree with me. The
difference is these men don’t feel the need to run around waving a giant
banner notifying everyone of this (or wearing a pink pussy hat, the
national emblem of the Woman’s March on Washington in January).
To have
healthy and successful relationships, the solution isn’t mindlessly
telling women what they want to hear, nor setting impossible
expectations on men based on a biased worldview.
For those who have bought into the unfortunate narrative that women are
an oppressed class in need of special treatment in order to level the
playing field, I will say that helping and supporting women because they
are women is patronizing.
There is nothing a male feminist loves more
than educating women on how oppressed we really are."
Prior to President Trump’s inauguration, I predicted a coming story arc in three acts. Act one involved mass protests in the streets because Hillary Clinton’s campaign had successfully branded Trump as the next Hitler. Sure enough, we saw mass protests by anti-Trumpers who legitimately and honestly believed the country had just elected the next Hitler. I predicted that the Hitler phase would evaporate by summer for lack of supporting evidence. That happened.
I also predicted the anti-Trumpers would modify their attack from “Hitler” to “incompetent,” and that phase would last the summer. That happened too. The president’s critics called him incompetent and said the White House was in “chaos.” There were plenty of leaks, fake news, and even true stories to support that narrative, as I expected. Every anti-Trump news outlet, and even some that supported him started using “chaos” to describe the situation.
Now comes the fun part.
I predicted that the end of this three-part story would involve President Trump’s critics complaining that indeed he was “effective, but we don’t like it.” Or words to that effect. I based that prediction on the assumption he would get some big wins by the end of the year and it would no longer make sense to question his effectiveness, only his policy choices..."
