Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Married Americans Are More Unhappy Than Ever

And why would that be?  An obvious culprit would be feminism and the gradual breakdown of traditional sex roles.  We have evolved to be sexual specialists. At it simplest men did the hunting and women looked after the babies.  And evolution is slow to change.  We are still born with those old cavemen specialisms.  That is who we are and how we feel. 

That all that specialization has become of little importance to survival in the last half century will have had no impact on our genetic propensities whatever.  We will still be most comfortable in traditional roles.  But women in particular have had ferociously preached at them that such roles are now WRONG.

And that can only result in discomfort and dissatisfaction for all concerned. Expectations will continuously be at odds with natural inclinations. Human beings are very flexible so some degree of accommodation to modern reality is possible but all flexibility has its limits

It’s logical, isn’t it? People who choose to stay married should be happier in their relationships. After all, it’s easier than ever to exit a miserable union, people tend to wait longer before making the jump and many just don’t get married at all.

Despite that, the number of Americans who say they’re “very happy” in their marriages has fallen from 68 percent in the early 1970s to 60 percent.

There are four types of people who tend to be happiest with the quality of their marriage: those who spend more time at religious centers, people with extreme political views (skewing to either spectrum), those who describe themselves as upper class—and men.


Look at this sexist male jerk!!!

Man Who Covered Woman in Iconic Las Vegas Shooting Image is an Active Duty U.S. Army Soldier

The images from the mass-shooting at the Route 91 Harvest Festival are hard to ignore. While some show the horror of the event, many others captured the heroism. While those images were going viral, the stories behind them have been harder to uncover. This is the story of one of one of those images.

The man seen here has been identified as a young US Army soldier.  The Daily Mail writes “Matthew Cobos was photographed on Sunday night lying on top of a young woman in an attempt to shield her from the barrage of bullets tearing through the air around them.”

Cobos and the woman appear to be in the middle of the concert arena, very much isolated, as those around them are fleeing.

“Cobos, who is a US Army soldier, eventually dragged the young woman to safety before bravely going back into the danger zone to help the injured,” the Mail writes.

The woman has not been identified. Many who have seen the image are struck by Cobos’s hand on the woman’s face. The gesture looks oddly intimate in a moment of terror. Cobos reportedly tried to cover the woman’s eyes to keep her from seeing what was happening around her and to protect her face.

Moments later, the shooting paused, and Cobos led the woman to safety behind a car. He then went back in to help others. Cobos is one of the ones credited with improvising tourniquets and even plugging bullet holes with his fingers.

After the concert, Cobos returned to California. He is reportedly stationed in Hawaii where he is a cavalry scout.

The relationship of Cobos to the woman he was pictured with remains unclear. It is believed that she made it through the shooting.


Passengers Panic, Run onto Tracks after Man Begins Reciting Bible Verses on Train

Borrowing from Charles Dickens, this article could be titled "The Tale of Two Stories." By that, I mean that the story I'm about to relate prompts two contradictory responses in me: embarrassment and embarrassment. I'll explain how those two emotional responses, while appearing to be the same, are contradictory in a moment. But, first, the story:

On Monday of this week, a street preacher boarded a London commuter train and began preaching. Reading passages from the Old Testament, he warned his fellow commuters of God's coming judgment. He also held out the hope of salvation, saying at one point: "Death is not the end."

An eyewitness told The Guardian, "He was quite well spoken and calm. He said: ‘Ladies and gentlemen, I’d like to talk to you about something and that something is the word of the Lord, Jesus Christ. He’s here to heal your sins. The Bible tells you that homosexuality is a sin and sex before marriage is a sin. You need to repent.'"

According to reports, "Passengers forced open the doors on a busy rush-hour train and climbed on to tracks after becoming 'panicked' in the carriage."

(One wonders if the people of Nineveh reacted in a similar fashion when Jonah showed up preaching about God's coming wrath. Actually, scratch that, one doesn't wonder because the Bible records that the Ninevites repented of their sins and turned to God when a street preacher showed up in their town. Unlike Londoners, the ancient people of Nineveh were made of sterner and, more importantly, humbler stuff. I must add, however, there is little comparison between this London street/subway preacher and Jonah.)

Jesus told his followers to expect persecution. The Apostle Paul wrote that unbelievers would find the preaching of Christ crucified foolishness. Those truths do not justify Christians purposefully looking for extreme responses from unbelievers.

Best-case scenario, this presumably well-meaning preacher chose a poor time and place to deliver his message. Worst-case scenario, this preacher is a self-promoter simply looking for a reaction. Regardless, his actions are a cause of embarrassment for Christians.

If you've ever traveled via public transportation, you know that the main objective, apart from arriving at your destination quickly, is to avoid the crazies. All public transportation systems have crazies. When someone stands up and begins speaking loudly to everyone, the natural assumption is that the person is crazy; best not to make eye contact.

There is a time and a place to deliver the gospel message of Jesus Christ. A train compartment is probably not that place. No matter how well-meaning, this street preacher brought unnecessary embarrassment to the cause of Christ.

However ...

Come on, Londoners!

From the reports, the street preacher repeated boilerplate sermon points. Any level of Biblical literacy would've caused the commuters to simply ignore the preacher. They would've recognized that he was simply offering the salvation found in faith in Jesus Christ. Becoming "panicked" and climbing out of the train is embarrassing.

The fact that a street preacher snarled an early morning commute speaks to how far England has drifted from its moorings as the nation that produced men like William Wilberforce, David Livingstone, and Charles Spurgeon. The panic on that train reveals that England has become a spiritual wasteland. A little higher level of Biblical literacy on the part of the passengers would've prevented the panic.

Maybe, by God's grace, the inopportune sermon will prompt reflection on the part of the train riders who panicked. Likewise, maybe, by God's grace, the street preacher will find a better outlet than a commuter train for his gospel zeal.

In summation, I'm conflicted. The street preacher's actions are embarrassing. The commuters' reactions to the street preacher's actions are also embarrassing. On the flip side, depending on which perspective I enter, I want to root for both parties. A tale of two stories.


When making a sandwich is a crime against feminism

Miranda Devine reports on some horrible feminists who clearly don't love their husbands and can't imagine doing so.  They must be in some sort of trading relationship only

WHEN young Sydney mother Maddie asked her closed Facebook group of 26,186 mothers for some tasty alternatives to sandwiches for her husband’s lunches, she wasn’t expecting the backlash.

“I would love to hear what other mums make their hubbies for lunch and snacks throughout the work day,” she posted on Tuesday. “We are getting over sandwiches.”

You would think she’d asked for a hemlock recipe, judging by the torrent of scolding which erupted.

She was nothing but a “slave” and a “1950s housewife”.

She was “weird” and no one in their right mind or a “pink fit” would do something so demeaning as make their husband lunch. Let alone snacks.

“Your husband is a grown up and you’re not his mother”, wrote one member of the North Shore Mums Facebook group.

“My husband can make his own damn lunch.”

“I make my husband the same thing he makes me. Nothing!!”

“Stuff that, hubby is a grown man. I already do his laundry and keep his children alive.”

“Our advice is to stop making his lunches.”

“My role is childcare during working hours and that’s it.”

“He’s lucky if I decide to make dinner some nights”.

“I was married for twenty years and my favourite packed lunch for my husband was called a Get it Yourself with a side order of I’m not your mother.”

“Nope, I didn’t sign up for that at the altar. But in the spirit of being helpful… pickled onion stuffed in mandarins.”

Leader of the attack pack was Polly Dunning, daughter of professional feminist Jane Caro, and mother of a toddler about whom she infamously wrote last year, recounting her horror at finding out she was pregnant with a boy: “I felt sick at the thought of something male growing inside me.”
Polly Dunning was not impressed when a woman requested ideas of things to pack her husband for lunch. (Pic: News Corp)

Dunning told Maddie: “You should pack him nothing for lunch. And you didn’t really ask for advice, you asked what other ‘mums’ pack their ‘hubbies’ (which, to me, is slightly weird phrasing, but whatever).”

Game on.

Amid the cute pics of babies and birthday cakes, a toxic wave of man-hating feminism is seeping into the world of mothers online.

Where unhappy wives used to confine their bitching about husbands to a handful of girlfriends at Mosman cafes, a new generation of women is oversharing with vast networks of strangers.

On Wednesday, Maddie, 22, switched off comments, but not before page administrators deleted the nastiest.

“I’m actually so devastated about some of these comments,” wrote Maddie.

She and her husband are saving up to buy their first home and, “he works in an extremely physically demanding job, he does housework, he cooks dinner every second night... He gets up in the middle of the night with our Bub. He is a champion.

“The least I can do is make him a bloody sandwich. I love my man, he deserves to eat lunch and we can’t afford to eat out.”

Dunning responded a few hours later: “We are not, any of us, just mums. Mum is one of the many roles we have as women and a role that certainly does not include doing anything for our partners because we’re not his (or her) mother. Just struck me as weird to put making a husband’s lunch with the role of Mum.”
Why can’t it just be considered nice that a woman wants to make her partner a meal?

How did making a sandwich become a crime against women? Thankfully, for everything bad about social media there is an antidote, and an army of mums sprang to Maddie’s defence.

“Is it really a massive issue if Maddie wants to make her husband lunch?!?”

“Wow, so much hostility here... Surely nice actions like these get reciprocated in happy marriages.”

“Good on you! My husband is a builder, and his job is so physical, and he is so hands on at home! It’s the least I can do.”

“I never know why these posts always turn into a husband bashing.”

“I think it’s pretty crappy to assume someone is a slave or 1950s housewife for making lunch. Feminism is about choice.”

“All I can say is some women really must resent their husbands by their responses. Looking after your partner is the way to a happy marriage.”

“I’m so confused by the negativity on this post. I love making my hubby lunch… He does so much for us as a family and for my girls I see nothing wrong with wanting to look after your husband!!”

“If I can help in some small part to make his day easier, I will. His hours are ridiculous and if me doing this means he gets to hang out with our son more I am all for it!”

“He does so much for me and the kids. Making two sandwiches a day doesn’t put us in the dark ages.”

“Marriage is a partnership. If only more think like that there will be a lot less divorces in this world.”

This is the truth Baby Boomer feminists refuse to admit.

Consideration and give and take is the secret to a happy marriage, not treating the father of your children like an agent of the enemy patriarchy.

It’s time to end the war of the sexes, even if it means making the odd sandwich.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: