Monthly Archives: August 2009

Families Need a No Wireless Zone

“Technology is the Evil Empire, Bent On Destroying Family Intimacy!” That’s the headline I’d like to put on this post, but guns don’t shoot people – people shoot people – so technology is not destroying families. People are destroying their own families.

The technology I’m talking about is texting, video gaming, Facebook, email, Twitter, MySpace and more. Remember when the only complaint about lack of communication in families was when family members were all in separate rooms watching different television programs? Well, now, family members can all be in the same room, totally ignoring each other for the sake of fake friends and useless information, instead of for family conversations. Some family members even text each other from different parts of the same home, rather than walk the 15 feet, hug, and talk to each other.

I remember the not-so-recent TV ads that promoted a family eating dinner together. Now, if you showed an ad with a family at the dinner table, there’d have to be a sign nearby that said “No Wireless Zone.” I wonder what depth of interaction is being missed because one is getting superficial “quickies” from texting or emailing or Facebooking?  On the other hand, I already know that we’re less able to engage in reasoned, significant discourse and profound intimacies these days, because, from the age of 4 or 5, we’re geared toward the superficial, faceless exchange of comments on each other’s web pages.

Parents, you must get yourselves into gear and limit the amount of time per day donated to the wireless world outside of work. Otherwise, over time, there’ll be no need for lips and vocal cords and eye contact, and we’ll evolve into “thumbs only” beings who just peck away with a false sense of actually participating in the real world.

TUMS Ad Promotes Big Tummies

While I was having a healthy breakfast the other morning, I became incensed at a particular TV commercial for TUMS.  TUMS itself is a fine product for relieving excess stomach acid, but that’s NOT how the commercial was positioning the product.

A man, standing in the evening rain, is looking through the glass into a restaurant, gazing hungrily and sadly while the cook is frying up a bunch of meat and pouring cheese all over it.  The music accentuates the man’s painful disappointment.  The scene is a “take-off” on the situation where a starving child has his nose against the glass watching rich people dine, while his stomach has shrunken to the size of a raisin.

It was not very funny.

The next shot is of a TUMS bottle.  The shot after that is of the man who had been looking into the restaurant eating this ferociously unhealthy sandwich of meat fried in a ton of oil with artery-clogging cheese melted all over it.

Not very funny, either.

So, here is a product which is NOT being promoted as a rescue effort for someone struck with a little excess acid.  This product is now being promoted as an ENABLER of horrible eating habits (Hey!  Eat that rich, fattening food – because now we have a way to get you through it with minimal discomfort!)

Since two thirds of Americans (including children) are fat or obese, this is so irresponsible that I am ALMOST speechless.  Showing people they can indulge in unbelievably unhealthy eating with the help of TUMS sounds like something you would see in a comedy movie, but not in an actual promotion of a supposedly healthy product.

I liked it better when they were touting the amount of calcium in it for strong bones.

It’s not the fault of the TUMS tablets.  It’s the fault of the greedy folks behind it, who are willing to let people hurt themselves, if it sells a tablet.

Quote of the Week

Perhaps the greatest social service that can be rendered by anybody to the country and to mankind is to bring up a family
               – George Bernard Shaw
                  Irish playwright
                  1925 Nobel Prize for Literature
                  1856-1950

Women Gone Wild

Of the people who commented on a recent news story in which several so-called “mistresses” and a wife blindfolded and bound a man and then Krazy Glued his penis to his stomach, 68% of them LAUGHED.  They actually LAUGHED at this story.
They wouldn’t have laughed if it were the other way around, i.e., if several men glued a woman’s genitals closed. 

I am amazed that these women don’t think they did anything wrong in this attack!  I can immediately think of a whole bunch of things, including false imprisonment, assault, sexual assault – and that’s just for starters.

This is the story.  The married man from Wisconsin planned to rendezvous with one of his several lovers at a motel.  The four women (including his wife) planned to have one of them make that “date” so that then they could ambush him together.  One of the women told investigators that she met him online through Craigslist, fell in love (online), and paid for his use of a motel room for the past two months.  She, like the others, gave this man money.  So, let’s review:  these scummy women picked up a guy off the Internet, decided it was “love,” and paid for motel sex and gave him money!  And they were expecting what?  True romance, honesty, integrity and everlasting love??

I honestly can’t understand why they’re even angry.  They brought this on themselves, by acting like they were somewhere between sluts and purchasers of prostitution.   During this ugly episode, unbelievably, one of them asked him which woman he loved the most!  What does love have to do with any of this?  Another threatened to shoot him.

Apparently, his wife knew all about the honeys he had on the side, but instead of hitting the “eject” button, she decided to participate in this assault. 

Obviously, he’s a jerk.  But now, these women are all possible felons.

A Toy That’s TOO Anatomically Correct

I breast-fed my son, and promote breast-feeding for adult mothers, for both psychological and physiological reasons – it’s a great and wonderful thing for mother and child.  I do believe in being discreet, however, which gets some breast-feeding moms hot under the collar.  I guess they forget that breasts are “sexual” parts to men, and generally are considered appendages that should be private. 

So what’s the latest toy on the market for little girls (coming out in time for the holidays)?  A doll that comes with a special halter top for a little girl (the doll’s “mother”) to wear as she pretends to breast feed her “baby.”  The halter top has daisies that cover a little girl’s nipples, and come undone just as easily as the flaps of a real nursing bra do. 

Toys need to be age-appropriate, and toys which may speed up maternal urges at a time when children are not that mature, are just not appropriate at all.

Unbelievable Feminista Hogwash About Quality Husbands

A female professor from Oxford University in England, in an article published in the Journal of Population Economics, has decided that American and British men (who don’t mind lending a hand when it comes to housework), make the best husbands, while Australian men are the worst.  She’s also “decided” that Norway, Sweden, and Northern Ireland, where men “lend a hand in housework,” are egalitarian countries which produce better husbands.

I say:  unbelievable feminista hogwash!!  The professor’s definition of a good husband is ridiculous.  Men who are sexually faithful, who work hard to provide for and protect their families, who take care of the plumbing and the lawn are not good husbands, because they don’t do what used to be called “women’s work.”  This is just one more salvo in the war against masculinity, in which men are completely emasculated because they’re told that they’re neither good men nor good husbands unless they fold the laundry.

When women call me complaining about such things (usually women who are at home), I ask them if they drive their husband’s route in traffic every day, or if they deal with difficult bosses or co-workers, or if they aren’t able to take breaks whenever they choose or take care of all the car and house repair issues.  They say “no,” but expect him to do housework in addition to all his other responsibilities.

In those situations where both husband and wife have full-time jobs, and there’s a “war” about who’s going to take care of household chores, I say they should budget and pay for part-time housecleaning help, or one of them ought to reassess their life and decide if having no one at home to make a nest is worth the money they both make.

There are biological and psychological imperatives in females for nesting/child care, and in males for conquering/protecting.  When these are turned inside out, there is usually (but not always) a reaction in the female to feel less respectful and sexual toward her mate.  Women don’t stare at skinny guys with spectacles when they walk by, but they do stare at Bowflex-toned commercial male actors with huge pecs and biceps.  Why?  It’s the animal attraction of a male who, potentially, is sexually healthy enough to produce offspring and then provide and protect.

Women who want emasculated men generally have huge hostility issues with masculinity (which they got from their mothers or the feminist teachers of their women’s studies courses), and want to be able to control the man (never as much as their mother could) or are just too scared of their normal natural dependency on a real man.

A better study would be to find out what household situations make MEN happiest, because those are the ones which, overall, are going to attract the men who make the best husbands.  Happy husbands spend more time with their families, and would swim through shark-infested waters for them.  This particular study?   Just another piece of feminist propaganda flotsam.