The Friendzone is a Sexist Myth

A friend of mine linked me to this blog entry and having known beautiful women who were great friends and I did not feel like I had to have sex with them to be with them at all, I am quite happy to have the word “friendzone” tossed out of the English language.

Feminists-at-Large

by Erin Riordan

The Friendzone isn’t real. The idea that every “Nice Guy” is owed sex or a romantic relationship by his female friends is ridiculous. And if you think that’s not what Friendzoning is about, it absolutely is.

The movie Just Friends perhaps explains friendzoning best with the line, “See when a girl decides that you’re her friend, you’re no longer a dating option. You become this complete non-sexual entity in her eyes, like her brother, or a lamp.”

Or Urban Dictionary with, “When you are expected to support a girl you really like while she searches for a smarter, richer, or more handsome boyfriend. There is little you can do to get out without feeling like a dick. All in all, one of the meanest things girls do, whether they mean it or not.”

To some degree, the assumption of every guy claiming to be “friendzoned” is that…

View original post 1,019 more words

Muslim-bashing and Libel Against Ex-Baha’is in Reddit

This is a direct sequel to Treachery of Baha’is @ reddit

Baha’is in reddit have come up with a new tactic for attacking those who dare to leave and then criticize their former religion; they are claiming most ex-Baha’is are just Muslim enemies of the faith who never joined.

First see this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/bahai/comments/8vd7rj/do_bahais_worship_bahaullah/

At one point, a Baha’i named t0lk asserts:

A word of caution about r/exbahai, it is mostly populated by Muslims and not by people who were formerly Baha’is.

This was noticed and commented on here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/exbahai/comments/8vhhiq/a_word_of_caution_about_rexbahai_it_is_mostly/

Continue reading

“Good Guy” vs. “Strong Guy” Dichotomy

In my younger days, I was often rejected by girls and young women even though I tried to be as loving towards them as possible. I assumed that it might have been because they thought I was ugly or weak. But the real issue seems to be something I often see in politics too.

Women naturally want men that are strong to protect them and their children, and our culture seems to depict men that have a strong sense of empathy and compassion for others to be “weak”, therefore such men are not considered as suitable for a domestic partnership as men that are highly aggressive towards others.

Likewise, people generally want a leader that is highly aggressive for the same reason. That explains why George McGovern lost so badly to Richard Nixon in 1972 despite having a much better character and this was repeated with Jimmy Carter losing to Ronald Reagan in 1980, and Donald Trump winning his election in 2016.

But what people often fail to consider is that the same aggressive attitude that makes a man look strong can be twisted to hurt or abandon the very ones the man is supposed to be protecting, including his love partner and their children. By contrast, a loving, empathic man can encourage a woman to stand up for herself rather than just let a man fight for her. And he would not leave her as long as she loved him just as deeply.

I have known several cases of women who used to see me as just a friend who after being abused and/or neglected by the men in their life, later took another look at me and decided I would have been the better partner for them after all. And I would consider it an honor to help care for them.

Likewise, I am hopeful that the American people will stop being seduced by the mere appearance of strength and seek in future Presidents the most powerful character trait anyone can have: LOVE! Its being seen as weakness is sheer ignorance. Have you ever seen a mother bear fight to protect her cubs?

The Issue of Alimony

As a firm believer in the equality of men and women, I see no justification for alimony being paid to a wife as part of a divorce settlement. Child support, certainly, but NOT money to the wife herself, unless and until she is disabled and completely unable to work to support herself.

Read this:

http://start.att.net/news/read/article/people-john_schneider_sentenced_to_jail_after_failing_to-rtime/category/entertainment

John Schneider Sentenced to Jail After Failing to Pay Alimony to Estranged Wife: Report

Dukes of Hazzard star John Schneider has reportedly been sentenced to jail for not paying over $150,000 in delinquent alimony.

John, 58, was sentenced to three days in the Los Angeles County Jail on Monday, according to TMZ, for not paying the spousal support due to his estranged wife, Elvira “Elly” Schneider, by mid-March.

In addition to jail time, John, who famously played Bo Duke on The Dukes of Hazzard (1979-85), will also have to complete 240 hours of community service.

A rep for Schneider did not respond to PEOPLE’s request for comment.

In February, the outlet reported that a judge gave him until March 14 to pay more than $150,000 in support to Elvira. At the time, the judge reportedly ordered John to transfer his Apple Valley property to Elvira and to resolve the property’s tax liens. TMZ reported that he did not resolve the tax liens.

Elvira filed for divorce in Los Angeles county on Nov. 14, 2014, after 21 years of marriage. She cited irreconcilable differences as the reason for their split, according to court documents.

In September 2016, he was ordered to pay Elvira $18,911 every month, TMZ reported.

The couple have three adult children: Leah, Chasen, and Karis.

This REALLY bothers me because I myself went through a divorce from my wife Cheri in 2012, and she was mentally and physically disabled, but I was not required to pay her alimony, because she still was able to work a job. Indeed the issue was not even brought up. But that was in Texas; I suspect the divorce laws are much more backward and corrupt in California.

People in California, and any other state that has this sort of absurdity, need to push for abolition of alimony in divorces. It is a relic from the time when women were either not working at all or could only hold jobs that paid far less than men. That’s not an issue now.

Israel Commits Another War Crime

Can you think of any justification for military snipers to shoot down an unarmed MEDIC trying to treat injured people in the open? That is an incredibly cowardly thing to do. And that is what a soldier of Israel has just done!

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/03/middleeast/razan-al-najjar-gaza-nurse-killed/index.html

‘Her only weapon was her medical vest’: Palestinians mourn death of nurse killed by Israeli forces

Israel is not worth defending if this is what it is willing to do. There is nothing to investigate; the killing of a unarmed person is itself an act of cold-blooded MURDER and must be avenged.

This was Razan Al Najjar and she was 21 years old.

Another Compelling Statement of Economic Truth

One of the biggest outright lies politicians have ever told their people was told by Republicans under the Reagan Administration in the 1980s, that cutting taxes would enable the rich to invest more and result in a stronger and more active economy. But that is not realistic. Ironically, conservatives want to cut welfare programs because poor people getting money from the government is supposed to make them lazy……so why would allowing the rich to keep more money due to lower taxation make them invest more? The opposite should be expected, because the whole point of investing is to make more money and they don’t need to so much if their taxes are lessened! And despite those repeated tax cuts, we keep having recessions repeatedly too.
Just as a poor person working even while getting welfare would be considered GREED, so would the rich investing more after getting a tax cut! And we should condemn both.

Image may contain: text