Maggie's Farm

A quote from this excellent piece about men, which was linked earlier by our NJ and thus doesn't count as a new post during Maggie's vacation break:

As long as men feel marginalised by the women whose favours and approval they seek; as long as they are alienated from their children and treated as criminals by family courts; as long as they are disrespected by a culture that no longer values masculinity tied to honour; and as long as boys are bereft of strong fathers and our young men and women wage sexual war, then we risk cultural suicide.

In the coming years we will need men who are not confused about their responsibilities. We need boys who have acquired the virtues of honour, courage, valour and loyalty. We need women willing to let men be men – and boys be boys. And we need young men and women who will commit and marry and raise children in stable homes.

Unprogressive though it sounds, the world in which we live requires no less.

Saving the males – engaging their nobility and recognising their unique strengths – will ultimately benefit women and children, too. Fewer will live in poverty; fewer boys will fail in schools and wind up in jail; fewer girls will get pregnant or suffer emotional damage from too early sex with uncaring boys. Fewer young men and women will suffer loneliness and loss because they’ve grown up in a climate of sexual hostility that casts the opposite sex as either villain or victim.

Photo: A real man. Atticus Finch.

The "Root Cause" Scam

Norm Geras from Normblog is doing some deep thinking:

The root-causers always plead a desire merely to expand our understanding, but they're very selective in what they want to "understand".

If causes and explanation are indeed a serious enterprise and not merely a convenient partisan game, then it needs to be recognised that causality is one thing and moral responsibility another, though the two are related.

and:

Ever on the lookout for damning causes, the root-causers never go for the most obvious of these. This is the cause, indeed, which shows, by its absence, why most critics of the Iraq war or of anything else don't murder people when they are angry. It is the fanatical, fundamentalist belief system which teaches hatred and justifies these acts of murder. That cause somehow gets a free pass from the hunters-out of causes.

My only disagreement with the article is that it seems to assume that the terrorism apologists are sincere in their positions and postures - which I feel is naive. Thus Norm's great analysis will have no impact on any of the hard Left, reflexively anti-Western readers of the Guardian (in which the piece appears).

After all, what is the "root cause" of the anti-Western reflex of the Left? Whatever it is, it isn't ignorance (except in the young). Intellectual integrity - and even integrity - mean nothing if you can convince yourself that your mission is to save the world via Lefto-Fascism - or just to try to promote yourself! You rise above such bourgeois hang-ups. Just like the Jihadists...hmmmm. Read the entire - link above. And read my piece on related subject on Maggies last week.

"American culture's overemphasis on happiness misses an essential part of a full life." Chronicle. A quote:

A recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center shows that almost 85 percent of Americans believe that they are very happy or at least pretty happy. The psychological world is now abuzz with a new field, positive psychology, devoted to finding ways to enhance happiness through pleasure, engagement, and meaning. Psychologists practicing this brand of therapy are leaders in a novel science, the science of happiness. Mainstream publishers are learning from the self-help industry and printing thousands of books on how to be happy. Doctors offer a wide array of drugs that might eradicate depression forever. It seems truly an age of almost perfect contentment, a brave new world of persistent good fortune, joy without trouble, felicity with no penalty.

Smileyface is an abomination. Up here in Yankeeland, a smiling face means that you are probably a car salesman. Keep your inner emotions to yourself.

In the aftermath of the Edwards scandal, I was considering writing a bit about male sexuality, about how it is part of male biology to desire to spread their seed far and wide, into every pretty thing they see. To win, to possess, and to enjoy. 

That drive is just one more thing that makes life difficult for men: these temptations are extremely difficult to resist.

Much stronger issue for guys than for gals - but the desire is not absent in gals either. But that is not exactly new information. Nor is it new information that couples  make attachment committments to each other for rational as well as emotional  reasons, or that humans have religion-guided consciences that elevate them a little bit above monkeys.

Having realized I had nothing new to add to the subject, I'll just post this quote from Ben Stein:

I am sorry that John Edwards had an affair with a campaign worker. But I am not surprised. Men like to have affairs. Men like to have sex with new women. That's just how men are and always have been.

I am not surprised that a major Presidential candidate and former V.P. nominee of a major party had an affair. Politicians are men and they have all of the yearnings and drives that other men have. They do not check their flaws and essential elements at the Capitol cloakroom.

Editor: Since we are exposing today the earth-shattering fact that men are powerfully attracted to charming and seductive females, I thought that Theo image might help drive the point home.

A quote from Ledeen on War and Democracy at Pajamas, and man's endless capacity for evil:

The American Founders knew it: recognizing man’s innate capacity for evil, they designed a system of checks and balances to thwart the accumulation of power by any group, lest the entire enterprise fall into wicked hands.  They knew the battle for liberty would never end, Benjamin Franklin famously warned we would have to fight to keep our republic.

All of this wisdom has been dangerously undermined by the foolish notion that man is basically good, that all men are basically the same,  and that all we need do is to permit history to take its preordained course.  Are these not the tenets of contemporary education?  Are our children not forbidden to criticize “others,” whether of different pigmentation or religion?  Has debate on our university campuses not turned into the moral equivalent of the Inquisition?  And it rests on the sands of a demonstrably false vision of man.  We are not naturally inclined to do good.  Quite the contrary... 

Well, I might quibble with that. Mankind is naturally inclined to do both good and evil, but it is surely naive to expect morality in power politics.

Yet one more manufactured, over-hyped  crisis is being debunked.

Nowadays you can define anything you want as pathological. And this whole new fashionable category of "at risk" silliness expands things to include everybody.

For example, at middle-age I am "at risk" for obesity. Not wanting to be fat, I decided not eat carbs and I do a tough daily workout. It's not too complicated.

Prosperous nations have lots of fat people. More of them than poor nations, although poor nations have plenty of them too. The reason is that humans have a weakness for carbs. Thus being trim and fit is a sign of self-control, but being heavy is a time-honored sign of prosperity.

If you want to see fat people, go to Disneyworld and get grossed out. There are Americans there so fat that they have to ride around in motorized chairs, like King Kamehameha. God bless 'em. The world needs more fatties, in my opinion. It means people have plenty to eat, but I don't like to have to look at them. To be evenhanded, however, I find anorectics even more disturbing.

I happen to feel that excess fat in women is unattractive, slovenly, and unsexy. Somewhat less so in men: some stout men are cool, like Teddy Roosevelt was. Anyway, we have been subject to much brouhaha about obesity in recent years. Big health crisis, etc.

You have surely read the news that being overweight is not such a big deal, from a medical standpoint. Even the WSJ covered the story, amusingly. Obesity - and that means much more than ordinary fatness and pudginess - is often quite benign.

And being overweight is fine, from a health standpoint.

Just like the the AGW fad and all such fads that governments are suckered into, there is fat money to be made from the obesity silliness. Follow the money: you know that somebody always wants some of yours. Careers. Respect. Pensions. Fat City.

Fact is, when I was an intern in NYC, I saw plenty of skinny, athletic guys in their 40s come into the ER and crap out with massive heart attacks. Also, skinny guys with insulin resistance. The reasons to be relatively thin are to be fully functional - and aesthetic. If an American lady wishes a decent sex life, it behooves her to be trim. Not so in some countries, however, where they prefer us gals Biggie-Sized.

Here's a good food story, from the Englishman:

His typical breakfast order from Pete's Grille in Baltimore, Maryland:

Start with three [white bread] sandwiches of fried eggs, cheese, lettuce, tomato, fried onions, and mayonnaise; add one omelet, a bowl of grits, and three slices of French toast with powdered sugar; then wash down with three chocolate chip pancakes.

According to his autobiography, growing up, lunch also consisted of 1 pound of pasta, 2 large ham and cheese sandwiches with mayo and 1,000 calories of energy drinks. Dinner’s another pound of pasta and a whole pizza and 1,000 calories more in energy drinks. No food hang-ups with him. He gets it. Food is fuel, not endowed with magical or evil effects.

What a fat slob he must be, bet he can barely get up from the sofa to get to the fridge, something ought to be done to prevent our youths ending up like him...

Let's all be relaxed and tolerant: being fat is a "life-style" choice. Let them eat cake.

Addendum: At Pajamas, Fast food restrictions fatten government

It's the time of year when you send kids on the coast of New England out to the salt marshes and mudflats to dig Steamers, which are the most delicious seafood in the world. AKA Soft-Shelled Clams.

Digging for Steamers takes a bit of skill and gentle use of the right tool (a clam rake or, better yet, a clam fork), because you don't want to crack their fragile shells. And you have to know where to look, because they cluster. The fun part is getting covered with black marsh mud.

You steam up a giant pot of them, just long enough for them to cook but not so long that they get tough or fall apart. Then you pour everybody a mug of the broth from the pot. Essence of the sea and the marshes. And you give everybody a bowl of melted butter. I prefer them without the butter so you get the pure clammy flavor. You pull them out of the shell using their long necks as a handle, and I toss the necks to the gulls.

These in the photo below are not Steamers. These are Littleneck Clams, which should never, ever be cooked for any reason - which they have been in the photo. It's a disgrace.  Cooking them turns them into clam-flavored chewing gum. They should only be slurped down fresh and alive:

These are Steamers. These precious critters are only eaten steamed, and I am convinced that God made them for that purpose:

Here's an answer. Are men's nipples "sensitive"? Yes they are. Gals take note, for when in a playful mood.

There's a book with that title too: Why Do Men Have Nipples? Hundreds of Questions You'd Only Ask a Doctor After Your Third Martini

This is a re-post from 2006 -

What? Me worry? - Alfred E. Newman

The pursuit of happiness is a most ridiculous phrase; if you pursue happiness you'll never find it. - C.P. Snow

Last week, Yahoo News reported this from Britain:

LONDON (AFP) - Some 2,000 pupils at English state schools are to have special classes in happiness under a pilot scheme aimed at cutting depression, self-harm and anti-social behaviour.

"Schoolchildren will take self-esteem classes to raise standards and cut crime," according to the Independent on Sunday newspaper.

"Lessons in happiness are to be introduced for 11-year-olds in state schools to combat a huge rise in depression, self-harm and anti-social behaviour among young people.

"Special behavioural techniques imported from the US will be used from September next year in an attempt to make children more resilient in the face of the pressures of 21st century living."

Gee - d'ya think 21st Century living is tougher than 20th Century living, or 19th, or 18th, or 8th? Please! Life has never been "easier" or "better" in human history, which is why we can waste time and money on such frivolous and immature subjects.

We have posted on the subject of happiness in the past, in Happiness Traps, and The Economists Take on Happiness. It's a subject I dislike writing about, because it is an undefinable word except as a passing emotion: it is much easier to talk about kinds of unhappiness. However defined, though, there is one thing I know for certain and that is that Happiness cannot be taught in school. It is interesting, however, that Britain has become so secular, and so relatively materially comfortable, that they would even consider that happiness might be something that a government could provide along with all of its other wonderful and efficient "services". It sounds like Kim Sung Il. Which reminds me, we ought to do a summertime re-post of our Valentine's Day Manifesto for the amusement of new readers.

In my opinion, self-respect is more valuable than self-esteem; accomplishment and satisfaction are more important than pleasurable ease; the pursuit of happiness is a scam; giving and receiving love, affection and friendship are the finest and only enduring things in life, and Government cannot replace God or defeat human nature.

Even shrinks will deny that they offer happiness as a product. Freud spoke for all of us that psychiatry can, at the best, offer the hope of replacing neurotic (eg abnormal) unhappiness with normal unhappiness. "Life is difficult," as Scott Peck pointedly begins his wonderful and inspiring The Road Less Traveled. There is no way out of that, other than temporary escapist joys like vacations, a tennis game, a book, or a couple of nice glasses of wine. Well, a tennis game can put you through some heavy stuff, I guess: I am halfway through Ian McEwan's Saturday,  which is a sort-of Day in the Life, and the squash game chapter is a minor masterpiece in itself.

Pleasure is easy to pursue - it's like falling off a log. Heroin, I am told, provides excellent self-esteem, well-being, serenity, and happiness, and it is far cheaper, effortless, and far more effective than shrinks, or any other path.

Anyway, some clever Music Man salesman sold the Brits on this thing. My guess is that the kids will take it about as seriously as they take Sex Ed, so they will not be harmed by involuntary government intrusions into their psyches. Hey, teacher - leave us kids alone.

I realize that this is classic blog rambling...I will try to come back to it when I have a little time.

Our Editor forwarded me this 1992 paper by Tooby and Cosmides, The Psychological Foundations of Culture, (here in pdf, without the typos), which he found at Overcoming Bias. I wish I had known about this paper years ago.

It's a dense and scholarly critique of what is known as "The Standard Social Sciences Model." The authors argued that this dominant model is obsolete and failing, resulting in a reactionary anti-scientific movement in the social sciences.

I found it particularly interesting that the authors suggest that the clinging to an obsolete model has more to do with emotion than logic - a "fear of falling off the world." Similarly, they indicate that social scientists are emotionally attached to their blank-slate, meliorative views of human nature (there is no "human nature" - environment is everything, and thus people, culture, and society can be perfected - by them, natch). Their desire to hold on to that illusion causes them to resist many sorts of new information which conflict with their ideas. That is very human, but it ain't science.

Indeed, what goes on in the social sciences would make for a fascinating sociological study.

What's the difference between wholesome obsessions, distractions, avoidances and diversions - and unhealthy ones? (I am not speaking clinically about obsessions and compulsions here, but just in the layman's sense of the words.)

The difference is in the purpose, not so much in the thing itself. The most common ones we all see in daily life are:

- TV, radio, and listening to music
- Shopping
- Reading
- Surfing the net
- Sports, exercise
- Sleeping and napping
- Socializing
- Hobbies
- Sex and erotic activities
- Computer games
- Drinking and drugs
- Work, chores, and projects of all sorts
- Mental preoccupations of all sorts

That covers most of life, doesn't it? Trust me - I am all in favor of fun and productivity. Not one of these things is necessarily unwholesome - except when they are used as avoidance of something or things. That usually - but not always - means when they are not done in moderation and in proportion.

Why do so many of us have our best thoughts and insights in the shower? Because we aren't doing any of those things in the shower...generally speaking.

Only the mentally strongest people - and I do not include myself in that category - routinely face their anxieties, worries and fears; routinely deal with every responsibility or burden immediately, or routinely face their relationships or the realities of themselves: their weaknesses, their guilts, their unsettling thoughts and feelings, their disappointments and sadnesses, regrets and remorse, boredom, loneliness, or empty feelings - or just "being with oneself."

There is an expression in AA: "Move a muscle, change a thought." It's good advice if one is avoiding a dangerous thought but it's bad life advice if one is avoiding thoughts that need to be considered and faced and maybe even acted upon.

If I decide on a Saturday nap after two hours of tennis in 90 degrees, fine. But if I decide on a nap (maybe without realizing it) because I am worried about paying the bills, not so fine.

Having kids is a great diversion and distraction. For years, it will fill your life with preoccupations and duties which have the advantage of being truly responsible and loving. But when they get older, you face yourself again.

Therefore, whenever I find myself immersing myself in something, I try to remember to ask myself why. That's not obsessive navel-gazing, it's just common sensical self-monitoring. "Metacognitive," as they say.