I almost feel like that we are part of a small group of bloggers...except that we're the only ones not making money. I see others refer to each other, but no one refers to us. So either our ideas aren't exactly that compatible, they are all women and it is unintentional sexism (they never write about sports or refer to Bill Simmons)... I vote we nominate Royce as our marketing director.
actually i'm on to something there...just kind of thinking out loud...there are two types of blogs
female: Nicole Antionette, Caitlin McCabe, Penelope Trunk, "It's Like I'm Magic", Grace Boyle, Vibrations of a Vixen, Toy With Me (I forget how I found those last two, but they are an interesting take on sex from a female's perspective...quick thought on that below), modite by Rebecca Thorman [and those i don't personally visit like TMZ and perez hilton)
and the male side: Barstool sports, with leather, deadspin, 11 points, Football Outsiders, givemetherock, wages of wins, freakonomics
rocket shoes is written by a guy, but fits in the female category
and I have no idea where we would fit in compared to any of that
as for my take on female sexuality, which isn't exactly groundbreaking...a female's father plays the biggest role in how a female grows up and approaches sex, and it's hard to say which way men would prefer. Females with good fathers will not be promiscuous and in fact will be more of a prude and will have difficulty having an orgasm, which makes sex more of an intimacy thing than a pleasure thing, BUT they are stable, confident women who have no problem attracting men and maintaining long term relationships. Females with poor or no father figures, will grow up liking sex with lots of different guys and will be crazy and unstable. They are more likely to work out like crazy and use their looks to attract men, but unable to maintain a long term relationship and not understand why.
This last paragraph did not just come about due to me becoming a father, but because i'm having a weird brainstorming day with ideas all over the place. reading penelope trunk and thinking about the Wisconsin protests and how i agree that unions are antiquated and how it fits in with globalization and The World is Flat and the Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother and how teachers unions (or at least tenure) should be disbanded, BUT more money should be spent on education, because math and science and engineering and coding is how America will remain competitive in the next couple decades. Unions don't work right now because the US is competing with every other nation in the world and making employee costs more expensive for businesses may save a worker's job in Wisconsin, but is more likely to have an entire work force eliminated in favor of a foreign work force that can provide better work and cost less. And as long as we have different competing economies, the US needs to focus on competing with them and getting rid of our sense of entitlement and if workers want to insist on entitlement and benefits, then they will not have a job at all, or might drag down the US economy or at least bring us down to second or third.
Wow, Aaron, that was the most amazing post I've ever read. You were ALL OVER THE MAP, boy! Appointing Royce Marketing Director one minute, opining on the female orgasm as it relates to the woman's father figure the next, and then BOOM out of nowhere comes Wisconsin and your fatwa against unions! I'm not even mad...that was amazing.
ReplyDeleteThoughts:
-- I love that Royce is the de facto Marketing Director because he might best be able to connect us to female blogs and their (ostensibly) female readership. There's a reason we named it the Roycie...
-- Re: female orgasms and father figures. I'll just say that explains a lot and leave it at that.
-- Wisconsin: China can't take the jobs that are being threatened with extinction by Gov. Walker. We can't confuse what is happening in Wisconsin - a very real fear that right-wing politicians will hide behind the deficit and austerity to gut the very foundation of labor in this country. And it's no coincidence that most governors are putting bullseyes on the groups that are least likely to vote Republican, I'm sorry. - with the equally disturbing gap in competitiveness as it relates to the worldwide jobs marketplace. Sure, China's economy is booming, but at what cost? Their currency is criminally undervalued, and I think if you poked around labor rights in the People's Republic you would get quite the wake-up call. This idea that we have to return to an Industrial Revolution-style workforce to stay competitive in the world marketplace is, for lack of a better word, total bullshit. What unions are fighting for - and this isn't to say that they are 100% right and don't have to make concessions - are the rights that have been gained over decades of struggle against forces far more sinister than Gov. Walker. I'm sure most Republicans would love to return to the pre-40 hour work week, pre-anti-child labor laws, pre-lunch break, pre-hey-maybe-I-shouldn't-spend-my-formative-years-inhaling-17-hours'-worth-of-factory-smoke-per-day because, hey, it's good for business, right?
The problem with that - and this is something Republicans and their Democratic enablers refuse to admit - is that what is good for business isn't always what is good for the very human workers that make up business. We can be more competitive, but we don't have to return to the Gilded Age to do it. And we should have an honest debate about it.
Clicking Post now. Sorry for the rant.
I am against teacher tenure, but I am in favor of spending more money on education. In the world today, our education system is competing with education systems of other countries, and we are falling behind. I understand that many of the civil unions being attacked by Wisconsin Republicans are not jobs that can be shipped overseas, and I'm not saying that all unions (or even any unions) should be abolished, but that the pensions provided to civil employees are not sustainable. The two comparisons I think of are the United Auto Workers (UAW) and how GM needs to borrow money to make their pension obligations. They need to borrow money to pay a workforce that is never going to help them earn a single dime. I'm not saying GM should be allowed to renege on their pension obligations, but there is an unsustainable pattern mostly due to demographics and the baby boomers. I have very similar thoughts on Social Security. We NEED to reduce benefits, increase the age to start benefits or increase the taxes that pay in to SS. People are living much longer than anticipated in the '30s and we need to do something to catch up. The other comparison I think of is any computer engineer. This is an industry that is not unionized and American workers are directly competing with international workers for the same spots, even within the same company. Engineers don't try to unionize to prevent foreign workers from taking their job...they compete, they get better, they step up their game to beat out foreign engineers for that spot.
ReplyDeleteI learned from Jessica that currently most Indian engineers are not yet at the level that American engineers are at...but HP can pay two Indian engineers the same as one American engineer. They still choose to pay the American engineer for superior work, but as India's education system improves and they keep producing hundreds of thousands of bachelor's degrees and engineers, they will eventually be producing as many quality engineers as us.
Another thing, I wasn't entirely sure if I should include the paragraph about female sexuality. Pro: It kind of fits with the randomness of my thoughts and gets a great reaction from Mik and may encourage discussion by our female readers. Con: I am not an expert and I would be a little worried about the slight possibility it affects my professional future.
ReplyDeleteI have to limit myself to two quick quips:
ReplyDelete1) Roycie
2) I'm a HUGE fan of the FIWK pensieve label combination.
This link just seems to fit right here.
ReplyDeleteIt sure does Aaron. Thanks for the link-binge.
ReplyDeleteThe author makes, in my opinion, a fairly decent argument; assuming, of course, you agree with his premise that "The ultimate goal is a sexual culture that makes it easier for young people to achieve romantic happiness."
If you believe in that premise, I don't think you can argue with much of his logic. Next up is the debate around that premise:
I personally think that if a child is raised in a healthy environment, it doesn't matter how many sexual partners they have prior to marriage; their marriage will probably last longer. That said, a healthier childhood environment will probably lead to less partners - I wish a study performed a regression analysis with both of these variables as inputs in trying to determine which has a higher covariance to divorce.