I'm not a huge fan of overly expansive government. I think that, especially on matters of conscience, privacy and police powers, the federal and state governments have over the course of the last fifty or sixty years, become far too intrusive, too powerful, and dangerously unresponsive to the individual citizens they purport to represent. I still believe that. However government does have some fundamental core duties. One of these is broadly what I'll call public safety. Public safety is often thought to comprise the cop on the street or a military member guarding the nation. That's correct but public safety goes beyond that. Public safety also encompasses the ability to enjoy clean air and water. It involves the ability to eat food anywhere in this country without worrying that you have an excellent chance of consuming deadly molds, bacteria, viruses, fecal material, or other items unfit for human consumption. It means you can purchase goods and services and get what you pay for without always having to bring along your violent ex-con cousin to guarantee that the seller doesn't pull a fast one. So far so good right? However there is a conservative and occasionally libertarian streak in politics which is fundamentally opposed to the very idea of government interfering with individuals business. When such people actually gain control over the government the results are often no different than if the drug dealer paid off the chief of police. The people on the streets suffer. This truism was recently affirmed in North Carolina, home to my maternal kin. Read the article excerpted below:
RALEIGH, N.C. — Last June, state employees in charge of stopping water pollution were given updated marching orders on behalf of North Carolina’s new Republican governor and conservative lawmakers.
“The General Assembly doesn’t like you,” an official in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources told supervisors called to a drab meeting room here. “They cut your budget, but you didn’t get the message. And they cut your budget again, and you still didn’t get the message.” From now on, regulators were told, they must focus on customer service, meaning issuing environmental permits for businesses as quickly as possible. Big changes are coming, the official said, according to three people in the meeting, two of whom took notes. “If you don’t like change, you’ll be gone.”
But when the nation’s largest utility, Duke Energy, spilled 39,000 tons of coal ash into the Dan River in early February, those big changes were suddenly playing out in a different light. Federal prosecutors have begun a criminal investigation into the spill and the relations between Duke and regulators at the environmental agency. The spill, which coated the river bottom 70 miles downstream and threatened drinking water and aquatic life, drew attention to a deal that the environmental department’s new leadership reached with Duke last year over pollution from coal ash ponds. It included a minimal fine but no order that Duke remove the ash — the waste from burning coal to generate electricity — from its leaky, unlined ponds.
Environmental groups said the arrangement protected a powerful utility rather than the environment or the public. Critics say the accident, the third-largest coal ash spill on record, is inextricably linked to the state’s new environmental politics and reflects an enforcement agency led by a secretary who suggested that oil was a renewable resource and an assistant secretary who, as a state lawmaker, drew a bull’s-eye on a window in his office framing the environmental agency’s headquarters. “They’re terrified,” said John Dorney, a retired supervisor who keeps in touch with many current employees. “Now these people have to take a deep breath and say, ‘I know what the rules require, but what does the political process want me to do?’ ”
LINK This is what happens when government is captured by private actors. Government's beneficial roles are diminished, limited or as Grover Norquist approvingly said ,"made small enough to drown in a bathtub". I like "small government" when we're talking about nosy NSA operatives or SWAT teams in Iowa that invade people's homes for non-violent crimes or bossy child protective services mandarins that seize children first and ask questions later. But when you're talking about things like clean air and water I'm not so sure that small government is the answer.
Or to put it another way smaller government may still be a good thing but not if it's one that is subservient to big business. I see government as similar to a referee in some instances. As the saying goes, the best referees do their jobs and are barely noticed. A really bad referee insists on enforcing every last single rule violation, no matter how petty. A worse referee may even make up violations that don't exist, hand out technicals and expulsions like free candy and have both teams so on edge that the game itself suffers. A different but equally bad referee may be so incompetent that they don't know the rulebook and/ or may not care about the game enough to enforce it even if they did. He may sit back in blissful apathy and say "let the teams work it out". And then finally there are those referees that actively prefer one team over the other and so only call violations on one side while ignoring those of the other. If you were a coach and found out that your game referee was the brother-in-law of the rival coach, his poker buddy or a member of his church you'd probably want a different referee. But if you were the corrupt referee who had already worked for a super rich coach and knew you were going to make millions more after fixing the game for him you'd probably have a really stupid grin on your face and be very happy with life.
None of those types are any good for the larger game society. What we need is, prosaically enough, a balance. Now it's true that for me, as opposed to some other writers here that balance would be slightly more tilted to government staying out of people's business but even I wouldn't argue that government has no role to play. The North Carolina incident is the result of business control over government. We should never forget that by definition, if something is an externality to a business, as pollution certainly is, under our free-market system the business has no immediate economic interest in trying to reduce that externality. The free market is largely unable to influence the business on externalities, hence the name. What keeps the business in line is accurate information about the externality shared with an intelligent informed citizenry, the fear of being hauled into civil or criminal court, and the ability of referees regulators to throw the flag via fines and prevent the business from producing that externality or at least make the business capture the true cost of its process.
Too many conservatives and libertarians have converted to the almost religious belief system that state and federal government never ever ever have anypositiverole to play in any business regulation and that we should let the free market sort everything out. This is not only wrong but very dangerous to humans and other living creatures. Duke Energy’s coal ash pond in Eden, N.C., which dumped 39,000 tons of poisonous sludge and slurry into the Dan River on Feb. 2 — the third-largest such spill in U.S. history — has refocused national attention on the environmental damage these holding ponds can render. But the damage isn’t just confined to when the sludge leaks into busted storm-water drainage pipes that never should have been running under the ponds to begin with, like the situation in Eden. It’s quite possible the damage from coal ash ponds is ongoing even in the absence of accidental spills. “These coal ash ponds are unlined, and people don’t realize that,” said Dean Naujoks, the Yadkin Riverkeeper who has been monitoring the Dan River spill. “They are continuously leaching arsenic, chromium, cadmium, mercury, all kinds of toxic heavy metals, into the ground and eventually into groundwater. Duke Energy has 32 of these ponds on 14 sites around the state, and every one of them is unlined. Every one of them is a threat to groundwater.”
We see this over and over again. Government is not always the answer but neither is it always the problem. We must reach a balance between private power, which is only accountable to ownership, and government power, which theoretically represents and is accountable to everyone. North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory worked for Duke Energy for twenty-eight years. He has worked as Governor for the people of North Carolina for a little over one. I wonder which employer has influenced him more. I certainly know which employer has paid him more.
Another promo trailer drops for the new season. As usual if you've read the books or otherwise know what happens this season please keep that fascinating information to yourself, won't you? Interestingly enough many of the show's actors have said this season is even more dramatic than last season and will be paced differently with climaxes occurring throughout the season instead of just episode nine. We shall see.
I hadn't read anything by Andrew Vachss in a long time. Two Trains Running (the title comes from a Muddy Waters blues song) is a period piece and one of the hundreds of books in my library which I'm trying to finish reading before time runs out. Most of the books by Vachss I've read have been set in modern New York and are noir detective stories, often featuring his cynical damaged antihero Burke. Those are enjoyable books which I would certainly recommend. Two Trains Running is both different than Vachss' usual work and yet familiar enough to be suitable reading for those people already accustomed to Vachss' style. Two Trains Running is set in 1959 in a town named Locke City. IIRC the state is never named. It's not on the East Coast and definitely not in the deep South. But it could be a border or lower Midwest state. It could be Kentucky, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Missouri or even Indiana or Iowa among others. It's not that important. This story is a noir crime novel or at least that's what you're inclined to think at first. But although the crime element does drive some of the plot, it soon becomes clear that this novel is not so much about crime as it just is about people in general, especially the various tribes of post-war America. It's a slice of life story about people who all come together in Locke City during a few months in 1959. Crime is just a catalyst here. The story could have just as easily used railroads or coal mines or steel mills to provide background. I liked that. Although there is some violence, it's not critical to the story nor is it really that common. There are at least four different love stories that bring out some pulpy sub themes.
In Locke City Roy Beaumont leads the dominant criminal organization. His sister Cynthia is his trusted partner. Roy and Cynthia have protected each other for a very long time. They've experienced some very bad things. Although Roy despises the word "hillbilly", that is who he is and who makes up his organization. Roy is crippled. He relies on his wheelchair and Cynthia to get around. But don't be fooled. Roy started his organization by personally eliminating previous gangsters. Roy knows he's a big fish in a little pond. This becomes clear when Sal Dioguardi, a formerly New York based mafiosi, starts nosing around Locke City, offering Roy "assistance" in running some rackets and blatantly taking over others. Dioguardi has a violent reputation of which he is quite proud. He's not in a business which rewards weak or retiring people. Dioguardi doesn't practice his mean looks in front of a mirror, as some real life mafia hoodlums were known to do, but he does spend a lot of time lifting weights and working out to ensure that subordinates and rivals are suitably intimidated.
But Roy won't give in easily. So, wanting some plausible deniability in case Dioguardi is indeed fully backed by the Mafia, Roy calls in Walker Dett. Dett is a hitman for hire, a white Korean War veteran who combines a quiet ruthlessness with a deep sadness and maybe even a hidden soft heart. Careful and methodical, Dett restricts his violence strictly to business. He's the very definition of professional. He's neutral or even occasionally kind to people not in the life. Despite himself, Dett falls in love with one of the few naive and innocent women in Locke City. Meanwhile Rufus Hightower, a black hotel bellhop, does his best to hide a fierce intelligence and disdain for racists while at his day job. He shows most whites what he thinks they want to see or what he thinks they need to see. Secretly Hightower leads a nascent black nationalist organization. Like Dett, he also is falling in love with an innocent woman. Vachss juggles numerous subplots and characters. Some of these include Sherman Layne, the town's only honest cop who bears hidden pain, two feuding juvenile street gangs looking to settle turf wars, a racist hotel clerk with a hidden past, a neo-Nazi organization, informers within Beaumont's group, an interracial Romeo-Juliet story, a pathetically lonely man who spies on people to feel connected, IRA recruiters, political fixers and the FBI keeping tags on everyone. These groups and people are all linked though not everyone knows it. The author goes for the kitchen sink approach. Two Trains Running is very dialogue heavy. There's little third person description/narrative. Usually you only know what's going on because someone is talking to someone else. There aren't long explanations of key past events given, because the people speaking to each other already know about them. The style comes across very similar to the old Dragnet radio show. Each terse paragraph opens with the date, location and time. As referenced, this is really not, despite its subject matter, a book about gang violence or organized crime. It's more about post-war America and how some things have changed since 1959 and others have not. It's a meditation on human behavior, damage and longing. So if you would normally skip crime books, this might be worth reading. Flesh by Gus Weill
In many respects the big shocker of this short (~200 pages) little horror novel isn't really a shocker at all. The author has hints all over the place, not least of which include the cover of the novel. The somewhat dim and rather horny protagonist figures out what's really happening about 2/3rds of the way thru the story. The fun part comes from a) the fact that neither the hero nor the reader wants to believe that such things are possible and b) the hero is feverishly trying to turn the tables on his enemies while pretending that he doesn't know what's going on. This is made more difficult because the bad guys have very good reason to think at various points that the hero really does know what's going on. So this is like one giant poker game where the stakes are your life. As Flesh is told in first person there is an urgency given to the story that will keep you turning the pages to see what will happen next. I really think this book might have worked better as a short story but the ending is so fitting and the journey so breakneck that you may not mind. You could argue that this is less a horror novel and more of a satire on class relations. A lower middle class musical college student with the unlikely name of Marion Anderson, is a middling pianist (hismother had the true talent there) but a very good lyricist/composer. He is just brimming with ideas for lyrics and arrangements but lacks the ability to create exciting new music to go along with them. What great luck for Marion it is then when he accidentally meets a fellow student who has talent on the piano equivalent to that of Glenn Gould. This man's name is Justin Caeser. Justin and Marion become fast friends.
Marion is convinced that he has found the perfect collaborator for a planned Broadway musical. For the better part of a year the duo work together. When they reach an artistic impasse, Justin thinks they need some isolation and quiet time. He suggests they visit his family home. Marion agrees. Justin's family home is actually a 52 room mansion on a private island off the Maine coast Justin's family is to say the least eccentric. Justin's father is a giant of a man given to sudden rages and just as sudden bouts of laughter and bonhomie. His mother is a tiny woman who vacillates between excessive politeness and sudden coldness. Justin's sister Annabelle Lee (the name is from the Poe poem) defines oddness but takes a liking to Marion. Justin's other sister Eleanor is so doggone va-va voom desirable that Marion immediately falls in lust with her although she already has a fiance, Timothy. Marion initially finds that he doesn't want to leave the island, especially if he can get hot and heavy with Eleanor. He's turned on by Eleanor's flirting, her low cut dresses, her beauty and her salaciousness. He's also comparing the Caesers' wealth unfavorably with his father's Social Security job. Marion refuses, as he sees it, to settle for less, like he believes his parents did. However Timothy's cryptic warnings, pleas from other people and increasingly odd behavior by Justin awaken Marion's lust damaged suspicions. A cat and mouse game is played but who's the cat and who's the mouse? This book could very easily have been a Tales from the Crypt or Twilight Zone feature. It's a fun read if not necessarily a great novel. The author has many skills. He was also a PR specialist and counterintelligence Army officer. James Carville was Weill's protege. And Weill worked for Otto Preminger back in the day.
Technically speaking you're not supposed to give your dog milk or milk based products or anything with artificial sweeteners included. But many pet owners don't know that. And many other pet owners can't resist large soulful eyes looking at them with all the pleading their canine owners can summon. Of course dogs will generally try anything that their human offers them. And if it tastes good to them they'll eat it without asking questions about safety or whether this is good for them. Of course some dogs have better table manners than others as this video makes quite clear.
No this is not the Fox Sci-Fi drama starring Michael Ealy and Karl Urban. It is however a low budget 80s style throwback horror flick that is deliberately reminiscent in credits, style, pacing and formatting of such iconic 70s and 80s films as Evil Dead, Re-Animator, They Came from Within and Halloween. It's a film with plenty of graphic bloody violence including an attempted(?) sexual assault. So if that sort of thing doesn't meet your criteria you know what to do. This is definitely not something that should be watched by people who are only familiar with the shallow end of the horror pool. Nope this film is made for folks who can dive and swim in the deep end. It has a short running time (80 minutes) and leaves a lot of questions unanswered, which for this movie works well. There are a few people who do stupid things, particularly near the ending, but at least some of this is called out in the film itself. The acting is not super convincing, which is occasionally a serious problem, but by genre standards it's not the worst I've ever seen. Some of the lead actors actually also worked on editing and other behind the scenes tasks. I guess that saved money. The film is set in the 80s. The producer(s) and director did an admirable job in ensuring that sets (mostly rotary phones thank you very much) and automobiles were of a piece with decades gone by. Almost Human is set in Maine. There's a blink and you'll miss it shout out to Stephen King. The photography/cinematography is not what I would call crystal clear. Even on a HDTV the film remains rather blurry and in some scenes appallingly so. That could have been a deliberate attempt to put viewers in mind of the aforementioned classics or it could have just been a byproduct of not having the best equipment. Either way I think you ought to take the time to put your best foot forward technically. I don't think this film always did that. So shame on the creators for not doing so. If money was saved on the acting it wasn't immediately apparent that it was being spent on photography and SFX.
Nevertheless, regardless of its quirks and shortcomings this film still has a certain energy and drive that perhaps could and should have been more adequately expressed with a slightly higher budget and a "name" actor or two. But what the heck, we all have to start somewhere. And there's always going to be room in the world for low budget horror films. Under the right circumstances this could be a cult hit. I don't know what those circumstances might be but life is strange, you know? One day you're on the bottom. Two decades later work like this is being revered as ahead of its time and something that was woefully under appreciated in its day. Ok, all that said what's this film about? Quite simple. Two years prior, a frightened Seth (Graham Skipper) is driving like a madman to his friend Mark's (Josh Ethier) home. IIRC it's left unexplained why Seth was going to his buddy's home in the middle of the night in the first place. Heck my family and friends generally know not to even call me past 8-9 PM unless there's an emergency but that's not important right now. What is important is that Seth has a harrowing story to tell about bright lights, nose bleeds, high frequency sounds and alien abductions. To hear Seth tell it, one of their mutual friends was kidnapped by aliens, right out of the truck. Mark, a much burlier and more aggressive man than the slight Seth, doesn't believe this. And Mark doesn't like the semi-hysterical Seth scaring Mark's girlfriend Jen (Vanessa Leigh). Although Seth thinks he was followed he-man Mark scornfully dismisses this and marches outside where amid blue lights and high pitched noises he promptly disappears. Mark is brawny but evidently not too brainy.
Two years pass. Seth escaped being charged with Mark's kidnapping by the narrowest of margins. Most people still think Seth knows more than he's telling and shun him. Seth can't remember much and Jen can't remember anything. Jen has married/moved in with another man and doesn't count Seth among her circle of friends any more. When she looks at him you can almost see her brain trying to determine whether Seth is just a LOSER or instead a LOONY BIRD. Either way she would prefer not to be around him. Seth is a slacker at a hardware store. He routinely gets in late, is often sick, and just mopes around. Nevertheless he's starting to remember more of what went down that night two years back. And he's having nosebleeds again. Something's indeed happening, as Seth tries to tell Jen. Unknown to either Seth or Jen. Mark has just returned to this world. Or to be accurate, what's returned is mostly something that is wearing Mark's body. And it wants to reproduce. It can do that in a lot of different ways, as we see. But the remaining Mark portion would very strongly prefer to reproduce with Jen. Her willingness is preferred but not strictly speaking necessary. Carnage ensues as what could have been a true alien invasion story somewhat morphs into a slasher movie. A huge guy with an axe/chainsaw/shotgun/big hands goes on a killing spree. TRAILER
Orphan directed by Jaume Collet-Serra
A parasite is a strange being. Usually it doesn't intend to kill its host but attempts to live in a symbiosis. Depending on its needs it might occasionally influence the host to behave in ways that are not necessarily good for the host, but are required for the survival of the parasite. Sometimes of course the parasite's survival or reproduction may require the death of the host. And then you have the cuckoo bird, which often lays its eggs in other birds' nest. The cuckoo baby upon hatching, destroys the eggs of its host and may even kill its host's children, therefore monopolizing the resources of its "parents". This is known as brood parasitism. This is where the word cuckold comes from. Those sorts of thoughts were all brought to mind re-watching Orphan. Other thoughts that came up included how vulnerable we all are to our intimates. I mean if someone in your house goes bad, there's a pretty good chance your guard will be down in a way that would never occur outside the house. Trust is key to maintaining romantic or familial relationships. I thought I had reviewed this 2009 thriller before but a quick search didn't reveal anything. Hmm. So if I did review this film before, my apologies. The local Blockbuster is closing down. As I thought this film worth having permanently, I picked up the DVD for cheap 5 weeks back. I'm generally a Farmiga fan so I decided I'd write something short about this movie here. I thought this was a pretty good thriller. It has a few plot devices of course but nothing which I found outrageous.
The director would go on to helm Unknown with Liam Neeson. I won't say whether Orphan has any supernatural aspects. It is one of those old school thrillers that can manage to get scares out of something as prosaic as a orphaned child offhandedly showing that she's a skilled concert pianist. I kept expecting Mrs. Blaylock from The Omen to show up and tell the little girl to "Have no fear little one. I am here to protect thee." Orphan is not the sort of movie that would make you welcome unknown children into your life. You won't want to give this kid a pinch on the cheek and take her home. Like the film We need to talk about Kevin, Orphan asks you what would you do if a child of yours was simply no damn good and/or downright dangerous? Like that film, but in a much more extreme fashion Orphan engages in or should I write indulges in some serious psychosexual drama. In both cases it's the mother who sees the danger most clearly while the husband/father thinks that his wife is losing her marbles. In Orphan this might as well come with big red signs indicating FREUDIAN DRAMA RIGHT HERE! YMMV on this. There is a rather significant item revealed about 2/3rds of the way thru the film. It may change how you see things. Some people thought it was lazy writing or was designed to save the film from some rather truly unfortunate implications. Some of the disturbing elements come out of left field at the viewer.
John Coleman (Peter Sarsgaard) is an architect. His wife Kate (Vera Farmiga) is a musician/music professor. They have two children, a son Danny (Jimmy Bennett) and a daughter Max (Aryana Engineer). Although the family is financially successful with a huge home and lands that just barely miss the size cutoff to be called an estate, like most families they have problems beneath the surface. Max is deaf/mute. Danny is something of a jerk. Kate is a recovering alcoholic. The couple recently lost a stillborn child, a daughter. Deep down inside Kate worries that John might blame her for this loss. She still grieves for the child. And John, well, let's just say he's not averse to playing house with other women. So, hoping to recover from the stillbirth, John and Kate visit a Catholic orphanage and adopt a nine year old girl from the former USSR. This girl is named Esther (Isabelle Fuhrman) Esther is unusual on at least two levels. It's not just that Esther always dresses in very formal, even archaic wear and is never seen without her high/frilly collars or chokers covering her wrists and neck. It's that Esther is far more self-assured, confident and sexually aware than a nine year old girl should be. When the couple accidentally allows Esther to become aware of some of their intimate activities, Kate haltingly tries to explain to her adopted daughter that married Mommies and Daddies who love each other very much sometimes like to spend time together in a beautiful and natural way which is totally private. Esther dismissively replies "Oh you mean you were f*****g." and goes about her business. Kate starts to take a dislike to Esther.
When a schoolgirl bully who insulted Esther meets with a nasty accident, Kate goes back to the orphanage to check on Esther's background with the head nun Sister Abigail (CCH Pounder). The nun is torn between her professional desire to place this orphan and her personal dislike for the little girl. Sister Abigail tells Kate that accidents happen to people who get on Esther's bad side. Meanwhile, Esther is bullying Danny and Max. Max is under Esther's spell while Danny is too frightened to say anything. But John likes Esther, who gives every indication that she's very happy to have a Daddy. And John doesn't care to listen much to what he's starting to think of as the paranoid ramblings of his drunk and needlessly jealous wife. John is not bright. Although the overlong ending is utterly cliche driven the beginning and middle are interesting and full of ominous build ups. When either spouse is caught doing something wrong by their partner they often return fire by criticizing something else their accuser did years before. Kate doesn't mind reminding John of his infidelity. John is not above measuring the liquid level in whiskey bottles and looking questioningly at Kate. Farmiga and Fuhrman have the meatiest roles. Fuhrman's character is sporadically sympathetic but mostly suitably creepy. Farmiga's character gets to have more range. She does motherly protectiveness and pugnaciousness quite well. That is, once her character stops whining. TRAILER
I wanted to write on this quite some time ago but the person who reviews my paid work had different ideas about my priorities. So this is a modified and much mellower version of the original post. The idea expressed in the post title is something that's been floating around the blog-o-sphere for quite some time. It finally penetrated the firmament of the New York Times Sunday Magazine. When I read this recent article I thought I was in a real life Geico commercial. Because I thought everyone already knew that. It seems that whatever the benefits of "egalitarian" style marriages may be, more sex and less divorce aren't among them. Surprisingly, it appears that heterosexual women may have some unacknowledged preferences for a certain level of well, difference and maybe even virility or dominance (shut your mouth!!!) in their husbands. As this finding very much does not comport with the modern progressive orthodoxy regarding house husbands, 50/50 sharing of chores, lean in bromides and the fiction that men and women are exactly the same except for internal plumbing, some of the people quoted in the article seemed to be suffering from very bad cases of cognitive dissonance. I wrote previously on how there are some household tasks which are (often arbitrarily) considered more masculine. It seems that some women, or at least some married women agree. Whether we believe that it's mostly biological, mostly cultural, or imo some combination of the two, it appears that men and women appreciate each other's differences and look for a partner that exhibits divergent characteristics. According to the fascinating article quoted below a husband who becomes too similar to his wife or to put it another way a man who is too complaisant and gallant runs the very real risk of discovering what a Stephen King character ruefully noted in the book Joyland : "What I know now is that gallant young men rarely get *****. Put it on a sampler and hang it in your kitchen".
A study called “Egalitarianism, Housework and Sexual Frequency in Marriage,” which appeared in The American Sociological Review last year, surprised many, precisely because it went against the logical assumption that as marriages improve by becoming more equal, the sex in these marriages will improve, too. Instead, it found that when men did certain kinds of chores around the house, couples had less sex. Specifically, if men did all of what the researchers characterized as feminine chores like folding laundry, cooking or vacuuming — the kinds of things many women say they want their husbands to do — then couples had sex 1.5 fewer times per month than those with husbands who did what were considered masculine chores, like taking out the trash or fixing the car. It wasn’t just the frequency that was affected, either — at least for the wives. The more traditional the division of labor, meaning the greater the husband’s share of masculine chores compared with feminine ones, the greater his wife’s reported sexual satisfaction.
The chores study seems to show that women do want their husbands to help out — just in gender-specific ways. Couples in which the husband did plenty of traditionally male chores reported a 17.5 percent higher frequency of sexual intercourse than those in which the husband did none. These findings, Brines says, “might have something to do with the fact that the traditional behaviors that men and women enact feed into associations that people have about masculinity and femininity.”
As Sheryl Sandberg encourages women to “lean in” — by which she means that they should make a determined effort to push forward in their careers — it may seem as if women are truly becoming, as Gloria Steinem put it, “the men we want to marry.” But these professional shifts seem to influence marital stability. A study put out last year by the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that if a wife earns more than her husband, the couple are 15 percent less likely to report that their marriage is very happy; 32 percent more likely to report marital troubles in the past year; and 46 percent more likely to have discussed separating in the past year. Similarly, Lynn Prince Cooke found that though sharing breadwinning and household duties decreases the likelihood of divorce, that’s true only up to a point. If a wife earns more than her husband, the risk of divorce increases. Interestingly, Cooke’s study shows that the predicted risk of divorce is lowest when the husband does 40 percent of the housework and the wife earns 40 percent of the income.
Of course studies are like opinions. Everyone has one. And statistics only apply to populations, not individuals. There must be a wife who is ecstatic to have her husband darning socks, fixing dinner, making quilts and cleaning the toilet while she changes the oil in the family car, cleans the gutters or installs the new sump pump. And I know for a fact there are husbands who are pleased as punch that their wife earns multiples of what they do, giving them the opportunity to stay at home with the kids or work for years on the Great American Novel that they somehow never complete. Stories like this reinforce why I think the great feminist dystopia "utopia" will never arrive although some people continue to argue that if we just use more corporate and government coercion incentives we'll get there. Although in total men and women are much more alike than we are different, we do seem to prefer different characteristics in our significant others. This is primarily biological in my view although different cultures express it differently. And these different preferences, minor though they are overall, drive marriage, mating, and what sort of jobs people look for. In other words, women and men bear equal responsibility for how social relations work. It is logically impossible for women (as a group) to want total pay equity in the workplace but continue (as individuals) to be attracted to men who earn more money and/or express more dominance than they do. The incentives don't match. What is good in the public arena of work is apparently not so good in the private arena of relationships. I think that the best that society can do is to ensure workplace equal opportunity regardless of gender, race, sexuality, etc. Equal results, based on how they are defined, may remain ephemeral. And that may be ok.
Any Questions? The enemy is the same as it's always been. I'd like to know where are the Republicans who constantly bleat that the base of their party is not in large part animated by racism. Where are the politicians and media types who hounded President Obama to denounce, disassociate, and differentiate himself from people like Jesse Jackson, Reverend Wright, Cornell West, or any other bête noire of the day? Where are Nugent's high profile friends or media enablers like Mitch Albom or Nick Cannon? Will they denounce such language? Probably not. I'd like to think that people would reject and shame white right-wingers who say things like this but it very rarely seems to work that way. We'll see. At the time of this writing the only high profile Republican political operative to openly criticize Nugent's hateful speech is Senator Rand Paul. So far no one else has the stones. Either that or as is more likely they agree with him regarding President Barack Obama. Just as Klansman Asa Carter ultimately lost the fight to keep segregation and ban rock-n-roll, the Republican party is doomed to keep losing national elections unless they separate themselves from the extreme right-wing fringe. There just aren't enough angry white men with fecal matter for brains to keep voting Republican. Nationwide, that is. Texas is apparently a different story.
