At a company function, recently, I had a friendly discussion about the differences between men and women when it came to shopping. Basically, the differences came down to the following:
1) Women view shopping as an activity. Women are the reason that vacation destinations will list "great shopping" as a reason to visit. If a man sees "great shopping" in the top ten reasons to vacation, they don't go there.
2) Women will buy something they don't need just because it is on sale. Men will buy something they don't need because it is "really cool".
3) Women buy crap and brag about how little they spent for it. Men will overpay for something - like a boat - so they can brag about how much they spent for it.
The conversation started me thinking: what other ways to men and women differ? More importantly why do they differ - other than for the obvious anatomical reasons?
For example:
Recent studies are now objectively determining why men earn more - women don't ask for it and they work in professions - teaching, nursing - that pay less than traditional male jobs - lawyer, doctor.
But why do women laugh more? Personally, I think it's because men are always trying to impress women with humor because women always say they want a man who can make them laugh - though they always marry a man who pays their bills.
Any man worth his penis also knows that women win in court - not necessarily as lawyers, but as plaintiffs. It's to the point that there is a disincentive for men to marry. More than half of all marriages end in divorce. The wealthier party - typically the male because they earn more - loses half their net worth. Kids end up with the mother in an overwhelming majority of custody battles, and men often pay child support for children they never get to see. Why get married?
For me, the biggest difference between men and women is what they need to carry when they go out. Women tote a ten pound bag with everything from their M.I.L.K. - Money, ID, Lipstick, Keys - to a change of clothes. They carry so much that the cell phone ends up at the bottom of the bag and they can never hear it ring. Men, on the other hand, carry everything they need in a small leather pouch that fits in their back pocket. Talk about efficiency!
Finally, how many men have successful day time talk shows? How many shows that air during work hours are geared towards men? Why do you think that is?
NOTE: I make no value statements as to which is the better gender (or I get none from the wife), I just note the differences and let the reader draw their own conclusions.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Carrie Underwood Promotes Domestic Violence
Carrie Underwood, winner of American Idol 4, and several CMA awards has a new number one hit single with "Before He Cheats". On the surface, this song encourages women to take a stand against unfaithful lovers. In the video, between scenes of her "boyfriend" kissing another woman, Carrie attacks his truck with a baseball bat, shattering glass and damaging the truck's body. The video is very powerful, and, coupled with the lyrics, you cheer for Carrie as she commits felonious destruction of property as retribution for a cheating heart.
But what are we really encouraging? What if the roles were reversed, and a man takes a baseball bat to a woman's vehicle because she left him for another man? A cursory review of the domestic violence laws in most states indicates that if the roles were reversed, the man would be prosecuted and jailed for domestic violence and stalking.
I would also offer, that if the roles were reversed, there would be outrage. If Garth Brooks or Tim McGraw sang a song called "Her Cheating Heart" coupled with lyrics about burning down her house, or even just scratching the paint on her car, and then created a video of one of them spying on her through a window, the women of N.O.W. would be picketing their concerts. You'd hear Congresswomen lamenting the woes of women and how promoting domestic violence in music and video is dangerous and unforgivable. Oprah would interview female victims of the "McGraw Effect".
When the man is the victim, however - or, more directly, his personal property - there is no outrage. Who will speak of the inequity? Tom Leykis and Jerry Springer? Maybe. More likely is that men will do what they always do: sit back, take it like a man, and know that some guy, somewhere, is scoring with Carrie and plans to leak the video on the internet. I'm thinking her next song will be "Before He Leaks".
But what are we really encouraging? What if the roles were reversed, and a man takes a baseball bat to a woman's vehicle because she left him for another man? A cursory review of the domestic violence laws in most states indicates that if the roles were reversed, the man would be prosecuted and jailed for domestic violence and stalking.
I would also offer, that if the roles were reversed, there would be outrage. If Garth Brooks or Tim McGraw sang a song called "Her Cheating Heart" coupled with lyrics about burning down her house, or even just scratching the paint on her car, and then created a video of one of them spying on her through a window, the women of N.O.W. would be picketing their concerts. You'd hear Congresswomen lamenting the woes of women and how promoting domestic violence in music and video is dangerous and unforgivable. Oprah would interview female victims of the "McGraw Effect".
When the man is the victim, however - or, more directly, his personal property - there is no outrage. Who will speak of the inequity? Tom Leykis and Jerry Springer? Maybe. More likely is that men will do what they always do: sit back, take it like a man, and know that some guy, somewhere, is scoring with Carrie and plans to leak the video on the internet. I'm thinking her next song will be "Before He Leaks".
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
WalMart is Not Evil
MSNBC posted an article today about communities that fight big box WalMart stores from appearing in their community. The opposition to WalMart has always fascinated me. Communities rally together against WalMart as if it were a strip club going up between a church and a nursery school.
I just don't get it.
According to the article, the opposition typically falls into one of three groups:
1) Those who fear neighborhood blight
2) Those who fear the small shops will have to close
3) Those who think WalMart underpays its employees.
Neighborhood Blight
Of the three reasons, this is the only one for which I can muster a modicum of support. However, examining this claim further only leads to more questions. WalMart does not propose to build a store in an area zoned for residential development. Arguably, if WalMart does not erect one of its buildings, another business would in the near future. If an organization does not want stores to build in a certain area, they should lobby the local government to change the zoning rules. At this point, it becomes apparent they are discriminating against WalMart in favor of other businesses - a clear violation of any concept of fairness.
Closing Small Shops
If I owned a small shop in a town where WalMart planned to setup shop, I'd fight them, too. Why would I want a competitor? Especially a competitor who will be more convenient and sell the same things I sell at a price lower than I actually buy it for myself! Competition is good for the economy. The most competitive companies get the consumer's dollar. If you are not competitive enough to survive even if WalMart moves in, you probably shouldn't be in business in the first place. Don't hurt the consumers to save one business. It isn't American.
Underpaid Employees
This one galls me the most. We have unions fighting WalMart, liberal groups fighting WalMart, but not one single employee! If WalMart's wages were an issue, their employees would go and work at Target. If the option is no job, or a minimum wage job at WalMart, they'll take the job at WalMart. If WalMart paid them more, it would either employee fewer or be forced to close its doors and leaving employees with no jobs.
You'll see me fighting WalMart if they become a monopoly, engage in illegal practices....or try to move into my neighborhood - NOT GONNA HAPPEN!!!
I just don't get it.
According to the article, the opposition typically falls into one of three groups:
1) Those who fear neighborhood blight
2) Those who fear the small shops will have to close
3) Those who think WalMart underpays its employees.
Neighborhood Blight
Of the three reasons, this is the only one for which I can muster a modicum of support. However, examining this claim further only leads to more questions. WalMart does not propose to build a store in an area zoned for residential development. Arguably, if WalMart does not erect one of its buildings, another business would in the near future. If an organization does not want stores to build in a certain area, they should lobby the local government to change the zoning rules. At this point, it becomes apparent they are discriminating against WalMart in favor of other businesses - a clear violation of any concept of fairness.
Closing Small Shops
If I owned a small shop in a town where WalMart planned to setup shop, I'd fight them, too. Why would I want a competitor? Especially a competitor who will be more convenient and sell the same things I sell at a price lower than I actually buy it for myself! Competition is good for the economy. The most competitive companies get the consumer's dollar. If you are not competitive enough to survive even if WalMart moves in, you probably shouldn't be in business in the first place. Don't hurt the consumers to save one business. It isn't American.
Underpaid Employees
This one galls me the most. We have unions fighting WalMart, liberal groups fighting WalMart, but not one single employee! If WalMart's wages were an issue, their employees would go and work at Target. If the option is no job, or a minimum wage job at WalMart, they'll take the job at WalMart. If WalMart paid them more, it would either employee fewer or be forced to close its doors and leaving employees with no jobs.
You'll see me fighting WalMart if they become a monopoly, engage in illegal practices....or try to move into my neighborhood - NOT GONNA HAPPEN!!!
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Evolution is not just real; it's mandatory.
We live in exciting times; some might even say scary. We definitely live in a world with exponential change, closing gaps - geographic, educational, wealth - and economic growth. We live in a time when technology is advancing so fast, we can see that at the current pace, we will have surpassed our imagination.
We live in a time where "literati" will have a new meaning. We have surpassed the "information age" and are rapidly accelerating into the "knowledge age". Mere bits and bytes of data are insufficient. Knowledge itself is becoming obsolete.
Unfortunately, by the time we realize we have entered the "knowledge age", we will already be behind those who have recognized that knowledge is not what is important. The application of that knowledge is what matters. And they will be behind, still, those who recognize that it is not the application of knowledge, but the creation of new knowledge, what Buddhists must view as Nirvana, that will matter.
We live in a time that requires us to evolve. We must evolve as intellectuals, as Americans, and, most importantly, as a human race. As intellectuals, we must look beyond what is ordinary, and recognize the attainability of the extraordinary. As Americans, we must recognize that we will soon be looking up to the new global superpower. We must recognize that the new superpower will no longer have a white face; no longer be a Christian. We must evolve as humans, to see that humanity is what matters, not race, not religion, not gender.
Must we evolve to a collective? A communism of knowledge, if not of economics. Will this new communal thinking remove our creativity, our intelligence, and our individualism? Or, as Linux, Firefox, YouTube, MySpace, and Wikipedia have all shown us, will the community only ENHANCE our creativity, EXPAND our intellectual prowess, and EXPLOIT our individualism on a new stage?
Only time will tell. The one thing that is clear is that you will either sit on the side and watch it pass by at the speed of fiber optics, or you'll change with it. Evolve with it. Those who don't evolve won't have offspring who survive.
Maybe Darwin really had something.
http://scottmcleod.org/didyouknow.wmv
We live in a time where "literati" will have a new meaning. We have surpassed the "information age" and are rapidly accelerating into the "knowledge age". Mere bits and bytes of data are insufficient. Knowledge itself is becoming obsolete.
Unfortunately, by the time we realize we have entered the "knowledge age", we will already be behind those who have recognized that knowledge is not what is important. The application of that knowledge is what matters. And they will be behind, still, those who recognize that it is not the application of knowledge, but the creation of new knowledge, what Buddhists must view as Nirvana, that will matter.
We live in a time that requires us to evolve. We must evolve as intellectuals, as Americans, and, most importantly, as a human race. As intellectuals, we must look beyond what is ordinary, and recognize the attainability of the extraordinary. As Americans, we must recognize that we will soon be looking up to the new global superpower. We must recognize that the new superpower will no longer have a white face; no longer be a Christian. We must evolve as humans, to see that humanity is what matters, not race, not religion, not gender.
Must we evolve to a collective? A communism of knowledge, if not of economics. Will this new communal thinking remove our creativity, our intelligence, and our individualism? Or, as Linux, Firefox, YouTube, MySpace, and Wikipedia have all shown us, will the community only ENHANCE our creativity, EXPAND our intellectual prowess, and EXPLOIT our individualism on a new stage?
Only time will tell. The one thing that is clear is that you will either sit on the side and watch it pass by at the speed of fiber optics, or you'll change with it. Evolve with it. Those who don't evolve won't have offspring who survive.
Maybe Darwin really had something.
http://scottmcleod.org/didyouknow.wmv
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)