Tuesday, June 10, 2014

HIM AGAIN, THIS AGAIN.

We can dispense quickly with W. Bradford Wilcox's Washington Post thing, "One way to end violence against women? Stop taking lovers and get married." (They've since changed the title, perhaps because it reminded readers of an old Will Ferrell and Rachel Dratch routine.) We have seen Wilcox before, telling people marriage makes you rich, and now he's telling them that marriage also protects women from abusers. Sample:
For women, part of the story is about what social scientists call a “selection effect,” namely, women in healthy, safe relationships are more likely to select into marriage, and women in unhealthy, unsafe relationships often lack the power to demand marriage or the desire to marry. Of course, women in high conflict marriages are more likely to select into divorce. 
...What’s more: women who are married are more likely to live in safer neighborhoods, to have a partner who is watching out for their physical safety, and—for obvious reasons—to spend less time in settings that increase their risk of rape, robbery, and assaults.
Let me introduce another term used by social scientists: correlation, which is different from causation.  This is like saying a brand-new Jaguar prevents rape because women who can afford a brand-new Jaguar tend to live in safer neighborhoods.

You can and do, however, get these wonderful results by giving people money. Wilcox would have you believe that wedding vows are talismanic and cause wealth, but sane people know it's not so; if you pass out marriage certificates in the slums, it won't turn them into luxury condos.

 I suspect that as one of the "conservative reform" crew Wilcox expects to have a sub-cabinet office dedicated to that purpose come Der Tag, funded with sweet, faith-based-initiative cash. As long as they see that at the end of the rainbow, they'll keep this nonsense up.

UPDATE. Mona Chalabi at Nate Silver's Nerd Farm:
One of the charts used in the article (seen at left) comes from a Department of Justice study published in 2012. I got in touch with the study’s author, Shannon Catalano, a statistician at the Bureau of Justice Statistics, who said her chart was presented without sufficient context.
Well, add statisticians to climate scientists as members of the Scientists' Conspiracy to destroy America -- which will be thwarted by Republican Lysenkoism!

UPDATE 2. Comments are terrific, of course. whetstone has a list of complaints with Wilcox, including: "Our data on domestic violence prior to the 1970s-1980s isn't very good. All the societal changes conservatives are shitting their pants over were basically done at that point... It's worth noting that we have good data now because FEMINISTS IDENTIFIED THESE PROBLEMS AND THEN WE STARTED MEASURING IT. So it's particularly infuriating when these statistics are used as a cudgel against feminism."

187 comments:

  1. Budbear10:40 PM

    The best ( actually, the only good ) part of that specious claptrap is the comment section. They are just ripping the authors and editors to shreds, and for all the right reasons. It's so bad that even the knuckle-dragging Foxaholics that normally troll that once august journal's online version are laying low, and those simians have, in the past, supported rape apologetics.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Entering into marriage is a once-in-a-lifetime proposition. A decision made after deep deliberation. With a partner you love and can trust absolutely. Best built upon a foundation of economic stability, reliable shelter and a workable plan for the future. A solemn and sacred undertaking.

    So, ladies. Ya married yet?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Derelict11:04 PM

    This isn't just mistaking cause and correlation. Conservatives have a bad habit of confusing appearance with reality--especially when appearances give cover to already held beliefs.

    Thus, these stats PROVE marriage make women wealthier and safer. The fact that poor people get some meager subsistence benefits PROVES that they're lazy moochers. And so on.

    Any wonder why they thought Bush was great right up until the country was in flames?

    ReplyDelete
  4. montag211:26 PM

    Yes, I have known literally hundreds of ill-mannered, uneducated slobs with a pronounced tendency to lose control and strike women and who are very much in love with anything that involves booze and ammunition who've been transformed into well-heeled upper middle-class paragons of virtue by the act of marriage alone.


    It's transformative!


    I also have a personally autographed photo of Tinkerbell.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Columns like that one always make me think that the conservative fearmongering over "liberal social engineering" is yet more projection. All of these arguments from the social cons demand that lofty concepts like romantic love be shoved aside in favor of the cold math of social outcomes - which, as Roy pointed out, doesn't track if you think about it. It's hardly new, either - Bush (y'know, the guy we don't talk about it) built policy around this concept, and the moral scolds have been nattering on about it since the 80's.


    It's possible that this is another case of the different branches of conservatism bleeding into each other. The "marriage makes you rich" (or safe, or whatever) reminds me a bit of the courtship model followed by most American evangelicals. Like Wilcox's model, courtship seriously de-emphasizes love or even compatibility, treating marriage more like a business partnership than anything we filthy secular types would consider a relationship.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Matt Jones11:46 PM

    Note that, by Wilcox logic, marriage not only makes you rich and safe it also turns you white...

    ReplyDelete
  7. It is business. Father is selling daughter (& her pledged-to-him virginity) to the highest bidder from a pre-approved group of bidders.


    Eventually they'll be first cousins-only marriages, to insure family loyalty & to keep the farmland in the family.

    ReplyDelete
  8. And wove, twue wove, wiww fowwow you fowevah and evah…

    ReplyDelete
  9. That's not actually what I meant, and that's not actually how courtship works. Yeah, I know: They're just dumb fundies, who the fuck cares if we properly represent their beliefs. Well, I'm enough of a pedant to care.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Spaghetti Lee12:40 AM

    You keep using that word 'fascism', Mr. Goldberg. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    ReplyDelete
  11. smut clyde12:41 AM

    See, ladies, if you give the guys what they want, stay in that marriage and don't report the rapes, then he won't have to hunt you down afterwards!


    The underlying logic has a lot in common with the idea that the problem of tax avoidance is best dealt with by lowering taxes on the wealthy.

    ReplyDelete
  12. AGoodQuestion1:00 AM

    People, relax! Wilcox is just having fun with us. And his joke has a beautiful punch line: the note at the end saying that he's a professor of sociology. I'm gonna wake up laughing tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  13. JennOfArk1:11 AM

    I never got married, but I got white hair. Well, more like platinum blonde, which is weird, because I never aspired to be a blonde and would never have considered bleaching my hair and spent 25 years coloring it back to the original very dark brown to cover up what I thought was white (it started coming in when I was 14). Till I got tired of messing with it and decided I didn't give a shit what color it was. And now I'm a natural platinum blonde, I mean Daenerys Targaryen blonde . Which I guess is what not marrying will get you.

    ReplyDelete
  14. JennOfArk1:13 AM

    Yes, the average single woman's dating life looks just like the cover of a Harlequin Romance.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Sorry, I thought it was Abuse the Patriarchy in here.
    I'll try down the hall.

    ReplyDelete
  16. PersonaAuGratin1:36 AM

    And he apparently teaches Home-Ec at AEI.

    ReplyDelete
  17. smut clyde1:40 AM

    Rat-fuckers of unusual size.

    ReplyDelete
  18. montag21:56 AM

    Hey, if it's good enough for Rudy! Giuliani, it's good enough for the rest of right-wingdom.

    ReplyDelete
  19. montag22:00 AM

    I wonder... are submissions to the Family Research Council's newsletter peer-reviewed?

    ReplyDelete
  20. That's not actually what I meant, and that's not actually how courtship works.


    Yeah, the financial angle is usually absent nowadays when the father releases his daughter to her husband. A truly godly father with explicit custody of his female child's virginity is going to turn it over to the suitor with the most consonant religious beliefs, not to the one with the most money.


    The evangelicals outside the purity ball / male headship movement do sometimes seem to be a bit more mercenary in courtship, weighting stability, continuity of property, and adequate finances higher than flights of romantic fancy. That's often a joint decision of the couple-to-be, though. So what we have are distinct spheres of kicking it old-school when it comes to matrimony.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "One way to end violence against women? Stop taking lovers and get married."

    Well, that's us men told.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Which I guess is what not marrying will get you.


    Wait, so ... not marrying will get you Daenerys Targaryen? In some demographics, that would really undercut Wilcox's point.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Well, yeah. The grape skins are where all the resveratrol is.

    ReplyDelete
  24. ColBatGuano2:33 AM

    Yeah, the study they reference shows that the vast majority of violence against women occurs to women who are separated from their spouse. In other words, they were once married and either left because of the abuse or were abused because they left. How this tells us that marriage is the answer is up to you to figure out.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Jeffrey_Kramer3:35 AM

    "Mary, ever since we met I have felt, as I have never felt before with any woman, a passionate urge to improve your overall chances of encountering domestic violence."
    "Oh, John, are you saying what I think you're saying?"
    "Yes, Mary; I want to buy you a gun!"

    ReplyDelete
  26. Gromet5:40 AM

    One of the very best practices of conservatism is to take stock of history skim the 1952 pamphlet advertising suburbia and take that weird little candle-flicker of time and place for "ever was it thus, in accordance with God's will." We must get back to the way things were then!

    There's only one party that truly does love social engineering, and it's not the party that slapped the band-aid of school busing across 500 years of slavery, Jim Crow, slut-shaming, border-tightening, science-denying, inquisition, and brimstone.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Derelict7:01 AM

    The beatings will continue until women's safety improves.
    Or something.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "Selecting into Marriage protects women from abuse because by definition married women CAN'T be abused (or raped), duh."

    "This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how raped women can't get pregnant."

    ReplyDelete
  29. ...What’s more: women who are married are more likely to live in safer
    neighborhoods, to have a partner who is watching out for their physical
    safety, and—for obvious reasons—to spend less time in settings that
    increase their risk of rape, robbery, and assaults.

    Because when your husband rapes, assaults or robs you, it's a crazy little thing called love.

    Besides which, those stats showing you're far more likely to be worked over by someone you know - A LIBERAL PLOT to make women into shameless hussies.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Im on my phone so cant link but fred clark at slactivist caught a version of this in a 1968 catholic bishops report on contraception. The bishops voted to reccomend overturning the ban on contraception. A minority argued to keep it on the grounds that they cant have been wring for thousands of years because jesus couldnt have been wrong in entrusting them to not be wrong all that time. Plus it would be embarrassing to the magisterium. So it cant have happened.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Yep. I got married because I got sick of standing around in a field of heather in a bustier that squashed my boobs up under my chin.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Sort of a "go with the flow" mentality. Or "If you can't beat 'em, suck up to 'em."

    ReplyDelete
  33. And if he doesn't work hard and settle down it is the woman's fault for failing to tame her Wild Manbeast! Win/Win for the petulant women-hating shits of society.

    ReplyDelete
  34. It's funny how the mysterious workings of the Holy Spirit always seem to end up making things just the way they are now. We just have to trust.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Also

    Wilcox expects to have a sub-cabinet office dedicated to that purpose come Der Tag, funded with sweet, faith-based-initiative cash. As long as they see that at the end of the rainbow, they'll keep this nonsense up.




    Nah. That would be a bonus, but being a smug woman-hating fucknob is its own reward. Being given a podium and a massive PA system to spread the hate is a bigger reward. A permanent paid position Grand High Hausfrau Wrangler is a fantasy reserved for when the wife is out and the neighbors have asked you to feed their guinea pig.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Just don't try to protect yourself from an abusive ex by firing a warning shot--at least not if you're one of the exemptions to the Stand Your Ground law in Florida (non-white and/or non-male).


    In that case, you get 20 years room and board, courtesy of the fine people of that state.

    ReplyDelete
  37. More Bugs, less Elmer.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Pope Zebbidie XIII7:48 AM

    Why marry the cow when the free milk truck carries the early bird that got the grindstone? Answer me that!

    ReplyDelete
  39. Pope Zebbidie XIII7:50 AM

    Bias remorse.

    ReplyDelete
  40. smut clyde7:52 AM

    You say "mysterious workings of the Holy Spirit", I say "evolutionary psychology".

    ReplyDelete
  41. Pope Zebbidie XIII7:53 AM

    If marriage doesn't involve a flock of goats and some myrrh, I hardly think it qualifies as traditional.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Pope Zebbidie XIII7:54 AM

    Nocturnal submissions.

    ReplyDelete
  43. smut clyde7:55 AM

    The bride-price for the Frau Doktorin was a dromedary. I only had a bactrian camel so her family gave me the change in goats.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Pope Zebbidie XIII7:59 AM

    My doctor prescribed me a full course of lovers and I shan't stop taking them until I've finished.

    ReplyDelete
  45. smut clyde7:59 AM

    I was a redhead in childhood, but my metabolism must have cured the mutation or something, and by adolescence my hair had darkened to a dirty brown. See, if it's legitimate ginja-dom the system has a way of shutting down.

    ReplyDelete
  46. That would be "science," which is something the little people simply cannot grasp. We're trying to keep things simple here.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Pope Zebbidie XIII8:02 AM

    What is the Ibex-Hereford exchange rate these days?

    ReplyDelete
  48. montag28:02 AM

    Or, "aberrant psychology," as the case may be.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I recall that there are doctors in Nevada who'll take that as payment for services rendered. I could be wrong about that.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Do wife-beaters not exist in his world?


    They exist in this one, even in affluent neighborhoods. Imagine that!

    ReplyDelete
  51. And by logical extension, repealing laws reduces the crime rate.


    What an amazing tool for the betterment of society! Lower the bar and get a higher score.

    ReplyDelete
  52. The love of a good woman ALWAYS civilizes a man.


    Haven't you ever seen The African Queen?

    ReplyDelete
  53. smut clyde8:21 AM

    a personally autographed photo of Tinkerbell giving Jesus a hug.
    Was this perchance taken at the Fulsom St Fair?

    ReplyDelete
  54. smut clyde8:22 AM

    All I know is that my FOREX contacts said to shift everything into Friesans.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Lie back and think of England.

    ReplyDelete
  56. It's not surprising if you think of the two sides as a couple of equally violent, disgusting and hateful brothers who are fighting to live up to the expectations of an even more violent, disgusting and hateful dad who abandoned them.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Same as it ever was…same as it ever was….

    ReplyDelete
  58. mortimer20009:04 AM

    Not to mention that, statistically, married women are much more likely to get divorced than unmarried women. Or that husbands of married women about to become ex-husbands are much more prone to commit violence against these very same married women, before and after the divorce. Or that children of married women who get divorced and then remarry are much more likely to have stepfathers, the brutal beasts who are much more likely to abuse children. And yet, in all these cases, women are cosseted in this magically protective cocoon of marriage. It's confusing.

    This really is yet another instance where right-wingers blame the victims of conservatives' most beloved and lucrative institutions for their own oppression. Like alcohol in Homer Simpson's world, we alone are the cause of and the solution to all of life's problems. So poverty has nothing to do with a minimum wage that would be 45% higher if it just kept up with inflation and 300% higher if it also matched the increase in worker productivity, and everything to do with the immorality and laziness of the poor who just don't work hard enough at that minimum wage. And the demise of the middle class has nothing to do with the predatory class of capitalist leeches who've sucked up all that worker productivity for themselves, and everything to do with, well, Obamacare.

    And violence against women is because women refuse to get married.

    ReplyDelete
  59. It's a wonder that the average single woman EVER gets married, if that's true.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Helmut Monotreme9:08 AM

    W. Bradford Wilcox? That's the cheesiest faux old money pen name I've seen in a long time. Was it selected by someone who saw the yacht club scene in 'Caddyshack' and thought they were the heroes of the film? Was 'Daddy Warbucks' taken?

    ReplyDelete
  61. That hurts my head to even TRY to answer that...

    ReplyDelete
  62. satch9:16 AM

    Ah... so you decided to let yerself go, eh? It's a real eye opener when you discover that the heather is full of deer ticks, and the bronzed, barechested guy who swept you off your feet will end up in a stained wife beater drinking a beer for breakfast while reading the Washington Times...

    ReplyDelete
  63. satch9:22 AM

    Aw, don't give up...it just means your very own Khal Drogo hasn't shown up yet...

    ReplyDelete
  64. BigHank539:27 AM

    Once your brain is double-jointed enough to believe that both of the creation stories in Genesis are the 100% inerrant word of God, you can believe nearly anything.

    ReplyDelete
  65. satch9:28 AM

    The brothels won't, but the doctors will? Well, at least one doctor will. Go figure...

    ReplyDelete
  66. FlipYrWhig9:30 AM

    "W. Bradford Wilcox" is roughly as cheesy as "Thurston Howell III," "Spaulding Smails," and "Willard Mitt Romney." But as fitting as those are, they're not quite in the rarefied heights of Mason Plumlee.

    ReplyDelete
  67. The brothels might, but, man, that would be one shitload of cattle.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Helmut Monotreme9:32 AM

    Well, like many of the people who argue against the teaching of evolution, they think the fact that it is true is less important than the 'message it sends' e.g. that we are primates, descended from primates over the course of millions of years, and not the special children of some totally-not-made-up magical sky fairy.
    The message of "get married you shameless harlots!" is more important to them, than understanding that getting married should involve making an evidence based decision based on mutual love, mutual respect, compatible life goals, and financial circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  69. satch9:37 AM

    Well, I'm sure that James Dobson gives the submissions the ol' once over, and he and Jesus are the only peers they need, amirite?

    ReplyDelete
  70. BigHank539:39 AM

    In the category of "names you wouldn't believe" the chairman of the Roanoke County board of supervisors has been all hot and heavy to get some public prayer in before every meeting. (Prayers from non-Christian faiths can get a slot later in the program, not that he thinks one faith is better than another.) The name of this tireless fighter for the oppressed Christians of rural Virginia?

    Butch Church.

    ReplyDelete
  71. marriage, to them, implies 24/7 consent


    Ha, like they care about consent. Marriage, to them, implies ownership, thus making consent irrelevant. Your car doesn't need to consent to you driving it, after all.

    ReplyDelete
  72. dmsilev9:40 AM

    "By the authority vested in me by Kaiser Wilhelm II, I pronounce you man and wife. Proceed with the execution."

    Change 'Kaiser Wilhelm II' to 'Ronald Reagan, blessed be his name' and you'd get the standard wedding service for Texas conservatives.

    ReplyDelete
  73. The man’s definitely got a cv
    going for him but I thought the link at footnote
    9 was also interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  74. satch9:42 AM

    I'm pretty sure even Dave Brat was surprised by the batshit insanity of the primary voters.

    ReplyDelete
  75. It seems like dragons would be the best deterrent against domestic violence, but I dunno. I haven't seen the numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Stupid disqus or however you spell it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Bradford_Wilcox


    and


    http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/07/13/ut-austin-scrutinizes-ethics-controversial-same-sex-parenting-study#sthash.jXUybyDD.dpbs

    ReplyDelete
  77. "Oh, my dear. Promise me that if we marry, the subsequent financial security will allow us to buy clothes that fasten."

    ReplyDelete
  78. The truth is less important than the message.


    Keeping that in mind that helps me to understand a lot of conservative thought. There was a saying that I heard growing up in the Deep South that I never really understood: "Well, if it ain't true, it oughta be!"

    ReplyDelete
  79. It's a curious conundrum. Despite feminists being the alleged man-haters, it's the conservatives who seem to operate from the assumption that men are mindless beasts who can't control their own impulses.


    But then again, conservatives seem to embrace both the Manly Man Alpha Manly Macho Male Man "virtue" of being a penis-driven beast, and the staid, uptight primness of upper-class white society. But then, as you said, they just resolve the conundrum by blaming women whenever it fails them.

    ReplyDelete
  80. That would be "science,"


    No, that would be "evolutionary psychology." There's usually a difference.


    (I presumed that smut clyde was noting that evo psych so frequently manages to arrive at justifying the status quo, by methodology little different from that of the Church. On the other hand, if smut clyde is an evolutionary psychologist, I've just put my foot in it.)

    ReplyDelete
  81. LittlePig10:02 AM

    Yeah, the reconciliation of 'simultaneous' and 'sequential' must be one wild ride.

    ReplyDelete
  82. LittlePig10:04 AM

    And thus does myth trump eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Dave Brat thought he himself was an outlier? He's an ultra-Calvinist hypercapitalist "economist" cobag. He pretty much pegs the batshit insanity meter.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Helmut Monotreme10:07 AM

    How wonderful civilization is that it protects (and even rewards) people holding delusions up as truth. Wishful thinking that reinforces deeply held opinions are more valuable than empirical science. There are more than a few sociologists out there doing hard work to put their field of study on a solid intellectual footing and then W Bradford Wilcox goes and pees in the pool again, and everyone goes back to thinking sociology is where failed psychologists go to spin weird ass theories on behalf of conservative think tanks.

    ReplyDelete
  85. LittlePig10:08 AM

    It seemed to me you were accurately representing the instructions in that book they carry around.

    ReplyDelete
  86. LittlePig10:11 AM

    Thanks. I could not deduce who Jennifer was referencing until you threw dragons in the mix.

    ReplyDelete
  87. LittlePig10:14 AM

    You would think you'd see more tailor shops with all that bodice-ripping going on.

    ReplyDelete
  88. LittlePig10:15 AM

    Spare the rod and spoil the child, you know.

    ReplyDelete
  89. LittlePig10:18 AM

    The Mysterious Ways clause.

    Great for ending many an argument.

    ReplyDelete
  90. And yet, in all these cases, women are cosseted in this magically protective cocoon of marriage. It's confusing.


    It's less confusing if you assume that the author's actual concern is for men rather than for the safety of women.

    ReplyDelete
  91. LittlePig10:25 AM

    None. Women as property dates back to ol' Abraham, a feller the two religions have in common. So they are starting from common assumptions.

    Take the same personality type (aka 'nutty as a nest of cuckoos'), throw in those same assumptions, and bingo-bango, Tabangelical, with minor differences due to their particular flavor additions in hopes of winning the One True Scotsman prize.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Pretty good capsule description of Abraham and his sons.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Oops. should have read down faster before posting.

    ReplyDelete
  94. I think that may, indeed, surpass Creflo Dollar and Butch Otter.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Yes, there are none so blind as those who will not see.


    I think I read that somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Yes, bodice rippers stimulate the economy (among other things.)

    ReplyDelete
  97. DocAmazing11:06 AM

    then W Bradford Wilcox goes and pees in the pool again
    Is that what they call "peer review"?

    ReplyDelete
  98. Needs moar jackbooted fascist octopus.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Man, when your cynicism can top his in just one sentence, I think you ought to get some kind of award.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Mooser11:19 AM

    I'm with you! I'm sure most of my lovers got took, too. When asked, they reply "You know, I don't think that was good for anybody!"

    ReplyDelete
  101. Mooser11:22 AM

    When I got married, I promised my wife that we would have few material objects, but they would all be of the very cheapest quality.
    And to that vow I have remained constant.

    ReplyDelete
  102. I want to escort this comment to the men's room at the Shoreline Amphitheater during the next Santana concert and push right up to the front of the line because, dammit, he's gotta go..

    ReplyDelete
  103. Gotta reward them for good behavior, they'll totally see the incentive to bring back that money if we keep giving them what they want without any expectation from them.

    ReplyDelete
  104. J Neo Marvin11:42 AM

    No crime if there ain't no law, no cops to mess you around.

    ReplyDelete
  105. LittlePig11:52 AM

    Wishful thinking that reinforces deeply held opinions are more valuable than empirical science.

    True fact.

    ReplyDelete
  106. LittlePig11:54 AM

    There's no school like the Bronze Age school

    ReplyDelete
  107. LittlePig11:55 AM

    ...and that ain't alllllllll......

    ReplyDelete
  108. Meanie-meanie, tickle a person12:01 PM

    Odd that the burden of moral hazard mostly falls on the shoulders of them with the fewest morals to risk...

    ReplyDelete
  109. Meanie-meanie, tickle a person12:04 PM

    I actually wanted to downvote this 5 times, it was that good a pun...

    ReplyDelete
  110. I didn't marry him. He just stands there. Day and night. First it was interesting, then it was boring and then it was really creepy. I married his younger brother. The one with a sense of humor, personal interest and an emotional range that has more settings than Smolder.

    ReplyDelete
  111. It is weird. I've known a number of very radical feminists, even lesbian separatists, and maybe 3 insisted that all men were evil, penis-driven beasts. Everyone else made exceptions for some penis-owner, even if it was one relative or a gay friend.

    So the Manly Man Crowd is actually worse when it comes to slanderous stereotypes about men. I don't get it. If someone really wants me to take them seriously when they say they are required by nature to sexually assault me and any other woman who doesn't run away quickly enough, I don't think they'll like my response.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Meanie-meanie, tickle a person12:28 PM

    They live in what I've been calling Conservative Fantasyland for years now. They inhabit a continuum where what they think should be true automatically is. Here lately, though, their fantasies are running headlong into stark physical reality in a way that will shirley evoke that Immovable Force and Irresistible Object we've all heard about. Global Warming won't be so easy to wish away when Florida and most of the Gulf Coast are oyster farms, and Arkansas has beachfront property on sale. What will they do then? Blame it on the Left, naturally. Well, if the media would let 'em get away with...we're fucked, ain't we...

    ReplyDelete
  113. Helmut Monotreme12:48 PM

    We'd be lucky if Florida and the Keys ended up as oyster farms. Adding that many filter feeders to the cesspit of the Atlantic would do it a world of good. Instead, every septic tank, every landfill, every rusting out gas tank within 15 feet of the high tide line (25 if you count storm surges) will empty into already filthy ocean.

    ReplyDelete
  114. BigHank531:00 PM

    Cobag? A colostomy bag serves a useful function for which thousands of people are grateful. Dave Brat...well, he'd better hope the Hindus are wrong, 'cause he's got about a thousand years of maggot waiting for him.

    ReplyDelete
  115. satch1:29 PM

    That'll teach me to try interpreting wingnut election results from outside the petrie dish.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Teresa1:37 PM

    Conservative men have serious issues with viewing real life as if it's some childish fairy tale. It would be nice if they would grow the hell up.

    ReplyDelete
  117. whetstone2:08 PM

    The one upshot of that dipshit piece and the even worse headline has been an encouraging pile-on completely destroying it and the completely irresponsible way it used data. So let me continue:

    1. Our data on domestic violence prior to the 1970s-1980s isn't very good. All the societal changes conservatives are shitting their pants over were basically done at that point. Basically, their argument is "let's go back to a simpler time, when people were married in nuclear families and we knew fuck-all about them."

    1b. It's worth noting that we have good data now because FEMINISTS IDENTIFIED THESE PROBLEMS AND THEN WE STARTED MEASURING IT. So it's particularly infuriating when these statistics are used as a cudgel against feminism.

    2. One explanation for why women in particular were pissed off about this: the centuries-long existence of marital-rape exceptions, which still have de facto influence. So if you're going to say that ladies will be safer if they get hitched, maybe it's worth at least acknowledging that for MOST OF AMERICAN HISTORY, even if women were "safer" in marriage—which we don't actually know—they sure as shit had less recourse in a court of law if they were victimized. And this was the case BECAUSE OF THE BIASES THAT DROVE THAT SHITTY PIECE: that ladies and their ladyparts were better off in the bonds of wedlock, even if they were married to an abuser.

    ReplyDelete
  118. realinterrobang2:32 PM

    A bias cut is only really good in sewing.

    ReplyDelete
  119. realinterrobang2:36 PM

    The beatings will continue until morality improves?

    ReplyDelete
  120. I'm long on Angus and Rhode Island Reds!

    ReplyDelete
  121. "A married man will do anything for money."

    The decidedly unmarried French diplomat, Talleyrand.

    ReplyDelete
  122. catclub3:14 PM

    Loving your neighbor is still right out.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Halloween_Jack3:26 PM

    A genuine Butch Church would be awesome, even if they wouldn't let me in.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Halloween_Jack3:33 PM

    Ask your doctor if lovers are right for you. Side effects may include birds suddenly appearing every time they are near, cryin' in the rain, being several stories high, the lights being on even though you're not home, this crazy feeling that's got you reeling, and occasionally finding yourself on the boulevard of broken dreams. Use only as directed.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Halloween_Jack3:36 PM

    Your mileage may vary.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Halloween_Jack3:39 PM

    It's kind of difficult to get accurate numbers; the piles of ashes tend to get mixed together.

    ReplyDelete
  127. We may not have data before the 70s about domestic violence, but we do know have a few clues.


    For example, back in the 50s on "The Honeymooners," Ralph threatened to hit Alice "right in the kisser" and people laughed. To me, that suggests that such a thing wasn't exactly out of the ordinary.

    ReplyDelete
  128. StringOnAStick3:50 PM

    "...that men are mindless beasts who can't control their own impulses."
    And thus we have the rational for every stripe of fundamentalist religion on this planet.

    ReplyDelete
  129. What's Stephen King's face doing on the cover of somebody else's novel?

    ReplyDelete
  130. Wishful thinking that reinforces deeply held opinions are more valuable than empirical science.



    Eric Cantor's polling was showing him up 30 points right up until he lost. Mitt Romney's polling told him he was a shoe-in for 2012 right up until he lost.


    This is what happens to people who refuse to accept any science that tells them what they don't want to hear and insist that the only legit science is that which reinforces what they want to be true, whether it's opinion polling or climatology or biology or economics.

    ReplyDelete
  131. All right, who ordered all of these copies of The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife?

    ReplyDelete
  132. smut clyde5:00 PM

    Allow me to buy this comment a hamburger made of sacred cows.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Derelict5:01 PM

    Well, add statisticians to climate scientists as members of the Scientists' Conspiracy to destroy America -- which will be thwarted by Republican Lysenkoism!

    Well, not so much Lysenkoism as applying the principles of Procrustes to everything in sight (and in cite, too).

    ReplyDelete
  134. Derelict5:02 PM

    So is your avatar more representative of he-who-stands?

    ReplyDelete
  135. Derelict5:04 PM

    I'm not sure it's possible for that guy to look more bored.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Derelict5:06 PM

    I see what you did there. Now clean it up!

    ReplyDelete
  137. smut clyde5:07 PM

    Rest assured that "poking the borax at evo-psych buffoons" is part of the Riddled mission statement.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Derelict5:10 PM

    They use a branch of this reasoning in real life: Since anti-poverty programs have not eliminated poor people, we should get rid of the anti-poverty programs. And, since gun laws don't absolutely guarantee that bad guys won't get their hands on guns, we need to get rid of all the gun laws.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Derelict5:19 PM

    Wish I wrote that!

    ReplyDelete
  140. They do, and it sure is annoying.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Gabriel Ratchet5:31 PM

    You see the same mindset at work in their devotion to abstinence-only sex education. It doesn't matter how many studies show that it's totally useless and a complete waste of time and money, they insist on pushing it because teaching young women that they can avoid pregnancy by taking the right precautions would "send the wrong message" (not to mention that the blame for any pregnancies that result can be blamed on the woman for "not getting the message" rather on the educator for pushing an ineffective message).

    ReplyDelete
  142. Part of the reason, I think, that worked as comedy is that everyone, most especially including Alice, knew Ralph was never going to actually hit her. He was a blowhard when angry, constantly making threats (not just against her but anyone who pissed him off) that he'd never, ever, carry out, and everybody knew it. That was the joke. She'd just roll her eyes at him or sometimes dare him to actually do it, knowing he wouldn't. In fact, his relationship with Alice was affectionate, loving, and mutually supportive. They ended practically every episode hugging and kissing, deeply in love even after many years of marriage, (living together in near-poverty by the way) still as affectionate as a couple on their honeymoon.


    Contrast that with, say, "Everybody Loves Raymond" where there is never even a hint of a violent threat by anyone, but it's also clear that everyone in the family, spouses, siblings, parents, children, grandkids, hates each other's guts.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Derelict5:46 PM

    No wonder I smile every time I see your avatar! Marvelous!

    ReplyDelete
  144. But surely smolder would be very handy if you needed to singe something, like a fringe, or a marshmallow?

    ReplyDelete
  145. I agree with Derelict, but its more like he's looking out at the buyer of the book and giving her (or him) the once over in case he can get away from the the woman grappling him and try something new.

    ReplyDelete
  146. smut clyde6:05 PM

    "Remember you're paying me by the hour, painter person."

    ReplyDelete
  147. smut clyde6:16 PM

    Eric Cantor's polling was showing him up 30 points right up until he lost.I'm trying to figure out the guy's motivation for advertising such one-sided internal polls and in effect telling his supporters that they could stay home rather than turn out for the primary. Was he hoping to demoralise his opponent's supporters? Or is it just a childish streak of nyah-nyah triumphalism?

    ReplyDelete
  148. RHWombat6:24 PM

    In some parts of the world, a brothel = one shitload of cattle.

    ReplyDelete
  149. LittlePig6:24 PM

    With the mohel, not so much.

    ReplyDelete
  150. tigrismus6:24 PM

    Satch's comment raised the possibility that this is a tick check. You can't be too careful, you know.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Pope Zebbidie XIII6:29 PM

    Only take orally.

    ReplyDelete
  152. We "painter persons" generally use photographic references for portraiture these days, so that's not as much a concern as it used to be.

    ReplyDelete
  153. RHWombat6:36 PM

    Linking to cant (or Kant) is overrated.

    ReplyDelete
  154. smut clyde6:49 PM

    Go ahead, DESTROY MY ILLUSIONS.

    ReplyDelete
  155. XeckyGilchrist7:18 PM

    And, per Cleek's Law, changing the length of the bed every day to the length that is judged to be the least liberal and re-stretching or -trimming everybody.

    ReplyDelete
  156. redoubtagain8:21 PM

    everyone goes back to thinking sociology is where failed psychologists
    go to spin weird ass hypotheses on behalf of conservative think tanks.

    That's 'cause they think sociology=socialist, and they want to reclaim it. For America.

    ReplyDelete
  157. tigrismus8:33 PM

    Illusion destruction does still pay by the hour.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Magatha9:06 PM

    I never got married... Well, hell, honey. Maybe you should get gay-married. Maybe I should get gay-married. Want to get married? We could live bi-stately: a wee, shabby hovel within a fabulously wealthy California community, and a whatever-dwelling-you-inhabit in Arkansas. We could save a lot of money if we pooled our failure to dye our hair savings.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Magatha9:09 PM

    Has you ever been bit by a tick? OW! Like, major ow, and then you look to see what is hurting you, and you see little legs waving at you. Yuck.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Magatha9:11 PM

    Which maybe explains Stephen King's novel Christine.

    ReplyDelete
  161. Mooser9:12 PM

    Shabby, but neat!

    ReplyDelete
  162. Mooser9:17 PM

    That comment puts its best foot forward, and a bird in the hand. It's a comment which can look at itself in the mirror, and feel good about it. I like a comment that still respects me in the morning.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Magatha9:21 PM

    O yes, neat, and peachy with a side of keen.

    ReplyDelete
  164. satch9:22 PM

    OK, so... which one is Misery again?

    ReplyDelete
  165. Meanie-meanie, tickle a person9:29 PM

    "Diqsuq" works for me. OK, actually it doesn't, much of the time, hence the spelling...

    ReplyDelete
  166. JennOfArk9:29 PM

    I would virtually gay-marry you. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to gay-marry IRL though. For one thing, I'm not into vag. But more than that, I'm not sure anyone would want to live with me. But you would be welcome to visit my semi-wee, not-so-shabby hovel adjacent to Little Rock's old money enclave. (Not that that is anything to brag about - the old money is 4 blocks to the east, while 4 blocks to the north it's pretty monolithic teabagger gun-strokers cheek to jowl.)

    ReplyDelete
  167. True. But let's just say the term weenie roast didn't originate with campfire cookery.

    ReplyDelete
  168. tigrismus9:32 PM

    I found one with its head buried in the back of my knee once, never felt a thing except for nausea after I'd picked off the little nasty.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Magatha9:34 PM

    Ooh! Visits. This I like. Because, in truth, I never will marry, I'll be no person's wife. I intend to stay single all the days of my life.

    But I house-sit at some lovely places, so we should plan your visit for one a them times.

    ReplyDelete
  170. Meanie-meanie, tickle a person9:40 PM

    Y'know what? I say elect as many Bratz as they wanna. The more, the loonier, the quicker the marginally sane/intelligent mass of Americans will react to the stench, and perhaps put an end to a Congress of deranged Howdy Doodys. (Yes, I'm a cockeyed optimist on alternate Wednesdays, so what?) The only possible downside would one-party-rule by Democrats for a spell, but I think we'd manage to survive that. And, compared to the alternative, as a downside it actually looks pretty up. And when a sane loyal opposition steps up to loyally oppose again, I think we'll be about ready...

    ReplyDelete
  171. Y'all have gundamentalists in Arkansas, too?

    ReplyDelete
  172. JennOfArk10:39 PM

    I really need to change my avatar back to Ignignokt.

    ReplyDelete
  173. Uh, I'm sure you're just funning with us, but the title of my unpublished romance novel is Pedantry Unbridled, so I quench my lust for hectoring thus:



    In the Stephen King novel Misery, one of the protagonists is Paul Sheldon, the author of a series of romance novels featuring Misery Chastain. I won't provide any more details other than that Misery's Return features in the story, because apparently? Spoilers.

    ReplyDelete
  174. JennOfArk10:50 PM

    Shirley Ugest.

    ReplyDelete
  175. Well, shit. I've obviously neglected to keep track of blogs I should be following and I suggested you might be an evolutionary psychologist, so my foot's still in it up to its neck. Apologies.

    ReplyDelete
  176. A colostomy bag serves a useful function for which thousands of people are grateful.


    In Brat's case, thousands of people are apparently grateful for what is nevertheless fundamentally a sack of shit.

    ReplyDelete
  177. Not to mention that, statistically, married women are much more likely to get divorced than unmarried women.


    Well, duh. Unmarried women can't get divorced.


    [DUCKS AND RUNS]

    ReplyDelete
  178. JennOfArk12:27 AM

    Again, off-topic, but I wanted to make sure none of you had missed out on one of the best long-play dick jokes I've seen/heard in quite some time:

    ReplyDelete
  179. willf4:42 AM

    Next to go: stop lights, and those painted lines between interstate lanes.

    ReplyDelete
  180. willf4:45 AM

    Back of a Denny's placemat?

    ReplyDelete
  181. willf4:51 AM

    "Lie back and think of the Laffer Curve".



    Fixed that for you.

    ReplyDelete
  182. Derelict8:18 AM

    What tipped you off?

    ReplyDelete
  183. Meanie-meanie, tickle a person6:51 PM

    Has the Surgeon General issued a warning about smoke getting in your eyes?

    ReplyDelete