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."
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.
ReplyDeleteEntering 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.
ReplyDeleteSo, ladies. Ya married yet?
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.
ReplyDeleteThus, 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?
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.
ReplyDeleteIt's transformative!
I also have a personally autographed photo of Tinkerbell.
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.
ReplyDeleteIt'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.
Note that, by Wilcox logic, marriage not only makes you rich and safe it also turns you white...
ReplyDeleteIt is business. Father is selling daughter (& her pledged-to-him virginity) to the highest bidder from a pre-approved group of bidders.
ReplyDeleteEventually they'll be first cousins-only marriages, to insure family loyalty & to keep the farmland in the family.
And wove, twue wove, wiww fowwow you fowevah and evah…
ReplyDeleteThat'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.
ReplyDeleteYou keep using that word 'fascism', Mr. Goldberg. I do not think it means what you think it means.
ReplyDeleteSee, 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!
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteYes, the average single woman's dating life looks just like the cover of a Harlequin Romance.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I thought it was Abuse the Patriarchy in here.
ReplyDeleteI'll try down the hall.
And he apparently teaches Home-Ec at AEI.
ReplyDeleteRat-fuckers of unusual size.
ReplyDeleteHey, if it's good enough for Rudy! Giuliani, it's good enough for the rest of right-wingdom.
ReplyDeleteI wonder... are submissions to the Family Research Council's newsletter peer-reviewed?
ReplyDeleteThat's not actually what I meant, and that's not actually how courtship works.
ReplyDeleteYeah, 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.
"One way to end violence against women? Stop taking lovers and get married."
ReplyDeleteWell, that's us men told.
Which I guess is what not marrying will get you.
ReplyDeleteWait, so ... not marrying will get you Daenerys Targaryen? In some demographics, that would really undercut Wilcox's point.
Well, yeah. The grape skins are where all the resveratrol is.
ReplyDeleteYeah, 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"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."
ReplyDelete"Oh, John, are you saying what I think you're saying?"
"Yes, Mary; I want to buy you a gun!"
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!
ReplyDeleteThere'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.
The beatings will continue until women's safety improves.
ReplyDeleteOr something.
"Selecting into Marriage protects women from abuse because by definition married women CAN'T be abused (or raped), duh."
ReplyDelete"This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how raped women can't get pregnant."
...What’s more: women who are married are more likely to live in safer
ReplyDeleteneighborhoods, 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteYep. 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.
ReplyDeleteSort of a "go with the flow" mentality. Or "If you can't beat 'em, suck up to 'em."
ReplyDeleteAnd 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.
ReplyDeleteIt'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.
ReplyDeleteAlso
ReplyDeleteWilcox 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.
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).
ReplyDeleteIn that case, you get 20 years room and board, courtesy of the fine people of that state.
More Bugs, less Elmer.
ReplyDeleteWhy marry the cow when the free milk truck carries the early bird that got the grindstone? Answer me that!
ReplyDeleteBias remorse.
ReplyDeleteYou say "mysterious workings of the Holy Spirit", I say "evolutionary psychology".
ReplyDeleteIf marriage doesn't involve a flock of goats and some myrrh, I hardly think it qualifies as traditional.
ReplyDeleteNocturnal submissions.
ReplyDeleteThe bride-price for the Frau Doktorin was a dromedary. I only had a bactrian camel so her family gave me the change in goats.
ReplyDeleteMy doctor prescribed me a full course of lovers and I shan't stop taking them until I've finished.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteThat would be "science," which is something the little people simply cannot grasp. We're trying to keep things simple here.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the Ibex-Hereford exchange rate these days?
ReplyDeleteOr, "aberrant psychology," as the case may be.
ReplyDeleteO.T. but...Hahaha, Eric Cantor!
ReplyDelete~
I recall that there are doctors in Nevada who'll take that as payment for services rendered. I could be wrong about that.
ReplyDeleteDo wife-beaters not exist in his world?
ReplyDeleteThey exist in this one, even in affluent neighborhoods. Imagine that!
And by logical extension, repealing laws reduces the crime rate.
ReplyDeleteWhat an amazing tool for the betterment of society! Lower the bar and get a higher score.
The love of a good woman ALWAYS civilizes a man.
ReplyDeleteHaven't you ever seen The African Queen?
a personally autographed photo of Tinkerbell giving Jesus a hug.
ReplyDeleteWas this perchance taken at the Fulsom St Fair?
All I know is that my FOREX contacts said to shift everything into Friesans.
ReplyDeleteLie back and think of England.
ReplyDeleteIt'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.
ReplyDeleteSame as it ever was…same as it ever was….
ReplyDeleteNot 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.
ReplyDeleteThis 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.
It's a wonder that the average single woman EVER gets married, if that's true.
ReplyDeleteW. 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?
ReplyDeleteThat hurts my head to even TRY to answer that...
ReplyDeleteAh... 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...
ReplyDeleteAw, don't give up...it just means your very own Khal Drogo hasn't shown up yet...
ReplyDeleteOnce 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.
ReplyDeleteThe brothels won't, but the doctors will? Well, at least one doctor will. Go figure...
ReplyDelete"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.
ReplyDeleteThe brothels might, but, man, that would be one shitload of cattle.
ReplyDeleteWell, 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.
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
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?
ReplyDeleteIn 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?
ReplyDeleteButch Church.
marriage, to them, implies 24/7 consent
ReplyDeleteHa, 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.
"By the authority vested in me by Kaiser Wilhelm II, I pronounce you man and wife. Proceed with the execution."
ReplyDeleteChange 'Kaiser Wilhelm II' to 'Ronald Reagan, blessed be his name' and you'd get the standard wedding service for Texas conservatives.
The man’s definitely got a cv
ReplyDeletegoing for him but I thought the link at footnote
9 was also interesting.
I'm pretty sure even Dave Brat was surprised by the batshit insanity of the primary voters.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like dragons would be the best deterrent against domestic violence, but I dunno. I haven't seen the numbers.
ReplyDeleteStupid disqus or however you spell it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Bradford_Wilcox
ReplyDeleteand
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/07/13/ut-austin-scrutinizes-ethics-controversial-same-sex-parenting-study#sthash.jXUybyDD.dpbs
"Oh, my dear. Promise me that if we marry, the subsequent financial security will allow us to buy clothes that fasten."
ReplyDeleteThe truth is less important than the message.
ReplyDeleteKeeping 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!"
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.
ReplyDeleteBut 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.
That would be "science,"
ReplyDeleteNo, 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.)
Yeah, the reconciliation of 'simultaneous' and 'sequential' must be one wild ride.
ReplyDeleteAnd thus does myth trump eyes.
ReplyDeleteDave Brat thought he himself was an outlier? He's an ultra-Calvinist hypercapitalist "economist" cobag. He pretty much pegs the batshit insanity meter.
ReplyDeleteHow 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.
ReplyDeleteIt seemed to me you were accurately representing the instructions in that book they carry around.
ReplyDeleteThanks. I could not deduce who Jennifer was referencing until you threw dragons in the mix.
ReplyDeleteYou would think you'd see more tailor shops with all that bodice-ripping going on.
ReplyDeleteSpare the rod and spoil the child, you know.
ReplyDeleteThe Mysterious Ways clause.
ReplyDeleteGreat for ending many an argument.
And yet, in all these cases, women are cosseted in this magically protective cocoon of marriage. It's confusing.
ReplyDeleteIt's less confusing if you assume that the author's actual concern is for men rather than for the safety of women.
None. Women as property dates back to ol' Abraham, a feller the two religions have in common. So they are starting from common assumptions.
ReplyDeleteTake 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.
Pretty good capsule description of Abraham and his sons.
ReplyDeleteOops. should have read down faster before posting.
ReplyDeleteI think that may, indeed, surpass Creflo Dollar and Butch Otter.
ReplyDeleteYes, there are none so blind as those who will not see.
ReplyDeleteI think I read that somewhere.
Yes, bodice rippers stimulate the economy (among other things.)
ReplyDeletethen W Bradford Wilcox goes and pees in the pool again
ReplyDeleteIs that what they call "peer review"?
Needs moar jackbooted fascist octopus.
ReplyDeleteMan, when your cynicism can top his in just one sentence, I think you ought to get some kind of award.
ReplyDeleteI'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!"
ReplyDeleteWhen I got married, I promised my wife that we would have few material objects, but they would all be of the very cheapest quality.
ReplyDeleteAnd to that vow I have remained constant.
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..
ReplyDeleteGotta 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.
ReplyDeleteNo crime if there ain't no law, no cops to mess you around.
ReplyDeleteWishful thinking that reinforces deeply held opinions are more valuable than empirical science.
ReplyDeleteTrue fact.
There's no school like the Bronze Age school
ReplyDelete...and that ain't alllllllll......
ReplyDeleteOdd that the burden of moral hazard mostly falls on the shoulders of them with the fewest morals to risk...
ReplyDeleteI actually wanted to downvote this 5 times, it was that good a pun...
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteIt 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.
ReplyDeleteSo 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.
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...
ReplyDeleteWe'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.
ReplyDeleteCobag? 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.
ReplyDeleteThat'll teach me to try interpreting wingnut election results from outside the petrie dish.
ReplyDeleteConservative 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.
ReplyDeleteThe 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:
ReplyDelete1. 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.
Ick.
ReplyDeleteA bias cut is only really good in sewing.
ReplyDeleteThe beatings will continue until morality improves?
ReplyDeleteI'm long on Angus and Rhode Island Reds!
ReplyDelete"A married man will do anything for money."
ReplyDeleteThe decidedly unmarried French diplomat, Talleyrand.
Loving your neighbor is still right out.
ReplyDeleteA genuine Butch Church would be awesome, even if they wouldn't let me in.
ReplyDeleteAsk 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.
ReplyDeleteYour mileage may vary.
ReplyDeleteIt's kind of difficult to get accurate numbers; the piles of ashes tend to get mixed together.
ReplyDeleteWe may not have data before the 70s about domestic violence, but we do know have a few clues.
ReplyDeleteFor 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.
"...that men are mindless beasts who can't control their own impulses."
ReplyDeleteAnd thus we have the rational for every stripe of fundamentalist religion on this planet.
What's Stephen King's face doing on the cover of somebody else's novel?
ReplyDeleteWishful thinking that reinforces deeply held opinions are more valuable than empirical science.
ReplyDeleteEric 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.
All right, who ordered all of these copies of The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife?
ReplyDeleteAllow me to buy this comment a hamburger made of sacred cows.
ReplyDeleteWell, add statisticians to climate scientists as members of the Scientists' Conspiracy to destroy America -- which will be thwarted by Republican Lysenkoism!
ReplyDeleteWell, not so much Lysenkoism as applying the principles of Procrustes to everything in sight (and in cite, too).
So is your avatar more representative of he-who-stands?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure it's possible for that guy to look more bored.
ReplyDeleteI see what you did there. Now clean it up!
ReplyDeleteRest assured that "poking the borax at evo-psych buffoons" is part of the Riddled mission statement.
ReplyDeleteThey 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.
ReplyDeleteWish I wrote that!
ReplyDeleteThey do, and it sure is annoying.
ReplyDeleteYou 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).
ReplyDeletePart 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.
ReplyDeleteContrast 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.
Not. Exactly.
ReplyDeleteNo wonder I smile every time I see your avatar! Marvelous!
ReplyDeleteBut surely smolder would be very handy if you needed to singe something, like a fringe, or a marshmallow?
ReplyDeleteI 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"Remember you're paying me by the hour, painter person."
ReplyDeleteEric 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?
ReplyDeleteIn some parts of the world, a brothel = one shitload of cattle.
ReplyDeleteWith the mohel, not so much.
ReplyDeleteSatch's comment raised the possibility that this is a tick check. You can't be too careful, you know.
ReplyDeleteOnly take orally.
ReplyDeleteWe "painter persons" generally use photographic references for portraiture these days, so that's not as much a concern as it used to be.
ReplyDeleteLinking to cant (or Kant) is overrated.
ReplyDeleteGo ahead, DESTROY MY ILLUSIONS.
ReplyDeleteSorry!
ReplyDeleteAnd, 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.
ReplyDeleteeveryone goes back to thinking sociology is where failed psychologists
ReplyDeletego 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.
Illusion destruction does still pay by the hour.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteHas 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.
ReplyDeleteWhich maybe explains Stephen King's novel Christine.
ReplyDeleteShabby, but neat!
ReplyDeleteThat 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.
ReplyDeleteO yes, neat, and peachy with a side of keen.
ReplyDeleteOK, so... which one is Misery again?
ReplyDelete"Diqsuq" works for me. OK, actually it doesn't, much of the time, hence the spelling...
ReplyDeleteI 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.)
ReplyDeleteTrue. But let's just say the term weenie roast didn't originate with campfire cookery.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteOoh! 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.
ReplyDeleteBut I house-sit at some lovely places, so we should plan your visit for one a them times.
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...
ReplyDeleteY'all have gundamentalists in Arkansas, too?
ReplyDeleteI really need to change my avatar back to Ignignokt.
ReplyDeleteUh, 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:
ReplyDeleteIn 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.
Shirley Ugest.
ReplyDeleteWell, 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.
ReplyDeleteA colostomy bag serves a useful function for which thousands of people are grateful.
ReplyDeleteIn Brat's case, thousands of people are apparently grateful for what is nevertheless fundamentally a sack of shit.
Not to mention that, statistically, married women are much more likely to get divorced than unmarried women.
ReplyDeleteWell, duh. Unmarried women can't get divorced.
[DUCKS AND RUNS]
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:
ReplyDeleteNext to go: stop lights, and those painted lines between interstate lanes.
ReplyDeleteBack of a Denny's placemat?
ReplyDelete"Lie back and think of the Laffer Curve".
ReplyDeleteFixed that for you.
What tipped you off?
ReplyDeleteHas the Surgeon General issued a warning about smoke getting in your eyes?
ReplyDelete