Max Boot, Professional Former Republican
49 minutes ago
One gain that comes out of war is as disturbing to conservatives as any of the losses: an aggrandizement of state power. The argument of “wartime necessity” runs roughshod over all checks and balances, civil liberties, and traditional constraints on government. In the 20th century, American progressives knew they could only create the powerful, centralizing federal government they sought by going to war. It was they, the left, who engineered America’s entry into World War I. Nearly a century later, 9/11 gave centralizers in the neocon Bush administration the cover they needed for the “Patriot Act,” legislation that would have left most of America’s original patriots rethinking the merits of King George. Just as nothing adds more to a state’s debt than war, so nothing more increases its power. Conservatives rue both.
For a proper conservative, American national politics is a desert. You can choose between declared liberals and neo-conservatives who are liberal on all important issues. And that’s it. Or there’s dear old Ron Paul, who is another sort of liberal, really. But he’s not important anyway. There’s nobody who is really socially conservative, above all nobody who will act( it’s decades too late anyway) to end the lax immigration politics which have revolutionised the country and will render it unrecognisable within 30 years. There’s nobody who will rescue the married family, or protect and recreate manufacturing industry so that ordinary people have proper honest work to do again, or reform the schools, or devise a foreign policy that actually makes the country safer.
What absolutely amazes me about this election is the way that leftish commentators try to build up Mitt Romney as some kind of conservative monster. If only he were. But his own record shows otherwise (and I might add, his running mate, whose name I can never remember, is a keen student of Miss Ayn Rand, another liberal) .
Many Anti-Federalists proposed, as an alternative to what they called the “president-general,” either a plural executive—two or more men sharing the office, a recipe for what a sage once called a wise and masterly inactivity—or they wanted no executive at all. Federal affairs would be so limited in scope that they could be performed competently and without aggrandizement by a unicameral legislature—that is, one house of Congress—as well as various administrative departments and perhaps a federal judiciary.
This is a stark but clear example of the mental process of commitment for a man...when a woman gets onto Ladder 1 (http://badgerhut.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/ladder-theory-for-men/) the "marriage goggles" go into place. Being a man, he takes seriously his commitment to the woman and that said commitment has benefits and costs to it. Given the relative differences in SMP over time for men and women, the commitment goggles provide a tremendous benefit to the woman in terms of long-term resources and security from a man who could, in all likelihood, choose any number of other women, or all/none of them.Is the picture this bleak? And is the state of women a consequence of poor moral training, or is it more tied to their weaknesses resulting from original sin? Even if Badger is blaming nature too much for what is the result of malformed character, the resulting reality is still the same and must be confronted.
However, once a woman does something that shatters the commitment goggles - be it nagging, cheating, denying sex or revealing that she lied to him on a material matter when he was deciding to invest in her - his sense of duty and obligation to her is over. It's done, she's no longer the special lady, just another chick who wants something from him.
It's a male-centric turnaround of Roissy's maxim that once the love dies, a woman can be as cold as if she had never met you. When the loved is _killed_ because a man feels deceived or betrayed, the man can and will lose all sympathy, magnanimity and compassion.
Raised on the soft feminism of my generation, when I was young I never conceived women had such shifting principles. I thought all of their rhetoric about how they wanted men with courage and honor and everything else meant they were committed to such things and expected the same of the men they consorted with. My how things have changed for me. Today, I really don't think women realize how much men, especially the "men of character" that are the endless discussion of articles like these, hold ideals and principles and fairness as a core value of their mindset. Probably another element of the Apex Fallacy, women see bad boys getting away with everything (especially with them, they love to complain about how some dastardly sexy man fooled them) and think deceptions are part of the male experience.
In fact, it's why more men in situations like this DON'T divorce their fibbing, cheating or harpy wives. They've been lulled into internalizing a sort of perverted "ideal" of marriage as "unconditional love" that itself entails a perverted concept of "unconditional forgiveness." (As Athol Kay says, the people who ask for unconditional love are those who don't meet the conditions.)
The hubbub over this letter is yet another incident that gives me great disappointment to realize that truth and honesty and idealism is just not really part of a woman's psychological calculus, not when her perceived self-interest is on the line, and that women will back each other on this abdication of accountability in herdlike fashion.
And this is why men are turning away from the deafening obligation-masculinity, "man up" shtick. Men are constantly told what they "ought" to do by virtue of having a dick, while woman ignore and destroy any pretense of consistency or accountability. Finally a sizeable corpus of men is saying, "so what? Why bother?"
On a more personal note, I've steered away from talking numbers with some partners simply because I knew it would be an uncomfortable conversation, probably one that would disappoint me and would almost beg her to lie to me. At the time I lied to myself and said it was an instance of magnanimity or just something that wasn't important, but now I know that was bullshit and I was just avoiding hard situations.No more Mr. Nice Guy or pedestalizing. Women should be held accountable for their actions and if they do not repent of their past, the consequences (e.g. avoidance) need to be real.
Since these relationships didn't work out for other reasons it's a moot point, but when you're talking about making a lifelong commitment you better have the guts to ask the tough questions, to follow up and to independently verify. Your money and your life are on the line.
Moreover, and this obviously doesn't apply to this case, I think a lot of women reflexively believe that the men they are scouting as husbands have equal or more sexual experience than they do, so the exact numbers aren't a big deal and thus can be fudged.
Remember, it's part of the apex fallacy, thinking men have it better than you do, when most women have NO idea at all how hard it is for a man to be sexually successful to the same degree even a plain woman can easily be.
Exciting news! After 14 years of working at Catholic Answers, Crystalina and I have decided after much prayer to step out to begin a new apostolate, dedicated solely to promoting chastity and the Theology of the Body. We’re no longer affiliated with Catholic Answers, but rather will be teaming up with Chris Stefanick, Sarah Swafford, and several others. If you’re interested in booking a presentation from any of us, call 877-770-1414. Please keep our new team in your prayers! More details (and a brand new website) to come soon!Sexual morality and relationship advice for the Nice Christian Guy? A caricature of theology of the body, or of its popular presentation here in America. I've linked to other people touching upon the problems in how popularized TOB presents sex and recommendations for sexual morality. The other component of popularized TOB that may be problematic is its understanding of the relationship between men and women. It may ignore sex differences and the results of these differences on relationship dynamics, maintaining a romantic ideal that is not only unattainable but also unsatisfying. If so, is this due in part to the fact that TOB is generally geared towards mixed audiences, and so tends to lean towards egalitarianism in order to be non-offensive?