Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Look what Cassy posted on her Facebook wall:
Men should concentrate on playing with their children and leave the care to women
Fathers should stick to just playing with their children as their efforts to look after them just end in arguments with their wives, a study claims.
I defer to my own wisdom on this…
It’s very simple; up until 1960, the world was run by white men in black socks. Since 1970, it’s run by women who like to complain about things. So of course we need to get ready for next year’s study that says men aren’t helping out enough…
As you read through about the study, one thing jumps out. Yep, you guessed it…one researcher, who seems to be functioning in a dictatorial capacity in reporting the findings and likely in conducting the study itself, a female with a hyphenated name. No reassurance whatsoever that the conclusions of the study were based in any way on the data the study found…just a belief arranged by legacy protocol, nothing more than that.
In fact, toward the end of the article, a confession of sorts:
The results fit into her other work, which has found that mothers can act as “gatekeepers” to their children, either fostering or restricting how much fathers are involved in caring.
I sense that lately the eggheads are getting more brazen about this thing…this, pop in with an agenda, figure out what you want the study to say, go through the motions of a “study,” come to the conclusion you wanted to come to from the very beginning, work the agenda forward. They seem to be putting less effort into hiding it. In years past, a passage like “The findings in the study remained the same even when the researchers compared dual and single-income families, and when they took into account a wide variety of other demographic factors…” would have been implicitly interpreted as: The findings in the study would remain the same even if other research teams were measuring them.
Nowadays, maybe I’m imagining this, but there seems to be an unwritten undertone permeating throughout that says: “The findings in the study remained the same and they always will remain the same, because we’re the ones doing it.” As in…who cares if we’re measuring it in an objective, reproducible way or not? It’s a study, we’ve got it, and we’ve got our diplomas too. Like it or not, you’ll be living your life the way we want you to inside of five years, ten tops.
In this case, with mothers as the active parent, and fathers as the passive one. Like cattle, in other words. Nice.
How come it is that academics and the left…but I repeat myself…seem so everlastingly intent on bullying people to live like some kind of animal species that is not people?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
a female with a hyphenated name.
End of story.
Also, of course they’re getting more brazen, and will get even more so as the reality of the situation becomes more and more apparent (see: Gosnell, Kermit.) Nothing in nature is more vicious than a cornered rat.
- rob | 02/01/2011 @ 10:34The reason they’re more brazen is a desperate attempt to be relevant. This study got picked up because of it’s controversial conclusion. If the study had been; “fathers integral to child development and family well-being” it would have been ignored.
They have to throw red meat to the people who pay for their research otherwise, they’re out of a job. c.f. Global
warmingClimate Change.What exactly are we supposed to do with this study? Somewhere a man walks in the door, is presented with this study and says; “Aw crap. I guess I’ll restrict myself to having fun with the kids.” I defy anyone to find such a case.
- Duffy | 02/01/2011 @ 12:11Greg Mankiw posted this link today:
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/30/how-economics-saved-my-marriage.html
- OregonGuy | 02/01/2011 @ 12:32.
.
Duffy,
We aren’t supposed to do anything with this “study.” The only reason this “study,” like all these types of “studies,” exists is so that some yellow journalist will have something science-y sounding to cite whenever she wants to reach her preordained conclusion.
As in: “the burdens of childcare are disproportionately falling on women, as new study X confirms that men are no good at child-rearing and should stick to playing with them. Therefore we need sixteen new government programs, at a zillion dollars apiece, to help these poor overburdened mothers.”
Or: “men are only good for playing with their children, study X finds, which is yet more refutation — as if any more were needed! — that the so-called “nuclear family” is an anachronism. Since it has no benefits whatsoever, that means gay marriage is just super-fine, gay is just as good as straight, and conservatives are wrong wrong wrong!”
Or: “there’s nothing wrong with inner-city family arrangements, a new study finds. Some assert that the high levels of illegitimacy in the inner city contribute to social pathology, but since men aren’t any good at raising kids anyway, this cannot be the case, and only a zillion new social programs and eleventy zillion dollars a pop can ever hope to….”
etc. etc. I could go on all day.
- Severian | 02/01/2011 @ 13:00