Monday, November 3, 2014
Fine, now I've given you my take on why you should vote. Next. Voter ID. Of course this has become a heated debate, although frankly I'm not even sure why. Another reason to believe a lot of politicians are con artists and who would recognize that better than other politicians. Takes one to know one. How does showing a picture ID, government issued, keep someone from voting? Most states have laws that as a resident of their state you must maintain a state issued driver's license or identification after turning 18. Yes. Really. An hundred years ago, pictures weren't exactly cheap and they couldn't be instantly transferred to a little piece of plastic with a magnetic strip with all of your information digitally available. But hey, an hundred years ago, they didn't take driver's tests either. They simply mailed in for one. Birth certificate? Yea, they mailed in for that too--especially in rural areas. Social security card? Yep, same difference. My Grams had three different birthdays on her driver's license, social security records and yes even her birth certificate which did not match the family Bible. So in this day and age, we have to flash our identification, a photo ID, to cash a check, to use our credit cards, to get into a bar, to purchase alcohol, cigarettes and even lottery tickets. So why in the world would we not show one to vote? Seriously. Never have understood the concept of not having to. Only way it makes any sense whatsoever is that some con artist can't get voted in without putting some fraudulent votes in the bucket. No matter what lame brain bozo excuse I've heard against flashing an ID, they simply don't make sense. There's only a couple states in the Union that do not require someone over 18 to carry a government issued identification with a picture and that's been for decades now. Decades. Since before I was 18. Not only that since 9/11, our government has become very strict on citizens carrying proper identification. Oh yes. In some states, you can be arrested if you don't have proper identification on you and you will not be getting on any Federal sites without one. Give it a rest con artists. Time to make sure that if you want to cheat to win it's going to take more than chafe or just a printed voter ID that anyone that can find an old typewriter can duplicate. You have to prove you are the shareholder casting your vote at a company's shareholder meeting. Can't even believe this is an argument in the biggest investment of any of our lives--our government.
Who do you want to win? No telling. Don't care. It's not the point. We were promised by the Founding Fathers that we would be able to have a government for the people by the people. What I see anymore is a government run by a lot of con artists, no telling who is or isn't half the time or more, for a complacent bunch of sheep that would rather be conned than represented. I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers ever meant for the United States government to be a government of sheep paying con artists to burying our Great Nation. Get out there. Form an opinion. It's not a bad thing to have an opinion. That's what the con artists want you to believe and they've been selling that hype for decades. "Opinionated" has become an insult. Who drove that? Con artists. Opinionated means you've given it some thought. We don't have to agree when we have opinions. We don't have to vote the same. That's why the separate balloting booths. You get to make up your own mind and it's nobody's business. But, you want people to see your point of view, then open up your mouth and share your opinion. Don't expect everyone to agree. That's what fascists do. We're not fascists. The Nazis lost WWII. But have a dialogue. Find out why someone disagrees with you. Let them know why you disagree with them. Then take your final result to that polling location and use the knowledge that you've accumulated to cast your vote as a shareholder in what I still believe is one of the greatest nations in the world, hopefully in the nation that you also believe is still one of the greatest also.
Friday, June 20, 2014
Let's go there first, shall we? My ex-husband cheated on me while I was pregnant (many of you know this already) and rubbed my nose in it similar to rubbing a dog's nose in poop. I kicked him to the curb so fast it made his head spin faster than mine was at the time. He eventually married and is still with the last of several mistresses at that time. While I didn't just walk away, I mean I was at a brisk run in any direction away from him, he spent the next 10 years calling me at 7 am his time--which sometimes meant 2 am my time--for my birthday, the anniversary of our engagement, our first son's birthday, Valentine's Day, and our wedding anniversary. I could tell you that it was a big ego feed. I'd be lying. It was annoying as hell, particularly to the one or two boyfriends that happened to be there over the years. His obsession, for lack of any other description, was simple. I wanted nothing to do with him and that was a blow to his ego. So frankly, a blow to someone's ego can cause an unhealthy behavior that will go on for years and years...and years...and years. Frankly, he quit paying his child support 6 months before he was supposed to and I was told that I could file to get the money through our son's senior year. I thought about it. It would mean driving down to Florida. It would mean having to chase his *ss around for the next year to 2 years. Honestly, I've never wanted someone out of my life so bad ever. Making any effort for a lousy 6 months of child support that would mean I would have to endure contact with that jerk for more time than I had originally anticipated...well, no thanks. All of his actions have ever done is fortify that I was correct in walking away. His obsession with trying to piss me off, aggravate a situation, upset the apple cart, try and get a rise out of me...well, yes, yes, I absolutely made the right decision kicking him to the curb. The lesson here? Obsessing over someone where we think we are going to make them miserable does two things: 1. They won't care. 2. They will ultimately be positive they made the right decision.
So am I immune? No. I obsessed over an ex-boyfriend for years. It was a really good relationship. Never argued--until we broke up. Always had his undivided attention when we were together. He was kind and fun. And sexy as hell. Seriously, never be with someone that you don't find attractive. And I was blinded by all the good stuff. He was smart, soft spoken, and always a gentleman, at least while we were dating. I suppose that was all debatable after the fact. The thing that made it so good is that I realized that I could have a normal, non-jealous, secure relationship. That was really what I was obsessing over. I hadn't had that in years and years by the time I dated him. The main flaw that I kept overlooking was that he was basically a coward. That's how it ended; he was afraid of another guy I had dated. Moreover, he would keep tugging on that string that I left in his reach until I moved away from him. But it was my own fault. I just didn't want to forget how great that had been compared to everything else I had ever been in. There's a keyword there: Compared. Compared to everyone else I had dated, only one other relationship had been that great and that one had been cut short by a Gulf deployment. I kept kicking myself when the reality was I was sugar coating a major flaw. Cowardice was just as bad as the cheating--in some ways even worse. At least the cheating was upfront and in my face. The cowardice problem was something I kept sugar coating and telling myself that wasn't the problem. Faced with his lying to his brother about our relationship, I realized that his cowardice had little bounds. Ten years later he had minimized 10 months, plus 5-6 months on and off again to two weeks. I could've crowned him. All I could think in that moment was WTH did I spend all this time obsessing over a coward?
Truth is none of us know why we obsess over someone. I have a really good friend who's 1st wife passed away suddenly. He loved her very much, and still does. He's had a couple marriages since, but I think he spends a lot of his time searching for another her, someone just like his first wife. I'm not sure how much the last couple were like her, but I can say that isn't working for him. It won't work for anyone. We cannot replace what's lost. We have to move on and accept that it's gone. In this case, she's gone forever. There's no reconciliation even possible. Still, I watch him wallow in it sometimes and listen because that's the kind of friend I am. My advice is always the same. She wouldn't want him looking to replace her and she would want him to be happy. There's a major difference there. My ex-husband wanted to make sure I knew he was still around. Shove that knife in my side as often as possible. Truth is that my friend's first marriage sounds perfect, and I'm not saying that it wasn't. However, nothing is perfect. It was simply as close as he has ever gotten. He won't find another as perfect until he stops dwelling on how perfect that one was.
Over the years, I've observed lots of my friends, male and female, run into this rut called obsession. Sadly, sometimes it's not all their faults. I'd say at least half the time the person being obsessed over plays a part. My ex-boyfriend popped up every time I posted on FB where I was when I first moved home. So I quit posting. He give me dirty looks--I assume (yes, I know *ss-u-me) it was because I would text him but not acknowledge him in person. However, I had made up my mind that if he couldn't acknowledge me that it was definitely time for me to move on. I'm not sure it helped or hindered my "recovery" or acceptance. All I know is at a certain point I realized that it wasn't making me feel better. It was like stepping back in time and having that string tugged. It was worthless. I had a good friend who insisted on dating every woman he could get his hands on. More often than not, annoying trashy women. In fact, that seems to be most men's ways of dealing with their obsessions--find as many trashy women as possible. I'm pretty sure it doesn't work from my humble observations. In fact, if anything, it hyper-exasperates the fact that they are still obsessing. Women, most anyway, we tend to cut ourselves off, short, whatever and do anything but date. I suppose that's just how we cope. Ironic when you think about it. The male ego is probably in general far more fragile than the female ego. Not to say that confidence and ego are mutually exclusive, but in terms of recovering from a bad relationship, women are far more likely to recover in a healthy way regardless of their self confidence levels.
Sadly, I suppose the only way we truly get passed the obsession is by seeing the obsession for what it is. I'm not really sure how my friend can get passed his first marriage since she passed away. It's not like he can see all of her flaws and accept that it ended for a reason. It ended because of happenstance. Life can be funny (ironic not haha) that way. My own obsession ended when I saw the cowardice. It had been there all along right there in front of me. It hadn't been hidden; I just chose to ignore it. I watched a good friend of mine lose her obsession with a guy after she realized that she was always paying for everything. I watched a guy I know obsess so much over his ex-wife that he turned into a complete butt. By the time a couple of years had gone by, he only had 3 guys that would still hang around him. (Yea, no even yours truly bailed on him.) So I don't have an answer. I suspect the best answer I have is see the person that you are with for what they are. Flaws and all. If it ends, then focus on the flaws--not what you thought were the good things.
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Thursday, June 5, 2014
After the rants of a crazed young man, I would like to believe that we don't tolerate this and he was a "one off", but only weeks later we are facing a military that is breaking down. I have heard all of the arguments of why women don't belong in combat. I'll be blunt. I've watched grown, trained men break down, freeze, literally poop their pants at the face of what we are trained to do. I've watched women, straight women--not just the stereotypical butch lesbian, that have leapt up and let the training take over. Did their jobs without a second thought about their safety, completely focused on the mission and taking care of their brothers and sisters in arms. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether we belong or don't. We can do the job. We have higher standards and when those standards are upheld, we are the greatest military in the world. So why do some in the military still have a problem acknowledging that women can serve and should be treated with the respect their predecessors have earned? Well, it's simple: We are a reflection--we are the mirror of the best, the worst, and everything in between that the United States has to offer.
Years ago, a friend asked me in a conference call, a sidebar discussion while waiting for the meeting to start, what I thought about a situation another co-worker had experienced. He asked the other guy to describe the situation. Let's call the guy Ted (not his actual name). Ted's son was a varsity wrestler at a high school ranked in the Top 10 in his state. His son was a ranked wrestler in his weight class and the school had recently participated in an invitation only competition. The top 3 schools in wrestling in the state had been invited. In his son's weight class, a young female competitor was wrestling for one of the other schools. She was also a varsity letterman and was one of the top 3 wrestlers in the state in their weight class. His son had forfeited his match to her because he had refused to wrestle her. The coach from the team, the family of the young woman, her teammates, became irate with his son, their coach, their team and him and his wife that his son refused to wrestle her. She was top ranked. He was apparently the first to refuse. Her teammates had accused his son of being afraid to lose to a girl. He and his wife were proud of him. The other friend, let's call him Tom (he reads this blog so he'll know who he actually is), Tom asked me what I thought. I said that Ted might not want my opinion. Ted said that he did because from his point of view I was the only one that might be able to explain to him why this young woman, her team, her coach and her parents were so upset. So I asked why did his son refuse? Ted explained that he refused because of the positions that they get into while wrestling, where he had to put his hands, and that he felt it wasn't right. His son had felt that because she was a girl he might have to put his hands in places that he didn't want to. So I asked him to clarify what I already knew: The competitor with the lower center of gravity has the natural upper hand (women by nature have a lower center of gravity than men), the weight classes are pretty tight so the girl and his son were relatively close in size, and the smaller competitor often has a natural upper hand also. She was ranked higher than his son in the state rankings in their weight class? Yes. She was wrestling for the top coach in the state? Yes. She was wrestling for a higher ranked team than his own son's team? Yes. She was a varsity letterman? Yes. I sighed. And the only reason, I asked, was because his son was uncomfortable with where he might put his hands? Yes.
Well, I said, she had put herself there to compete. She was a varsity letterman for one of the top teams in the state and was higher ranked than his son. Her coach was the best in the state so he wasn't going to just hand out a varsity letter to just anyone--male or female. Just because his son was uncomfortable didn't mean that she shouldn't compete. By his actions, the actions that Ted was so proud of, he had said that a girl didn't belong because he was uncomfortable, not because she was uncomfortable. She had put herself there, her parents had agreed, her coach had agreed, she had earned the respect of her team, she was obviously a fierce competitor and because his son had deemed that she shouldn't be there he had refused to compete with her. He had decided that his discomfort over-weighed the respect she had already earned. I couldn't tell him what I would tell his son, but if it were my son, I would have told him that you don't turn down the best because it happens to be in a female package. It was male chauvinism at its worst. A woman should not be told no because it's going to make a man uncomfortable; she should be able to choose whether she wants to be there like any boy/man could. He chose to compete and she chose to compete. He had insulted her coach's ability to choose a letterman, he had insulted her team that depended on her record as much as they do everyone on their team, and worst yet, he had insulted her because of where he, he I emphasized, was worried about where he (again emphasized) might put his hands. This is the biggest problem in our society. This is the problem with our military, and with our society as a whole still.
What is? People, men and women, defining women for all women. No one tells a man no because he's a man. We tell girls they can't play football, they can't wrestle, they can't serve in the military, they cannot serve in combat. We tell our boys that girls are less, more fragile, and we instill in them that women are still less than they are. Then we wonder and scream at the boy who refuses to wrestle our top ranked varsity letterman daughter. We wonder why women still hate on each other so much, yet we teach our daughters to self loathe and thus to loathe each other. We flash sexually charged 18 year olds naked on a wrecking ball and wonder why our daughters are so devalued, why they only think of themselves in the simplest sexual object formats. We have taught them that is the majority of their self worth. It's not that they can compete. We tell them they can't all the time by our own words. It's not that their minds, their brains, their ability to converse, their ability to think quickly on their feet, their ability to contribute to a team. No, it's their manipulative skills and sexuality that is valued. Girls, heck women, hate on the other girl that they perceive as smarter, prettier, or more affable simply because we have continued to devalue girls. We allow our sons to devalue women, then wonder why women are sick of it. We haven't changed that women in a male setting often think the only thing that they have to offer is sexual content. I'll be blunt again. I'm an educated, smart, attractive woman. Not because I am all those things to everyone that I come across but because I was taught to believe in myself in spite of what society has told me over the years. My grandfather taught me that I was equal to a man. My Grams wanted that for women, and yet of my grandfather's 3 granddaughters, I was the only one he instilled that in. While I believe women can instill it partially, I truly believe that the only ones that can make sure that girls believe it to their cores are the fathers and grandfathers. It's all fine and dandy for a woman, the mother, the grandmother to tell girls they are equal, but only when a man tells his daughter or granddaughter and backs it up with his actions does that little girl, eventually woman, believe it no matter what other men tell her.
The United States military instills that belief in these young women. Tries to anyway. So they become indoctrinated into a world that tells them they are equal, but then brow beats them as our society does. Three months of boot camp cannot change years and years of societal woe, especially not when the leadership, a Commanding Officer, the Officers and Senior Enlisted themselves still harbor those beliefs, those tendencies and allow the behavior to continue. Women serving is not the problem. Men who serve and served that believe that women are inherently less are the problem. Just because we as a society continue to view women as lesser doesn't mean that women are. A man should probably be writing this. Men like that don't respect that view coming from a woman. They often don't want to hear it from other men either, but truth is that a lot of men even when they believe women are the greatest, can be equal, fail to instill that in their own sons and more importantly in their daughters. No man wants his daughter to be treated as less of a person simply because she's a girl or woman. Yet, we brow beat girls in society to think of themselves as sexual objects. And, in an ironic twist, sometimes even when we teach our daughters to ensure they are treated with respect we still encourage them to be housewives, dependent on someone else, and wonder why every women has at some point in her life questioned her own self worth. How do you think seeing pictures day in and day out of men's genitals, naked women, and being told if they want to be equal to a man that means that they need to tolerate sexually charged comments? Equal to a man doesn't mean that at all. Yet, appallingly, it still apparently is happening in the United States Navy. While the military doesn't directly translate to most civilian workforce environments, consider that it's a cross section, a 2% sample of the United States population, from all the corners that this country has to offer. The military is a small reflection of our country--the good and sadly in this case, the bad. Isn't it time that the men that want their daughters, granddaughters to be treated with respect and equally start telling those girls that they can, they are and never to accept less? The irony is that without that male reinforcement it's hard for a woman to turn on the male chauvinist and tell him that he's wrong. The cross sectional sample is screaming it.
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
So a lot of women apparently are responding with #yesallwomen because of a mentally ill young man who went on a shooting spree with women telling their stories of assault, sexual misconduct, rape and other unfair, unethical and/or illegal treatment of women. A myriad of responses from men now with #notallmen with men trying to defend themselves that not all men are like this young man. A very good friend of mine had asked me what I thought being a single, educated woman who has raised three boys on my own. He and his wife have 3 boys also, but I think he's wondering if my perception would be any different from his wife's or other female friends. I tend to have a unique way of looking at things--outside the box, I suppose.
So the first thing I did was look up this young man's history. His dad is a low end Hollywood director. His mother was on some reality show. He wanted to be important but he seemed to fall short of being anything more than less than what he envisioned himself as. I feel sorry for this young man from a mother's perspective. He was obviously ill, but we are so quick over the last 20 years to make excuses for everyone we have created these people that think they are entitled even though they've done nothing to try to earn anything for themselves. This boy was no different. He wanted it handed to him on a silver platter--hot girlfriend, awesome job, awesome money. Bottom line, no one apparently ever told this young man, or at least instilled in him, the need to be responsible and earn those things that you think you want. Even if he had earned those things he might have been dismayed by the fact that sometimes no matter how hard we work we don't get what we want.
Of course, his rants on YouTube (since pulled) have sparked the #yesallwomen and #notallmen--responses to the big can of worms in the room: Are women victims still? Are there still a lot of misogynistic men out there? Are women still ill treated by a lot of men? One woman's post compared men to a bag of M and Ms with 10% of them poisoned...basically claiming that women should have nothing to do with men at all because if 10% of them are "poison" why risk it?
First, the answer is: yes AND no.
Yes, women still put up with male chauvinism in the workplace. Women are still raped and it's still very difficult to prosecute rape cases because any attorney will tell you that rape is still the one case where they can get women's previous sexual history in front of the jury. Women are still paid an average of 70 cents on the dollar to their male counterparts.
No, not all men are bad. Even the 10%, assuming that I even believe it's that high, and by the way I don't, men are not poisoned food. Men are human beings. Like any of us on this planet, some of us are nicer than others, but I hardly think this young man is even remotely representative of all the men on this planet. I may be a little naive, but I believe there are still a lot of good people in this world--that includes lots and lots of men.
Women as a whole have come a long way. We have. Only 100 years ago, we could not vote. Only just over 80 years ago, women proved that we could weld and forge metal and supply a war machine with tanks, aircraft, jeeps and bombs. It's only been 50 years since the birth control pill was legalized for American consumption via prescription. Less than 40 years ago, there were still blue book laws that stated a woman could legally be raped by her husband. Just over 20 years ago, the United States Navy stopped referring to women as WAVES (women's auxiliary volunteer emergency service) and started respecting women in the Navy as sailors. Only in the last 20 years have the Army, Air Force and Marines followed suit. In fact, in spite of studies done by the USSR and Israel proving that female snipers are more effective than male counterparts, American women still question ourselves whether we belong in combat roles or not--let alone whether men do.
We have forgotten what women before us endured:
Courts rarely sanctioned divorce and most often did not order any means of child support less than 50 years ago.
Societal norms only 200 years ago allowed a man in many cultures, including some European that migrated here to the United States, to rape his eldest daughter once his wife tired of sexually gratifying him or he grew tired of his wife's aging appearance.
Rape was sanctioned under marital law. (You married him; you were stuck with him.)
Only 100 years ago, women could not own property in most circumstances.
Women were institutionalized at the turn of the last century if they did not conform with societal norms. My own great aunt was institutionalized because she liked to wear pants. By the time they had decided to release her because nothing was wrong with her, she had lived in a mental institution for over 40 years.
Women could not bare children out of wedlock without it being a piece of that child's record for the rest of their lives. Children bore out of wedlock had their birth certificates stamped "bastard". This practice went on in some states into the 1970s.
Women who insisted on divorcing their husbands could have their children taken from them and put into orphanages if they did not have the financial means to support their children.
Women were discouraged even by universities and colleges to attempt any programs other than nursing and teaching.
Rape was always the woman's fault. She was always asking for it. Our court system still has a hard time not allowing the victims of rape to be put on trial for their past, yet the defendant has the right to have their past excluded.
Women who married well financially, lived well financially. Marital options were limited to those in your same social class. Hell, even in the 1980s, I heard a friend's father say to him about a girl he was dating, "you date girls from the wrong side of the tracks; you don't marry them." How's that for coming a long way, baby?
There are still blue book laws that state that a man, a spouse, can beat his wife in public and it's considered "domestic" not assault. Even if there are 40 witnesses, in some areas, she still has to be the one to say he did it or he goes free.
Since women could hold no property 100 years ago, many women could not have any money whatsoever. All household monies were their father's or husband's and therefore they couldn't purchase anything without his consent.
Only 50 years ago, it was considered socially unacceptable for a woman to show her knees. Who knew the 1960s would blow that out of the water?!?!
Even now, we tell girls that they cannot wrestle or play football. It's a big argument whether we can serve in combat. One in 4 women have been raped. 70% of women say that sexual harassment still occurs in the workplace--while only 40% say that they would report it. Women still get jealous of each other because of the way we look, carry ourselves, who our friends are. We can be our own worst enemies.
So, yes, the answer is all women, every single one of us, has experienced some form of horrible stuff--whether abuse by a spouse or boyfriend, rape, sexual harassment, just some clown cursing us in a bar because we're not interested. We've all been treated like crap by a man at some point in our lives. But not all men. Maybe one. Maybe more based on our individual circumstances. But worse yet, we can all claim that we have been harassed by at least one other woman. As I said, we can be our own worst enemies.
Men, well, some of them are just pigs. Not all, not even close to all. However, interestingly enough, many men think because they themselves would never treat a woman that way, do not say anything when a woman is. She's entered their arena and therefore often the many think that we should be treated inappropriately because of it. Yes, we're on the football field. That doesn't mean low blows are appropriate. A man should not get away with making vulgar comments about a co-worker to "put her in her place". It's not high school. It's the equivalent of shoving her in a locker and closing the door, to put it in the simplest terms.
As far as this young man's rants, well, sorry ladies. Not all men view women with hate and discontent because they're not getting laid. Are there men like this? Yes, very sadly so. As far as those men that think women suck because they are not getting laid, 40% of single women have the same complaint. Go figure. We just don't get all upset about it and go shooting up a place.
Thursday, May 22, 2014
As we come up on this weekend, Memorial Day weekend, most are all excited about having 3 or 4 days off. Lots are planning picnics, mini-vacations and visiting, celebrating, with family and friends. I myself am already committed to a "big party" this weekend. I'm betting most of my readers don't even know that we are supposed to have a moment of silence at 3 pm on Monday for all those that have died in service of this country, in service of freedom. Furthermore, I bet only one or two realize it is technically Federal law. We have moved so far away from about what Memorial Day is, why and for whom, that we cannot even appreciate the sacrifices that those that have died have given.
Yes, a moment of silence at 3 pm Monday. We almost all have cell phones now. Alarm yourself at 2:59 pm to remind you to take 60 seconds at 3 pm. Sixty seconds to consider the lives we sacrificed for freedom in combat (these are combat statistics only and do not include all US military losses during those years):
1. In WWI, 53.4K Americans.
2. In WWII, 291.6K Americans.
3. In Korea (during actual action prior to truce), 33.1K Americans.
4. In Vietnam, 44.7K Americans.
5. In Desert Storm, 148 Americans.
6. Current War on Terror, 6.7K Americans (latest count in 2013)
During the Civil War, we sacrificed over 215K Americans on both sides.
Put the rhetoric away. We haven't sacrificed as many Americans, not even close, to what our grandparents sacrificed in WWII or what our great-great grandparents did to preserve our great country. Just consider how important each and everyone one of those military members sacrifice is. Consider theirs and their families' sacrifice:
Consider that almost all of them had a mother and father and grandparents that loved them.
Consider that given the average size of families, almost every single one had siblings that would never hear them laugh again.
Consider on an average well over half of them had spouses and families of their own.
Consider how important it must be for their sacrifices to not be in vain.
Oh, I know. That's why we should end the war. Stop. Focus on what I'm stating. We have always sacrificed ours for the greater good. That's what makes us American. This day, this Memorial Day is about the hollowed ground that those great sacrifices mean. It means our freedom. It means others' freedom.
Remember that because of those sacrifices:
Europe is not a Nazi state.
South Korea still has its independence and freedom.
Japan has flourished as a non-warring state.
Kuwait is still independent.
The 240K Iraqi men, women and children that were slaughtered between Desert Storm and 9/11 because they spoke out against (the parents did anyway) Saddam Hussein's regime, were vindicated.
The United States exists because of the Founding Fathers that fought.
The United States still exists because of those Civil War service members.
Stop and think whether you would make those sacrifices yourself. During the draft of the Vietnam War, there was no choice. Consider that our grandparents didn't need a draft. Men and women flocked to help the war effort during World War Two.
I have no doubt of those sacrifices and what they mean. We all need to understand what those sacrifices are for. Don't just thank a service member for their service. Consider that every single one that you have met in the last 40 years did so of their own volition. No draft. And always a promise that tomorrow might be their last. That next week might bring orders to deploy. That orders might mean that some of them don't return, and yes, that the one that doesn't return might be them.
Is it really that much for you to interrupt your picnic and give the respect to those that have sacrificed for freedom? Or is it that it has to only be for the freedom that you enjoy? If so, fine, we still sacrificed hundreds of thousands just for our own country's freedom, the freedoms that you enjoy even today.
Sixty seconds at 3 pm on Monday afternoon. It shouldn't be that much to ask.
Saturday, May 17, 2014
First, I've got a lot of female friends that are wonderful women that are alone. Not for lack of trying, but the first younger piece of tail to walk by and smile and a lot of guys our age will kiss the proverbial buttocks of that chicky half their age. Kind of leaves a bitter taste in some of my friends' mouths. Guys their own age or just a bit older won't give them the time of day. Most of the time my friends remind me that I have it easy since most people assume that I'm in my late 30s instead of mid-40s. Yes, really easy. (Feel the sarcasm.) I've dated two guys considerably younger than me, at least by female standards. Women typically limit ourselves, or at least used to, to men no more than 5 years younger than ourselves. We still tend to think of men as our protectors--in spite of the whole Suffragette dream of us being completely autonomous of needing protection, and it's difficult to see a man that is too much younger as the protector. But yes, both of my last 2 serious relationships--I can call them that since they both lasted over a year--were with guys more than 8 years younger than me. One was more than 10 years younger. Both looked older than me, which didn't bother the younger one much--at all really. The problem with that relationship is that while we seemed to be on the same page for a lot of things he lied about pretty much everything. He always told me what I wanted to hear. It took me a while to figure out that he would listen intently to everything I said and then simply regurgitate my own opinion to me. That was fun for a while, but eventually as the truth started trickling out, it was dismally disheartening. The next one began telling everyone how old I was and referring to me as his sugar mama. Like he needed to make sure that everyone knew. That was actually even more frustrating. It was really insulting. Most men are not as good at being the younger person in a couple generally. It's a societal truth and most women realize it immediately. So with a lack of men our own age to choose from, many of us are opting to be alone.
Of course, when we talk of the Suffragette dream, it most definitely wasn't girls chasing after men 20 years their senior in hopes of getting everything paid for. Hell if anything that is the complete opposite of the dream. Yes, I know that some of those relationships really work, but here's a newsflash: There's not many. A relationship is difficult enough without having to pretend to be someone we are not, like things that we have no idea what a man is talking about, and pretend to be attracted to someone that...well, not to be callous, but isn't actually physically attractive to us. A couple weeks back, I met this attorney. He's in his late 60s and his now ex-wife is younger than I am, like just turned 40. He's pissed off that she is now collecting alimony after being married to him for over just 10 years, he's paying child support for a kid that she doesn't seem very interested in (shocking how a money grubbing whore will give birth to get money--like the man has never heard the stories of welfare babies), and has a 22 year old boy toy living in the house that he paid for. I listened for a bit then realized that he was in fact hitting on me. Oh my. I told him I wasn't interested. He went on and on about how much money he had, how successful he was, and how he would treat me. Finally after trying to be nice, I cut him off and told him bluntly. I wasn't a money grubbing whore like his ex-wife and I was sorry but that he had gotten what he paid for. He didn't understand. I told him that he wanted his ego stroked, wanted the arm candy, and now was paying for it. In fact, he had been paying for it all along. That's one hell of retirement plan right there. She screws a man that grosses her out for money, has a kid with him, and as soon as the 10 year marker went by, kicked him to the curb and cashed in on her cow. Now she has the money to screw around with someone that she actually is attracted to, even reverse the tables, and is probably very aware of her motivations. Money grubbing whores can be very calculating. Women have known this forever--thus why inherently we typically can't stand them with a passion. His story isn't the only one. It's just one of many lamenting stories I've heard in the last few years. I don't like what his ex did, but I don't feel sorry for him either. He got exactly what he asked for. Arm candy that expected to get paid.
Most are really looking for what I described to him. Someone who gets us, who we are, is genuinely into who we are, not our pocketbooks. No one deserves some money grubbing, gold digging whore who's simply telling us what we want to hear. As I have said, I'm pretty much an odd duck. This guy wasn't an odd duck. He could find a woman in her 50s who would probably love him more than his ex ever imagined he could be loved. He could've found her in the 10-15 years that he wasted on this money grubbing, little more than a welfare whore. That really is the big problem though. These little whores don't give a second thought to the fact the man in front of them could actually find someone that suits them. They are looking to have someone kiss their butts. They tell them what they want to hear. Then, they are on to the next drama once they've gotten what they wanted. For someone like me that's the odd duck, well, okay, I'm aware that I'm probably not meeting someone that views the world the way I do. So maybe the little whores don't really affect my outcome, regardless. But it pains me to watch my friends, male and female, suffer--both being made fools of and being more alone because of how everything eventually plays out.
Of course, some of these little whores get what's coming to them. I know a couple of guys my age I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire. They like to act like they have money, brag about things that they have, and to be blunt, are lying through their teeth. It's kind of hilarious to watch the little gold digging whores fall all over themselves and even talk trash to women closer to or the same age as these guys. They've cornered how to take advantage of it. They themselves are lying about how much money they have and taking the whores for the ride instead of the other way around. I gotta laugh when I see it. Although sometimes, these idiots manage to find a genuine woman and hurt them and then it's not all funny. However, the majority of the time they're hopping from gold digger to gold digger and it's hilarious. (Yes, admittedly I have a sick sense of humor.)
Is there some simple answer for the people that are just looking for love? Well of course there is. Go after someone that shares common interests. If they don't, don't waste your time. If everything that they say is exactly what you want to hear, think about it. No one, and I mean no one, ever tells you exactly what you want to hear. Only a whore with other goals has that luxury. We can blame the gold diggers all we want, but the truth is far more ugly. Guys like to have their egos stroked and there are a lot of younger women that will take advantage of it. A friend said he's just having sex. Yea, that's why the last 3 people that crushed his heart were nothing more than money grubbing whores, because we all know inevitably we fall for someone that is in front of us. And, shockingly, it's not hard to fall for someone who tells us everything that we want to hear, especially if we're having sex with them. Hell, in all honesty, I think it's easier for men to get suckered in like that than women. Most women by nature seem to get a little suspicious when we hear exactly what we want to hear. Are there couples with some years between them that work? Oh heck yes. But your odds go way up as a woman gets younger and younger than the man that she is only there for the money. I told a friend once look for that woman that looks at you like you're the only man in the room. Not the one that stares at you and constantly agrees and seems to fidget if certain men come into the room. The one who when she looks into your eyes you can see her, the depth of her and she seems to never lose sight of you even when you are not in her direct line of sight. The eyes are the window to the soul, and the window to the heart. The heart will always show its true intentions through the eyes even when every other action is made to say something else.