HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » lumberjack_jeff » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Olympia, WA
Member since: Tue Nov 4, 2003, 08:02 PM
Number of posts: 29,627

Journal Archives

Have you ever been propositioned by a woman for the purpose of pregnancy?

This thread is inspired by a comment in another thread suggesting that the belief "that men should control their fertility vigilantly" is a misogynist view because "women tricking men into sex to get pregnant is a misogynist myth".

The implied primary audience for this poll is straight men.

Posted by lumberjack_jeff | Wed Mar 18, 2015, 02:05 PM (6 replies)

NYT: Democrats Count on Edge With Women to Limit Election Losses

WASHINGTON — Democrats are nervously counting on an enduring edge among female voters in most states to prevent a Republican rout in Tuesday’s elections. Yet so great is the uncertainty that even before the returns are in, some are second-guessing the party’s strategy of focusing more on issues like abortion and birth control than on jobs and the economy.

The danger for Democratic candidates is that their advantage among women could be so reduced by dissatisfaction with President Obama and the country’s course that it is not enough to offset Republicans’ usual edge among the smaller population of male voters. Should that happen, a party pollster, Geoff Garin, acknowledged, “They’ll lose.”

But he and other Democratic strategists professed optimism, however tempered, for the party’s imperiled Senate majority, among other things. Mr. Garin pointed to surveys of states with the most competitive Senate contests showing that on average Democratic candidates lead among women by about 12 points, while men favor the Republican by an average of nine points. Since women account for more than half the electorate, Democrats theoretically can withstand some erosion of support.

Posted by lumberjack_jeff | Sat Nov 1, 2014, 12:47 PM (2 replies)

Child abuse, intimate partner violence, and reciprocity.

Intimate partner violence has been studied extensively, and one of the most repeatable conclusions of that research is that most IPV is reciprocal, and that women (especially adolescents) are at least as likely to use violence in their relationships as men are. The difference is that as that cycle of violence escalates, the women involved are more likely to suffer significant injury, and especially if the violent relationship is reciprocal.

Another well established result of IPV studies is that kids in violent relationships are more likely to themselves perpetrate violence against their partners when they grow up.

Domestic violence isn't a women's issue, it is a social issue. So long as kids continue to live in households in which violence exists, they will repeat that behavior when they grow up.

There's an argument to be made that the kind of chronic low level violence that never erupts into injury and incarceration is MORE damaging to kids psychological wellbeing because it sets the expectation that violence in your relationship is without consequence.

At Christmas, my son and his live-in girlfriend (they live about an hour from us) were bantering and joking in the kitchen about something silly. I saw her make a quick motion out of the corner of my eye when he dropped to the floor in pain. She had apparently punched him in the balls. I walked over to see what was going on, and they were both laughing, but he was in actual pain. I haven't had an opportunity to talk to him alone about this but I will as soon as possible. A violent relationship only requires one of the parties involved to be acculturated to the idea that hitting your partner is okay.

The entire spectrum of violence must be addressed to prevent it from being normalized in the next generation.
Posted by lumberjack_jeff | Wed Jan 1, 2014, 12:05 PM (25 replies)

The irony of this statistic is that it was uncontroversial when being used in a "girl power" sense

as in "Rush Limbaugh! Sense the power of our collective anger!"

Then you begin to see it used (apparently seriously) in contexts like this: "Women control 60% of the wealth? When will men stop oppressing us?"

I think it's reasonable for readers to see that and have a bit of a "hold up there" reaction. At that point it apparently became "MRA bullshit".

I don't know where 60%, 70% or 80% come from. My guess is they were pulled out of various ad executive's asses to justify an ad campaign for products like chick beer.

So, based on a link provided by Hfojvt to the census bureau, I crunched the numbers they collected (number of male, female and married households, the percentage of which are within various tiers of wealth and the average wealth within that tier), and it indicates that, rounded to three significant digits, women control 51.9% of the wealth.

There are probably a bunch of ways of computing a result. The census bureau is the one I used.

So, 60% is wrong. "Most" is not.

Does that shoot a large enough hole in marketing executives arguments to get them to stop selling trucks painted "mango tango pearl"? I hope so.
Posted by lumberjack_jeff | Sat Dec 28, 2013, 11:37 PM (1 replies)

Cost of a 1 pack a day habit, by state, at 100% of FPL

Posted by lumberjack_jeff | Fri Dec 13, 2013, 08:28 PM (35 replies)

Blackstone's formulation

Is a fundamental principle of our system of justice; to protect its legitimacy, it's better to err on the side of caution and not punish the innocent even if some guilty people may go free.

Blackstone was a judge in England in the 1700's. He wrote:
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

He wasn't the first though... that basic principle had been in place since the 1400's. In fact, the Salem witch trial judge, Increase Mather said, "it were better that ten suspected Witches should escape, than that one innocent Person should be Condemned.", and "(I) would rather judge a Witch to be an honest woman, than judge an honest woman as a Witch,"

Ben Franklin was of the opinion that the proper ratio was 100:1. John Adams described the reason for this; '(if)it is immaterial to (a person) whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.' And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever". In other words, If justice is unjust and simply a matter of luck and caprice, there's no reason to respect laws at all.

On the other end of the spectrum are utilitarians who would say that it doesn't matter, so long as the mass of people are content, or authoritarians like Bismarck and Pol Pot (better to see 10 innocent convicted than one guilty go free) or totalitarians like the founder of the Soviet secret police ("Better to execute ten innocent men than to leave one guilty man alive." - because "When you cut down the forest, woodchips fly."). How about this from modern Columbia; "Better to condemn an innocent man than to acquit a guilty one, because among the innocent condemned there may be a guilty man."?

So, what's your personal "Blackstone's number"? How many guilty should go free to prevent injustice to innocents?
Posted by lumberjack_jeff | Fri Dec 6, 2013, 12:55 AM (9 replies)

Guys: How many of you have experience as a stay-at-home dad?

Kind of a three-part question.

It seems to me that the essential questions are:
1) are those who are in a position to consider that a realistic choice privileged?
2) do cultural norms/policy/institutions act to discourage men from making that choice?
Posted by lumberjack_jeff | Mon Oct 7, 2013, 04:58 PM (16 replies)

I got your "male privilege" right here.

This is the employment to population ratio among men 16 and over

This is the employment to population ratio among women 16 and over
Posted by lumberjack_jeff | Tue Oct 1, 2013, 01:33 PM (1 replies)

Nope. No misandry on DU.

You're right. Dad is off the hook, because he's not the one to blame.
Posted by lumberjack_jeff | Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:04 PM (1 replies)
Go to Page: 1