Before I wrote this post about more wives earning more money than their husbands, I sent an email to several male friends about the trend. Why just guys? Because I first read about “The Rise of Wives” in this New York Times article. The piece only quoted women who said who said they had difficulty finding and staying with male companions. They claimed the men they dated were insecure about being out-earned. I found a few articles on the increase in stay-at-home dads, but nothing from men on this study. It was like half the story was missing.
So, I emailed some of my guy friends. Here are responses from two of them.
Feliciano wrote:
I don’t mind when I find out the woman I’m dating makes more than me. The real challenge is deciding when or if to reveal how much I make. It’s something that should come out naturally. I’m always wary of women who want/need to know how much I make right away. It’s funny, I wonder if more guys are figuring out clever ways to find out how much the woman they’re dating earns…sort of a new twist on gold-digging.
The resurrection of the Tiger Woods Brand began Friday with his televised apology. Woods seemed sincere, but the mea culpa to his fans, sponsors and the general public is secondary to something else.
He must win at golf.
The most important part of Tiger’s brand is being a golfer who wins. Yes, his image as wholesome family man helped him be a pitchman, inspiration to kids and known as an all-around good guy. All of that, though, was based on him being a golf champion.
His apology was a good first step to bring reality in sync with what his image was before seemingly countless women came forward to say they slept with Tiger. The biggest step, though, will be when Tiger competes. If he can dominate on the golf course, then he will be “back.” If he can’t, The Tiger Woods Brand will be a contrite face on the memory of a once-great golfing career.
Sarah Palin’s and Barack Obama’s very different styles and appeal illustrate the contradiction Americans have about our leaders. Some people like Joe the Plumbers. Others like elites. Others like the two wrapped up into one.
Palin, who has said she’s thinking about running for president in 2012, blew away the Tea Party Convention crowd in Nashville for a price of $100,000. What unique brand of folksy does the Tea Party get for 100-grand? She delivers lines like, “How’s that hope-y, change-y stuff working out for ya?” and writes on her hand. (You’d think with all that money, she could just remember the four concepts she scribbled on her palm.)
On the other hand (pun intended), Obama’s State of the Union speech last month was just the opposite of Palin’s folksy speech. There were the customary two introductions of the president and 91 ovations, including 58 that brought Congress – at least some of them – to their feet. Kings, queens and dictators get that type of adulation.
Most football fans are thinking about the match-up between the Saints and the Colts later today. I, not being a huge fan of the game, am thinking more about the Super Bowl commercial controversy. Don’t think that I dislike football. I enjoy a good competitive game as much as anyone, and I’ll probably watch tomorrow.
The controversy over what ads CBS has decided to show and what they rejected is important, though. Those decisions over what an expected 90 million people will see says a lot about CBS’s and the NFL’s points of view. It also says a lot about what they think the 90 million viewers want to see.
The network rejected ads from ManCrunch, a gay dating website, and the web domain and hosting firm GoDaddy, whose ads have been rejected from previous Super Bowl broadcasts. CBS has agreed, though, to air a pro-life ad from conservative group Focus on the Family featuring Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow. There have been sexy ads that have aired during previous Super Bowls, including some from GoDaddy, and there will surely be some this year. There’s very little flesh in either the ManCrunch or GoDaddy ads, though. This seems to be more about sexuality than straight-up sex.
In the ManCrunch ad, two guy’s guys are on a couch watching a football game. Their hands touch over a bowl of potato chips, they share a glance and then they start making out. It’s nothing racier than something you might see on a late night sketch comedy (and apparently it’s already been done there). Here’s the ad:
In the GoDaddy ad, you have a gruff looking footballer who retires, comes out of the closet after leaving football, is flamboyantly gay, and starts a lingerie line using GoDaddy’s services:
Let’s say you’ve gone a few dates with someone. The person you’re getting to know is hot, funny, uses the right fork, has nice teeth and is everything you think your looking for in a mate.
Then, after hearing about their job, their last vacation and their spotless apartment, you’re pretty sure they earn more money than you. They may not have a trust fund, but you’re pretty sure they’re worrying about money a less than you are.
Now, if you’re a guy, is this a problem? Did her level of hotness just take a nosedive after finding out she out-earns you? Is she now undateable? If you’re a woman and realize your salary is bigger than your date’s, did this romance just end? Did you lose interest?
Or does it matter anymore that a man doesn’t make as much as the woman he’s dating?
Harry Reid’s “Negro” comment turned into a political crisis for the Senate Majority Leader. Before coverage of the earthquake in Haiti pushed the controversy from the news media’s attention, Republicans were calling for his resignation. They said it’s the same as when Trent Lott was forced to resign as Senate Majority Leader after speaking at a birthday celebration for then-Sen. Strom Thurmond. Lott said, “We wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years” if Thurmond – who ran on a segregationist ticket – was elected president in 1948. Sorry GOP. It’s not the same.
Besides the political pressure on Reid to resign, his remarks also prompted talk about a national conversation on race. Professor Michael Eric Dyson said Reid’s remarks were a “teachable moment” for Barack Obama and the president needs to deal with the issue of race. Dyson added that Obama “runs from race like a black man runs from a cop.” That’s not an accurate analogy, nor is it particularly helpful when talking about race, but Obama would be an ideal choice begin a national conversation on race. Dr. Boyce Watkins, though, has a few reasons why Obama shouldn’t begin the conversation. One of which, alienating some white voters, Obama himself probably realizes.
It’s fitting that the issue of race comes up around the time we celebrate the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday while at the same time looking back at Obama’s (historic, though disappointing to some) first year in office. While his ascendancy to the Oval Office is proof that America has come a long way regarding race, the national hissy-fit we just had over Harry Reid ungracefully speaking the truth is proof we have a long way to go. Former Al Gore Campaign Manager Donna Brazile said this about the Reid gaffe: “We don’t have a common language to discuss issues – especially issues like racism and the sensitivity around discussing race. And because of that, people often trip over themselves.”
Finding that common language would help start a national conversation on race. But what exactly is a “national conversation?” If the United States is going to make an effort to talk about race on both national and local levels, how would that actually happen? Logistically speaking, how would a conversation on a national scale work?
In case you haven’t heard, Question No. 9 on the 2010 U.S. Census, which will begin to be mailed on March 15, asks “What is Person 1′s Race?” One of the choices is “Black, African Am., or Negro.”
Negro?
The antiquated word “Negro” has apparently been on previous census forms. (I can’t remember the census form 10 years ago. Does anyone know if it was on the 2000 form?) Bureau spokesperson Shelly Lowe is quoted in theGrio saying census questions were tested and using Negro “outweighed the potential negatives.” Another Census Bureau spokesperson Jack Martin said in this New York Daily News article, “Many older African-Americans identified themselves that way, and many still do..Those who identify themselves as Negroes need to be included.”
If there’s one thing that’s as American as baseball and apple pie, it would be, ironically, football. It could even be said that it’s more popular than baseball if you look at the spectacle and money that’s made out of the Super Bowl.
But football is a violent sport that can cause great physical injury to players. That was proven again when Miami Dolphins quarterback Pat White collided with Pittsburgh Steelers cornerback Ike Taylor on Sunday. Though he appeared motionless at first, he was finally talking and moving his arms and legs by the time he was taken off the field. (White was seen at in the Dolphins locker room on Monday and is reported to have suffered a “likely concussion.”)
The other quarterbacks in the game were having a rough time, too. White, a rookie quarterback, replaced starting quarterback Chad Henne who was out with an eye injury due to a hit in the first half of the game. Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger has been knocked around in the last few years, too. He’s had four concussions since 2006. Pardon the pun, but it’s mind-boggling that so many injuries, particularly head injuries, are tolerated in football.
This is why Americans have such a low opinion of politicians.
CNN filed a report about the back room deals needed to get Democrats to pass a filibuster-proof health care bill in the Senate. Take Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. He was the last senator to agree to vote for the bill. What did this Democrat get for his state? The Federal Government will pay 100% of Nebraska’s share of Medicaid funding for all low-income Americans.. indefinitely!
The CNN story goes into detail about several deals like this. When pressed on the issue of back room dealing, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said about the bill, “If they don’t have something in it important to them, then it’s — [it] doesn’t speak well of them.”
It doesn’t? It doesn’t speak well of our representatives to vote for the bill solely because they believe in reforming healthcare? I’m definitely not a part of the Tea Party movement, but their line about corruption in Washington begins to ring true when the Senate Majority Leader says this at press conference.
Government handouts to states or districts in exchange for votes shouldn’t be business as usual.
What’s birth control for U.S. troops serving in northern Iraq? Threat of a court-martial.
Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo who commands 22,000 personnel there issued a directive which states getting pregnant or impregnating another soldier would lead to a court-martial. The military is stretched thin and general said he needs all of his troops.
The general said: “Anyone who leaves this fight earlier than the expected 12-month deployment creates a burden on their teammates.” Women who are victims of sexual assault would not be prosecuted.
Here’s the piece from CNN:
At first I thought the general was crazy. The phrase “reproductive rights” came to mind. Military law is different than civilian law, though. The military controls most aspects of a soldier’s life: when they eat, sleep, fight. They are literally ordered around. They signed up for that mission. So, getting pregnant or getting another soldier pregnant and making a soldier unable to fight because two people wanted to fool around is irresponsible.
What do you think? Was the general correct in making this rule? Or did he go over the line?
Update: The U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. Raymond Odierno, released a new policy for soldiers in Iraq that will take effect on January 1. There is no pregancy provision in it. This comes a few days after Gen. Cucolo clarified himself and said he wouldn’t seek jail time for any pregnant soldier or the pregnant soldier’s sexual partner.
Comments (0) 
Themocracy