Scientist / Male Stripper

In 1984 I took a trip to Australia and went scuba diving on the Great Barrier Reef. (Among other tourist activities in Australia.)  I took a sea plane to the dive boat (110 feet I think) that was anchored by the Great Barrier Reef.  It turned out that the scuba diving was interrupted by the skipper's desire to attend the "Airlie Beach Fun Race." The boat sailed into Airlie Beach for the race.

Some details are given here:
http://www.thecoastalpassage.com/papers/TCP39.pdf

As noted in the articles, many (most?) of the boats in 1984 had topless "figureheads" on the bowsprit. Even the anchored boats had topless figureheads. I visited some of the boats and asked the figureheads to pose for photographs, which they all did.

When I returned to Los Alamos, I brought my photos to the nearby honky-tonk so that my honky-tonk friends could see my Australian trip photos. Before the band started at "The Line Camp,"  I started showing my photos. Some of the guys were marveling appreciatively  (The place was so loved that even 30 years later, it was celebrated. There is a 126 page  downloadable "scrap book" here
http://econtent.unm.edu/cdm/ref/collection/Manuscripts/id/10571 )
The gals did not seem as appreciative.

Several of the regular honky-tonk gals in the group asked me why there were no naked photos of myself.  I looked at them in astonished amusement and said that "I don't think anybody was interested." Now, in 1984 suggesting that women and men were not interested in the same things often brought up an immediate negative reaction. Well, these women swore that they were interested in seeing me naked.  They pointed out that women went to strip shows to watch men just like men went to strip shows to watch women.  I could see that it was pointless to verbally challenge their beliefs.  Instead, I said that "Okay, you arrange a party with a group of women and I will strip for them."  One woman went so far as to bring a Frederick's of Hollywood catalog and help me select some appropriate attire for my performance. She told me that the appropriate attire was part of the deal. So, I bought the attire and waited for the women to inform as to the time and place of the performance.

I had a membership in a book club and the club offered a free "rubber stamp" for the sender's postal mail. So, embarking on my new career as a male stripper, I ordered a rubber stamp that said

Thomas E. Booth
Scientist / Male Stripper
Monte Carlo / Female Parties
address and phone number

I then used this rubber stamp to print this information on the back of junk business cards from other people. I didn't want to order my own business cards as I did not believe there would be much need, despite the honky-tonk gals' emphatic assertions.

It is a good thing that I did not quit my day job because even with a free performance that these women emphatically said they wanted, the women never actually scheduled a time and a place. So much for the assertions that men and women were the same about these things.

I kept one of the business cards in my wallet for 5 or 6 years so that whenever I heard some woman claim nonsense about men and women being the same about this type of thing, I could hand out the card as a way of saying BS (bovine scatology). Over those years I must have handed out perhaps 30-50 cards and never had a single taker.

After the first couple of times, I would say to a woman that brought up women and male strippers that "sure, women go to strip shows with 22 year old muscular hunks, but women would not be interested in ordinary guys, like myself, stripping." (I was 32 at the start of my "stripping career".) Of course, those were almost fighting words in those days and the women would immediately say that they were interested in watching ordinary guys, like myself, strip at a party. At that point I would pull out my business card and hand it to them for a free show at a party they organized. The women typically eyed the card with astonishment and were speechless.  No takers.

In my view, this "put up or shut up" approach was very clear evidence that the reality was quite different from the assertions. Fortunately, I did not quit my day job.

The Liberal Democrats' Demographic Smugness

Before the 2016 national elections, many liberal Democrats displayed a smugness that the demographics were on their side. What is truly amazing is that some liberal friends still have this demographic smugness about future elections.

Two points are worth considering:

1. Although the country is becoming less "white," it is not becoming less male. Even immigrants and non-whites are roughly half male. Unless the Democratic Party starts focusing on "men's issues" as well as "women's issues," some men of all ethnicities will drift away from the Democratic Party.
2. Liberal Democrats seem to assume that the Republican Party will not make adjustments because of the demographics. With Trump, Hispanic voters shifted Democratic. But, imagine if the Republicans stop trash talking immigrants and run Latino candidates? A lot of immigrants run small businesses and certain parts of the Republican platform might look appealing.

Atheist Community of San Jose Concerning Women Against Male Empowerment

In my quibble with the Atheist Community of San Jose (ACSJ) over whether ACSJ should tie itself so closely to the women's movement, I was wrong on one key point. Some background is needed. Here is the ACSJ posting:


https://www.meetup.com/Atheist-Community-of-San-Jose/events/236999896/?comment_table_id=250353695&comment_table_name=reply

Note the comment below about "empower everyone."

"The Women's March is a national movement to unify and empower everyone who stands for human rights, civil liberties, and social justice for all. We gather in community to find healing and strength through tolerance, civility, and compassion. We welcome all people to join us as we unite locally and nationally. Join us on January 21st."

Me:
This is out of place. What does this have to do with atheism?
As far as "empower everyone," I cannot think of any way that the women's movement has empowered me.

ACSJ member:
"I think you're looking for a MRA forum." (There were more moderate clarifying comments, but this was his very first sentence directed at me. One can find his full comments on the link. Google MRA for greater clarity about possible intentions for his comment.)


Me: (In a comment to a different ACSJ member from the one immediately above.)
I don't think that the one male empowerment group that I am associated with would bother anybody.

For the record, I give money to the "Male Contraception Initiative" that allows men to control their fertility. I suppose that this "empowers" men, but apparently some women are bothered by this and see this not as "empowering men" but rather as "disempowering women." So, my comment to the Atheist Community of San Jose apparently is not true. I was wrong on this key point.

For example, consider this article ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/mens-health/11693171/Five-reasons-why-the-male-pill-isnt-coming-any-time-soon.html )

When launched at the 1974 World Health Conference in Budapest, religious groups voiced concern and feminists staged a boycott, storming Coutinho’s presentation and demanding that only women – not men – should be making choices about parenthood.

Think attitudes have changed? Don't be so sure. Not long ago feminist site Jezebel dubbed the idea "whore pills for men", while Angela Phillips wrote in The Guardian that "the bigger issue behind the development of a contraceptive pill for men is that women risk losing control of conception".

 (See https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/apr/28/malepillwomensloss )
"Sometimes it is not so much convincing him as presenting him with a fait accompli - just letting nature take its course." I do not know what percentage of women have this view, but I have heard comments from women (about other women) that "she got pregnant  'accidentally on purpose.' " Apparently this is not just my limited experience. Google "pregnant accidentally on purpose. "

So, not only am I unaware of anything the women's movement has done to "empower men," it seems that a vocal fraction (presumably a small minority?) specifically want to prevent men from being empowered to make choices about parenthood.  How else should one interpret the demand  that "only women – not men – should be making choices about parenthood"?

Yes, yes, I know that these women do not speak for all women, but this is the reason that people should support "women's movements" only on specific issues and not as a blanket endorsement. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1251868/Of-course-women-dont-want-male-pill--end-happy-little-accidents.html

http://jezebel.com/5059686/getting-knocked-up-accidentally-on-purpose-is-all-the-rage-in-london

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1162248/Kate-Spicer-getting-pregnant-night-stand-happy-mistake.html

Reasons for Quitting the Atheist Community of San Jose

(This probably will not make sense except to members of the Atheist Community of San Jose as there probably will not be enough context. https://www.meetup.com/Atheist-Community-of-San-Jose/events/236999896/?comment_table_id=250353695&comment_table_name=reply)

The following is in response to comments from two ACSJ members (public postings on the ACSJ meetup.com website) concerning not "splintering" the atheist community because of disagreements over whether or not ACSJ was endorsing the women's movement.

Technically, there was no official endorsement. However, I think almost anybody from the women's movement would interpret the postings and commentary (see: https://www.meetup.com/Atheist-Community-of-San-Jose/events/236999896/?comment_table_id=250353695&comment_table_name=reply ) as an endorsement from ACSJ. Similarly, I think almost anybody who opposed any part of the women's movement would see it as an endorsement of those parts they opposed as well as those parts they agreed with. Perhaps I am wrong in my assessment. I tried to explain my assessment in a private email to the two aforementioned members. Except for replacing some names with letters, here is my email:


=======================================================

Thank you both for being considerate and respectful. 

 My sense is that, despite its mission statement, ACSJ already has been operating as a de facto "progressive" atheist society. 

 First, X comments: [note Head of the group. ]

 "However, as individuals, we know that atheists often care about progressive movements, so members will often post them (or ask that we post them) for other members to potentially join." Note that he could have simply said "other movements" rather than "progressive movements." 

 Second, Y comments that the reason for not carrying the ACSJ banner is that it is awkward in the wind, not a concern about a blanket ACSJ endorsement of the women's movement. 

 Third, there were no comments sympathetic to the idea that ACSJ should be acting consistent with its mission statement and not giving blanket endorsements. 

 To be fair, people were quite clear that not attending was OK. But, for me it has much of the same character and feel as opening city council meetings by asking people to stand and pray because most people at the meeting are religious. Nobody is going to force an atheist to stand, but having the prayer at all shows government endorsement of religion, which would seem to be at odds with the government's own stated principles in the Constitution. 

 Tom

===========================================================

I received a private email response from one of the two aforementioned members. The first paragraph of the person's (Z) response was a restatement that there was no "blanket endorsement." We disagree, no problem to me. Maybe Z is even right in a very technical sense. That was part of the reason I tried to explain my publicly posted comments.

The second paragraph conveys two things. First, it is more or less an attack on me. (Indeed in the third paragraph Z indicates that it may "sound offensive.") Second, Z seems to have appointed Z to speak for the membership of ACSJ and Z indicates that there is "us" and "you." Inasmuch as I wasn't part of "us," Z seems to take umbrage that I had the temerity to express a different opinion than "us."

Z's email certainly added additional evidence to me that ACSJ was a de facto "progressive" atheist organization and, at least Z, had little tolerance for atheists who were not "progressive."

I suggest that Z give me permission to make Z's email public and Z make it public as well. Presumably, as a speaker for the correct thinking "us,"  Z should have no objection. 

Perhaps the thing that most disturbs me is not Z's intolerance of my assessment, not Z's self-appointment as a speaker for "us", but rather the fact that Z may, in fact, speak for the ACSJ membership. 

Inasmuch as "you" is not part of "us," it makes little sense to belong to ACSJ for much longer.

Muslim discrimination: Trump versus George Washington

President Washington:

It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it was the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily, the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

The Democratic Party, Men, and Winning Future Elections

First, for the record note that I have no special political expertise,  so my assessments are likely incomplete and at least partly wrong. Second, to the extent that I am wrong, I have lots of company from high-level political experts. These experts miscalculated the electorate so badly that Trump won, despite being so flawed that even the Republican Party had trouble supporting him. They neither liked him, nor trusted him, nor agreed with his bigotry, nor believed he could win the election. Trump's assessment of the electorate, despite essentially no political expertise or experience, beat the highfalutin expertise of both Republican and Democratic political experts. So, if I am wrong, I have plenty of company.


Some of the post-election assessments of some of my more liberal friends seem almost designed to lose future elections. It may be that the country will endure scandal after scandal in the Trump era and fare so poorly economically and internationally that the Democrats can win elections even with their 2016 election strategies, but this is not guaranteed. When I pointed out that the Democratic Party might be having trouble getting men to vote Democratic because the Party's policies and rhetoric had basically ignored roughly half the electorate, I was told that the real reason that Democrats lost was because of male sexism.  ("Joe the plumber is afraid of women taking jobs that he thinks only men should have.")

Few deny that sexism exists nor that racism exists in America, but two points are worth noting:

1.  It is unlikely that these "isms"  are going away any time soon. The Democratic Party is going to have to win in spite of these "isms."  I do not believe that most American men think of themselves as "sexists." The lunatic (20% ?) fringe of the women's movement has had some success in squelching free expression when it offends the movement. (Trigger warnings, safe spaces, opposition to men's groups on college campuses, for example.) But despite the efforts of the women's lunatic fringe, men are still free to express themselves in some important ways.  One of these ways is voting. It is difficult to understand how many liberals' penchant for pejoratively describing men as "sexists" or harping on "male privilege" is going to help win men's votes. To many men this is an unjustified and slanderous attack. Whether or not you ascribe to the "male privilege" ideology, an undeniable fact is that men still have an equal right to vote. 
2. Unless one believes that sexism is a much more serious problem than racism in America (I do not), then the two elections that Obama won indicate that the Democrats can win elections in spite of the "isms." Perhaps it is not the most important difference between Obama's campaign and Clinton's campaign, but one significant difference is that Obama made few (zero?) comments about policies specifically to help black people. Clinton seemed to emphasize policies she  championed that were specifically designed to address women's issues and hardly ever (zero?) even mentioned policies to address men's issues. 

The Democratic Party seems to be ceding the men's vote to the Republican Party. I suspect many men now view the Democratic Party as the women's party whereas in the past the Democratic Party was often viewed as the common people's party. What evidence would the Party supply to convince men that the Party actually cared about men to even one tenth the degree that the Party cares about women? Maybe it goes against decades of tradition at this point, but maybe liberals could stop dissing men if only enough to get Democrats elected so that they can pursue policies to help women?

The following would help Democrats win male votes:

1. Stop dissing men. Encourage all Party members to drop the pejorative attacks on men borrowed from the lunatic fringe of the women's movement.
2. To win back a few male votes, it is probably enough for Democratic politicians to pretend to care about men's issues. If your website has a link (or email list) for comments on "women's issues," add a link (or email list) for comments on "men's issues." ( https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-democratic-party-and-men-one-good.html ) The software can be programmed to delete automatically any resulting comments about "men's issues,"  so a Democratic politician can still keep 100% focus on "women's issues." Still, it will look good and win at least a few extra votes.
3. If, even after making the efforts in steps 1 and 2, a Democratic politician still has concerns (say the polls look bad) about the male vote, a low level staff member could read the comments about "men's issues" and respond by saying that the politician thanks the constituent for the comments and would keep them in mind. This will, unfortunately, take some staff time away from "women's issues," but it need not take any of the politician's time. This will look even better than item 2 and win even more extra votes than item 2.
4. If even item 3 does not work well enough the politician may want to actually read the comments on "men's issues" and pretend to care by introducing a bill. Fortunately, unless the politician really spends significant time promoting the bill, the bill will never even make it out of committee. Inasmuch as the bill has no chance of becoming law, very little time, consideration, or effort need be expended to write a good bill. Even a very bad bill is good enough to give the appearance of caring. The attempt can at least be advertised on a website and pointed to if questions arise about what the politician has done to help men. This will look even better than item 3 and win even more extra votes than item 3.
5. It is somewhat drastic, and it breaks with decades of Democratic tradition,  but as a last resort, the politician might consider actually spending enough time, effort, and political capital to get at least one law passed addressing one "men's issue." With luck, the politician will still be able to partition effort between "women's issues" and "men's issues" at a 99% to 1% rate. This will gain many male votes out of all proportion to the effort involved because it will be a symbolic sign that "men's issues" will, at least sometimes, get more than  trickle down considerations via "women's issues." ( https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-democratic-partys-trickle-down.html )

In summary, if the Democratic Party wants to win more male votes it will help if it actually does something for men. The Party seems to understand winning female votes by doing things for women, but it seems to be a novel idea to win male votes by doing something for men.

The Democratic Party's "Trickle Down Consideration" of Men

As indicated in previous posts,

https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-democratic-party-and-men-one-good.html

https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-2016-election-and-middle-class.html

the Democratic Party seems to believe that, unlike women's issues, there are no men's issues that need attention or are even worth considering.

Are there any efforts that the Party has made that were directed specifically at improving men's lives in the same way the Party directs efforts specifically at improving women's lives? I cannot think of a single one.

Winning elections is going to remain difficult as long as the Democratic Party remains hostile to men and the only "benefits" to men that the Party can point to are simply side effects of policies to help women.

To borrow from a Democratic Party slam on "trickle down economics" in which lower income folks will do well when upper income folks do well, the Democratic Party's policy is that no focus on men's issues is necessary because a focus on women's issues alleviates any men's issues via "trickle down" effects. If there is a better explanation, I have not heard one yet.

The Democratic Party, Men, and Low Hanging Fruit: Number 2

Besides easing men's concerns about paternity fraud,

( http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-democratic-party-men-and-low.html  )
(https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-democratic-party-men-and-low.html)

another easy thing the Democratic Party could do to improve men's lives is to, once and for all, and in all states, have marriage always be an explicit written agreement between persons. There should never be an instance in which one person A can claim to be married to person B without the explicit written consent of person B.

First, this will protect men from nefarious women claiming that because a relationship was "marriage-like" that the woman should be entitled to "marital rights;" that is she wants to take his money without his ever having consented to her "right" to take his money.  Second, this would make US law consistent with the international standards as specified by the United Nations:

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/MinimumAgeForMarriage.aspx


"Article 1

1. No marriage shall be legally entered into without the full and free consent of both parties, such consent to be expressed by them in person after due publicity and in the presence of the authority competent to solemnize the marriage and of witnesses, as prescribed by law."

Note that the above article 1 was supported by women's groups, so that except for the occasional nefariously mercenary woman, the vast majority of Democratic women would presumably support this position.

This would protect men against financial attacks by mercenary women trying to get the financial benefits of marriage without the pesky problem of a man's consent to marry.  This should throw out the mercenary claims of common law marriage, de facto marriage, palimony and every other evil "relationship" attempt to defraud men of money without their explicit consent.

The Democratic Party, Men, and Low Hanging Fruit: Number 1

In reference to my previous posts:

http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-2016-election-and-middle-class.html


http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-democratic-party-and-men-one-good.html

I would like to suggest something that the Democratic Party could do specifically directed at improving men's lives. It is "low hanging fruit" inasmuch as even the liberal wing on the Democratic Party could whole-heartedly support it. Only the truly evil and tyrannical elements of the lunatic fringe could possibly be against this proposal.

The Democratic Party should introduce legislation in all the states, as well as nationally, to require default paternity testing at birth so that:

1. A man is not forced to support a child that he did not father.
2. The child's medical record does not contain false information that negatively impacts the child's medical treatment.

I think most people, even most Democratic women, would agree that it is seriously wrong to force a man to support another man's child. The woman is responsible and not the man. The woman should bear the financial consequences of her behavior and not an innocent man who was not involved and therefore should bear no responsibility.

If both parents sign an informed consent waiver explaining their liabilities in the absence of establishing paternity via a paternity test (perhaps for religious reasons?), then the  paternity test can be sealed and presented to the child when the child becomes an adult and/or released to the child's physician if medically important genetic misinformation needs to be avoided.





If one wants to look at some of the ludicrous objections see:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bari-zell-weinberger-esq/paternity-tests_b_1364085.html

"First, let’s talk about women. Yes, we know that sometimes women have multiple partners, even when they are married. However, assuming that you can’t trust any New Jersey mom to be honest about (or worse, to know!) who fathered her child seems like a giant step backwards, not to mention insulting. In my experience, paternity issues affect a minority of families, not the majority."

This is ass-backwards. The only time an "assumption" is made is when a paternity test is not done. There is no "assumption" being made if the test is done. What absolute illogical nonsense. This is another instance in which the "benefit of the doubt" is being twisted for nefarious purposes. The "benefit of the doubt" reasonably applies when the doubt cannot be removed. Asking for the  "benefit of the doubt"  when the doubt could easily be removed is not only ridiculous, it is tyrannical and serves only the nefarious purpose of concealing the truth. How can a routine paternity test be "insulting?"

The fact that only a minority of families are affected by paternity issues is irrelevant. All people need to be protected against erroneous, sometimes intentionally erroneous, paternity assumptions. There is no need to make any assumptions. What this "south end of a north bound horse" is actually arguing is that she favors paternity assumptions instead of getting the actual facts.

"But what if a woman did cheat on her spouse around the time she became pregnant... and he doesn’t know it? Is it now the state’s responsibility to let men know their wives have been unfaithful?"

It is neither the state's responsibility to let men know their wives have been unfaithful nor is it the state's responsibility to conceal this information. It is not the state's responsibility to protect a woman's reputation as a cheater nor is it the state's responsibility to worry about whether a husband divorces his wife if she cheated on him. It is the state's responsibility to protect an innocent man from paternity fraud. Unless she gives birth, there is no paternity test and she can break her marriage vows at will and the state is not involved. The state must get involved to prevent a cheating wife from committing paternity fraud to steal financial support from an innocent man. Restated slightly differently, the state has an obligation to protect innocent people from fraud and no obligation to protect people who commit fraud.

"It’s hard to see who wins with this bill, except for perhaps the lab testing companies."

Is this woman crazy? Innocent men clearly win with this bill. The bill protects the innocent. It is sure easy to see who wins in the absence of this bill. The absence of a paternity test benefits liars and cheaters at the expense of honest people who have done no wrong. Family law attorneys and judges, of course, also benefit because more legal judgement is required when the situation is ambiguous. It takes away demand for their services when the facts are clear.

The Democratic Party and Men - One Good Way to Preclude Listening

As noted in a previous post:

http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-2016-election-and-middle-class.html

the Democratic Party seems to have written off doing much of anything for men. Now prominent Democrats such as Elizabeth Warren say that they want to listen.

Warren says:

As for the protests that have sprung up across the country in opposition to Trump, Warren said, “People are upset and they’re right to be upset. This is our country, and people have a right to have their voices heard.” But, she added, “we also have an obligation to listen.” Not necessarily to Trump, but to those who decided to vote for him despite his “bigotry.”

There seems to be a disconnect between  Warren's "obligation to listen statement" and the way her web-based email is set up. I wanted to send her a message saying that the problem was that the Democratic Party was entirely focused on women and was not doing anything for men; it should not be a big surprise that men do not vote for Democrats in big numbers. Here is Warren's email contact link:

https://www.warren.senate.gov/index.cfm?p=email_senator

Note that one must pick a topic from a drop down computer list. There is no topic on that list that would seem to fit the "listening" that Warren claims should be happening. The closest topic to allow men to comment that they voted for Trump because the Democratic Party had deserted men is, I guess, "women's issues." There is, of course, no topic choice for "men's issues," I suppose because  men do not have any issues that the Democratic Party deems worthy of attention, let alone action. Half of the constituents she represents are men. Even if the Democratic Party has no intention of doing anything for men, it would help her "listening" objective if men at least were considered in her topic list.

The 2016 Election and Middle Class White Males

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/10/elizabeth-warren-faces-president-trump-with-rachel-maddow-no-compromise-on-bigotry.html

Warren says:

As for the protests that have sprung up across the country in opposition to Trump, Warren said, “People are upset and they’re right to be upset. This is our country, and people have a right to have their voices heard.” But, she added, “we also have an obligation to listen.” Not necessarily to Trump, but to those who decided to vote for him despite his “bigotry.”

Comment:

Warren is right about listening to those who voted for Trump despite his bigotry. People need to see the Democratic Party working on their behalf. The party lost badly among men and especially badly among white men in particular. Why? It is pretty simple. The Party has become increasingly hostile toward men in general, and white men in particular. There are many members of the Party that that have adopted some of the radical women's movement practices of disparaging men by spewing "male privilege" and disparaging white men in particular by spewing " white male privilege" in any discussion of any societal problem (e.g.Ref[1], Ref[2]). While it is true that Democratic politicians generally do not use these terms themselves, it is also true that they have not discouraged the use of these terms among members of the Party. By their silence, the Democratic politicians are complicit in disparaging men. The liberal wing of the party is so focused on the mantra of "white male privilege" that white males have essentially been deserted by the party.

While it is easy to list many things that the Party has done to help women, it is hard to list things that the Party has done to help men. Even what "benefits" to men I have heard liberals mention seem to be solely side effects of policies designed to help women. The fact that men are affected by policies meant to help women is largely unavoidable. There can occasionally be some benefits to men, but that is not the purpose of the policies. There are also some deleterious side effects on men that the Party just seems to accept as some kind of acceptable collateral damage in the attempts to help women.

Are there any efforts that the Party has made that were directed specifically at improving men's lives in the same way the Party directs efforts specifically at improving women's lives? I cannot think of a single one. If there have been any attempts, the Party should do a better job of communicating attempts specifically directed at improving men's lives, just as the Party does with attempts specifically directed at improving women's lives.

It is a good guess that middle class males, especially white middle class males, are not voting for Republicans because Republicans have done much for them. How have Republican policies helped middle class men? Republican policies have not improved the lives of middle class men any more than Democratic policies. This is actually good news for the Democratic Party as many of these men have no real attachment to the Republican Party. Middle class men will return to the Democratic Party when two things happen. First, the liberal wing of the Party should stop the outright hostility toward men in favor of welcoming men. Second, the Party actually needs to show men that the Party is acting on their behalf, at least a small fraction of the time (say 20%?), if it expects men to vote Democratic. 

Winning elections is going to remain difficult as long as the Democratic Party remains hostile to men and the only "benefits" to men that the Party can point to are simply side effects of policies to help women.

Why do Some Men with Significant Assets Marry without Prenuptial Contracts?

What are some of the reasons that men with assets, especially young men, agree to marry under a default contract that is so much worse for them than they could obtain by negotiation?

1. Ignorance. Many men, especially young men, are simply ignorant about how bad the default marriage  contract can be for men. The older and wiser a man gets, the more a man has seen what the default has meant for other men and will choose a prenuptial agreement.

2. Innocence, expense, and laziness. Many men, especially young men, are predisposed to believe that the default marriage contract is fair because examining the terms of the default marriage contract is impossible; the terms are not written down anywhere. A good family attorney can explain the implications of the default marriage contract. Getting legal advice requires the man to know that he should never get married under the default contract without legal advice and to expend considerable  time, effort, and expense to become informed. The older and wiser a man gets, the more a man has seen what the default has meant for other men and will choose a prenuptial agreement.

3. Societal and family intimidation against prenuptial contracts. Men know that most fiancees believe (correctly) that the fiancees could never hope to negotiate a more favorable contract than the default and that men likely will have to endure tears, screaming fits, and unwarranted hostile accusations. Many women will rail against the mere idea of negotiating a prenuptial contract. Even suggesting that a woman have her lawyer prepare a prenuptial contract stating the marriage contract that she wants can result in  tears, screaming fits, and unwarranted hostile accusations. These intimidating tactics are not employed because a prenuptial contract is unfair in some discussable way, they are employed because the woman, or her attorney,  wants to preserve, without discussion, the favorable unfairness associated with the default contract. The problem with her attorney preparing a  written prenuptial contract? The problem is that although her attorney can write whatever provisions she wants,  the man can question the reasonableness of the provisions. If the fiancee cannot justify the provisions to his satisfaction, she is going to look like a gold digger to him. Much better to have an unwritten contract whose provisions are not even known until divorce time.

4. Structural bias. Note that the law basically requires that women get legal advice about a prenuptial contract before signing so that she understands the implications of what she is signing, there is no legal requirement that a man understand the implications of the default marriage contract that he is signing.

Comments on "Ten Things I Hate About Prenuptial Agreements"

As I have indicated on this blog before, nobody should sign a marriage contract that he/she thinks is unfair. I recently encountered a web page that includes in one place many of the specious arguments against prenuptial contracts that I have encountered over the years. The link is:



http://www.ivkdlaw.com/the-firm/our-articles/prenuptial-agreements-and-lawyering/ten-things-i-hate-about-prenuptial-agreements/


Read this attorney's "Ten Things I Hate About Prenuptial Agreements." The essential thing is that the default marriage contract so favors her clients that she would find it essentially impossible to ever negotiate a more favorable contract than the default marriage contract for any of her clients. She cannot maintain this wildly favorable bias in a negotiated contract, so she uses a number of specious arguments to disparage a negotiated contract.


I have discussed some of these issues in previous posts, but I think the following has value as it is a response to a specific attorney's collected comments on prenups.

To see some associated previous posts:

http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2015/11/what-people-especially-wealthy-people.html

http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-pros-and-cons-of-forced-marriage-in.html

http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2015/11/no-means-no-except-when-man-says-no.html



(As I think the attorney in the link does, assume the man to be the wealthier party both in assets and in income for the discussion.)

Lets take the arguments one at a time: (Note that there is a copyright indication on the page I link to, so I decided not to duplicate the author's comments on this page. You can find her original comments that I am replying to at the linked site with the corresponding numerical item label.)

"A significant part of my law practice is a steady stream of prenuptial agreements for clients who are embarking on marriage. Generally (but not always), I represent the less-moneyed spouse. She (usually) is presented with the concept as a limited means to, say, protect the fiancé’s (or his parent’s) wealth. Somehow, this morphs into an all-encompassing financial contract that drastically limits her marital rights with far-reaching effects extending into the future."

With or without a prenuptial contract, marriage is an all-encompassing financial contract. As far as "her marital rights," a prenuptial contract defines her "marital rights." This quoted paragraph above attempts to imply that something has been taken away from the woman. This of course is logical nonsense. The woman does not have any marital rights until she is married. The prenuptial contract can give her marital rights, but it cannot take away any marital rights. (In contrast, a post-marital contract can take away marital rights because the marital rights exist per the marriage contract.) The prenuptial contract simply replaces the default contract.  Inasmuch as peoples' individual circumstances are enormously varied, a "one size fits all" default marriage contract will not be fair and appropriate in many circumstances. Prenuptial contracts allow people to take their individual circumstances into account and ditch the "one size fits all" mentality.

The "wonderful" thing about the default marriage contract is that it gives her clients more than they could possibly hope to obtain in a negotiation. It is unlikely a man would sign a default marriage contract wildly in her client's favor if the man had legal counsel on the implications of the default contract. The law does not require that he understand the default contract whereas, by contrast, the law requires that her client understand the prenuptial contract. This attorney is essentially practicing a form of "gold digging" for her clients. The fact that the default contract promotes gold digging does not change the fact that it is gold digging. The beauty of gold digging by default is that her clients do not have to explicitly identify themselves as gold diggers. Gold digging by default contract depends on the innocence and ignorance of the man signing a contract whose terms are not even written down.  Gold digging in a prenuptial negotiation is much harder to do and much more likely to expose her clients as gold diggers.

Click link and go to item 1 on the linked page:

1. http://www.ivkdlaw.com/the-firm/our-articles/prenuptial-agreements-and-lawyering/ten-things-i-hate-about-prenuptial-agreements/

This coercion argument is nonsense. Both parties have a free choice.  The fact that a man will not sign a contract that he considers outrageously unfair does not qualify as "coercion." If she refuses to sign a contract that she considers unfair and insists upon getting married under the default contract because it is much more lucrative in a divorce, is she then coercing him? The purpose of the prenuptial contract is to prevent a devastating effect on the man. Apparently this attorney thinks that it is proper for a woman to be concerned about a devastating effect on the woman, but it is somehow not proper for a man to be concerned about a devastating effect on the man?

The attorney notes that a "typical fact pattern is a couple that has been together for some time." It is also a typical pattern that the man is happy with just living with the woman and it is the woman who wants to change the circumstances. There is often a lot of pressure to get him to "commit" or "put a ring on it." The reference situation is living together with no "marital rights." Women often tell men that repeatedly "nothing will change and it will just be like living together, I just want to be married." This, of course, is dramatically false, but I am not aware of any case where this statement (even in writing or with witnesses) has protected a man's financial position. (On the other hand, women sometimes succeed at using a man's comments to acquire part of his assets. It seems to be a  "promise" when a man says something without sufficient thought nor legal counsel to a woman, but not a "promise" when a woman says something without sufficient thought nor legal counsel  to a man.)

As noted, the current reference situation (A) is living together. The proposed change (B) is being married under the terms of the prenuptial contract. When a woman gets legal advice about a prenuptial contract the legal legerdemain does not compare the woman's current reference situation of living together against the proposed future situation of marriage under the prenuptial contract. Instead, the legal legerdemain supplants the current reference situation with a fictitious reference situation (C) that never existed. The attorney advises the woman about all the things the man is "taking from her" if she signs the prenuptial contract, based on what the woman would be given in the absence (C) of a prenuptial contract. This seems incredibly dishonest. The proposed change is from  A to B and yet the attorney discusses the change from in going from C to B. In this way, the woman is made to feel that the man is "taking" something from her, despite the fact that this is impossible because she never had it in the first place.

Exactly which party is being treated unfairly under this legal legerdemain?

Click link and go to item 2 on the linked page:

2. http://www.ivkdlaw.com/the-firm/our-articles/prenuptial-agreements-and-lawyering/ten-things-i-hate-about-prenuptial-agreements/

This argument is ridiculous for three reasons. First, it is circular in the sense that it presupposes that the default marriage contract is fair and that she is entitled  to the marital rights associated with the default contract. The entire reason for the prenuptial contract is that the man does not agree that she should be entitled to the default marital rights. She does not have these rights, so she cannot give them away. Nothing is being "taken" from her.

Second, under the default contract what "consideration" is the man getting? The man essentially hands the courts a blank check to fill in if a divorce occurs. Without a prenuptial contract he is at huge financial risk as detailed by the attorney's own words as the wife might have "access to everything the future husband presently owns, might own in the future, and any possible support rights." What "consideration" is the man getting that is commensurate with giving the woman such access? Exactly what does the law require her to give to the man because she puts him at huge financial risk, with her as the beneficiary of the risk? Under the default contract, there is indeed a severe imbalance in which she can appropriate his assets even if she has done absolutely nothing for him. Provided simply that she "married well," the default contract enriches her for the sole fact of marrying well.

Third, the attorney has some confused thinking. The fact that the law specifies default marital rights in no way means that the default is fair and reasonable in many cases. Suppose that the default were that the wife pay her ex husband 80 per cent of all her future earnings and he pay her none of his future earnings? Under the attorney's argument, if the wife wanted to change this default with a prenuptial contract, then he would be "giving up" his default marital right to the 80 per cent. Under the attorney's argument the man is giving away more and she thus should give him "consideration" on the other side to balance that fact? Except for the fact that this would be an even more unfair example of "marital rights" specified by default law, the principles involved are the same.  If the default contract allows one spouse to plunder the other, it is irrelevant what the plundering spouse "gives up" in a prenuptial contract. There is no "consideration" due because a spouse foregoes a right to plunder that they never should have.

Now consider the attorney's ridiculous analogy of buying shoes.  Suppose the shoes are normally sold under a standard contract (say, the manufacturer's suggested retail price, i.e. the msrp) that provides X dollars in exchange for the shoes and a buyer proposes paying less, say, Y < X dollars. No reasonable person would say that the seller is due some "consideration" for the fact the seller is getting less than the seller normally gets. The seller either wants to sell the shoes according to the buyer's proposed contract or the seller does not want to. It is not the buyer's responsibility to ensure that the seller makes his usual profit. If no agreement is reached, then the buyer and seller are in the same situations that they were before the proposed sale. In particular, the seller still has the shoes and the buyer still has his Y dollars.  This attorney's argument is not only without merit, it is so bad that it would be ridiculously silly for any reasonable person to take it seriously, except as a logical fallacy that, with luck, will trick the buyer into paying X dollars.

Click link and go to item 3 on the linked page:

3. http://www.ivkdlaw.com/the-firm/our-articles/prenuptial-agreements-and-lawyering/ten-things-i-hate-about-prenuptial-agreements/

This is ridiculous. Either party can take as much time as they need to make an informed decision. The man is neither responsible for a woman's ignorance nor any bad decision she makes. At what point can an adult woman be held responsible for her actions and/or inaction? A wealthy man who gets married without a prenuptial contract, and without having professional legal advice about why he needs a prenup, is still held responsible for signing a default marriage contract that may give his wife "access to everything the future husband presently owns, might own in the future, and any possible support rights."  Despite the fact that he has far more to lose in marriage than his wife, the law cuts him no slack for not understanding just how awful the default contract can be in his case. It does him no good to say  he did not understand or that he did not have legal counsel. His wife, on the other hand, can have the prenuptial contract tossed out because she did not seek legal advice.

"Young people really have little or no idea of what marriage is and what it takes to make it successful," which is even more reason that a wealthy man needs the protection of a prenuptial contract. This is especially significant because women apparently initiate the divorce about 2/3 of the time.

Click link and go to item 4 on the linked page:

4. http://www.ivkdlaw.com/the-firm/our-articles/prenuptial-agreements-and-lawyering/ten-things-i-hate-about-prenuptial-agreements/

It is quite reasonable for the parents to be concerned about their son. The attorney's implication that  "real" marriages cannot have prenuptial agreements is ridiculous. Furthermore, divorce laws and settlements can be drastically different in different places and different times. It is a ridiculous notion that radically different divorce settlements (given the same circumstances except location) can all be "fair." Really?  If one location's law gives a woman ten thousand dollars and another location's law gives her ten million dollars, they are both fair? And, if they are indeed both "fair" there should be no problem with a prenuptial contract that picks the most favorable of the "fair" outcomes. I wonder how many of the parents who took her advice watched the wife divorce their son and plunder his assets?

Click link and go to item 5 on the linked page:

5. http://www.ivkdlaw.com/the-firm/our-articles/prenuptial-agreements-and-lawyering/ten-things-i-hate-about-prenuptial-agreements/

The attorney seems to be espousing the unsubstantiated notion that "reducing risk" by a prenuptial contract is somehow incompatible with fostering the upcoming marriage. Like most of the arguments against prenuptial contracts, this is a self-serving argument for maintaining the "marital right" to plunder a wealthy man. Women can ask for any "marital rights" they want in a prenuptial contract, so there is no reason that a prenuptial contract cannot be fair. Many women like the default marriage contract because it obscures just how much they have to gain by marriage to a wealthy man. Because they do not even have to explicitly specify the "marital rights" that they think are fair, they escape all discussion of why these default "marital rights" are fair in the particular marriage under consideration. In fact, a prenuptial contract will effectively filter out the gold diggers from the women who have more honorable intentions. This alone makes a prenuptial contract worthwhile for a wealthy man. Furthermore, if a wealthy man does not get a prenuptial contract, the default contract will pay her handsomely if she divorces him. Even if she is not, or at least did not start out, as a gold digger, this is a tremendous incentive to divorce him. The less she stands to benefit from a divorce, the less likely she is to initiate a divorce. People respond to incentives. Exactly how does providing an incentive to divorce help in "supporting or fostering the upcoming marriage?"

This attorney seems to have no "no sensitivity to the destruction" she is causing by insisting that a couple avoid an open discussion of what "marital rights" will apply to their marriage. Furthermore, on a societal level, following her ideas promotes both gold digging and divorce. In the end, neither of these things are good for either society as a whole or for honorable women who have no problems with discussing their concept of fairness.

Click link and go to item 6 on the linked page:

6. http://www.ivkdlaw.com/the-firm/our-articles/prenuptial-agreements-and-lawyering/ten-things-i-hate-about-prenuptial-agreements/

This argument attempts to justify simple thievery. If he has sole and separate (non-marital) property that he wants to leave to his children, or perhaps charity, he should be entitled to do so. She was not involved in the generation of the wealth represented by the non-marital property and she should not be entitled to a dime of it.  To use the attorney's own language, what did the wife give him in "consideration" for this property? Grabbing his non-marital  assets that the man intended for his children would amount to legal larceny and it rightly should be prohibited. If the man can give his children his sole property assets before he dies, he certainly ought to be able to give these assets to his children when he dies. If not, exactly what would this attorney be suggesting? The man could give his separate assets to his children 10 minutes before he died, but not after? If the man agrees to sign this attorney's "correction" to the prenup, that is his choice, but there are many circumstances in which this "correction" would be totally unwarranted.

Click link and go to item 7 on the linked page:

7. http://www.ivkdlaw.com/the-firm/our-articles/prenuptial-agreements-and-lawyering/ten-things-i-hate-about-prenuptial-agreements/

If there are any corrosive memories and tears associated with a prenuptial negotiation, attorneys like this one are responsible. She intentionally and inaccurately misrepresents the prenuptial contract as taking away marital rights instead of defining marital rights. Instead of focusing on the change from cohabiting to married under a negotiated prenup, she supplants this actual change under consideration to the change from the terms of the non-existent (and explicitly rejected) default marriage contract to the prenuptial terms. The tears come from an emotional reaction to the attorney's intentional misrepresentation that something the fiancee never had is being taken away from her.

Click link and go to item 8 on the linked page:

8. http://www.ivkdlaw.com/the-firm/our-articles/prenuptial-agreements-and-lawyering/ten-things-i-hate-about-prenuptial-agreements/

More nonsense. First, the man is not responsible if his fiancee lies. Second, "fair and reasonable" is a matter of judgement. Third,  "the very fair and reasonable laws of divorce" in practice are a farce in many cases. The very fact that divorce laws in different locales result in very different outcomes shows that the laws are most definitely not fair.

Even if the prenup has exceedingly beneficial terms for the wife, this attorney and her ilk will describe it as "unfair" if the default marriage contract is even more beneficial. The default marriage contract in some locales treats a man's premarital assets as his separate property, but any increase in value of that property is shared by default in these locales. (In California, the wife is not entitled to any increase in value of his separate property.) For example, the man may start with one million dollars of separate property in a stock mutual fund that, after five years of marriage, becomes perhaps three million dollars. If a divorce occurs under the default contract, the wife would get half of the two million dollar gain. She did nothing to enhance the value of the mutual fund, yet she is entitled to one million dollars? Why?

Suppose the man thought that this was outrageously unfair, yet still wanted his wife to benefit a little if he had good luck with his separate property 1 million dollar mutual fund. Lets say that instead of cutting her in on 50% of the gain, he has her sign a prenuptial contract that cuts her in on 25% of the gain? Rather than focusing on the man's generosity in giving his wife a 25% risk-free  (if he loses she does not share in the loss) stake in the gain, this attorney and her ilk will say that the man is taking away her "right" to the full 50%. Never mind that if the man divorced in a different locale (say California), the default contract would  not give her a dime of the mutual fund's gain.

This attorney and her ilk, because they so steadfastly assert the fairness of the default marriage contract, probably would not suggest asking a California man to sign a  prenuptial contract giving the wife a 25% share in his mutual fund's gain. The California man, and probably California society generally, would almost certainly reject such a suggestion as abject gold digging. But, a man in the other locale is lambasted for "taking away" her marital rights because he "only" will agree to give her 25%. Logically, a woman demanding to share in his mutual fund's gain is a gold digger whether she is in California or another locale. But, in some attorneys' view the wife is  not a gold digger but rather a "victim" of an unfair prenup in another locale if she "only" gets 25% of the gain.

"Very fair and reasonable laws of divorce?" The evidence shows that this is an outright lie.

Click link and go to item 9 on the linked page:

9. http://www.ivkdlaw.com/the-firm/our-articles/prenuptial-agreements-and-lawyering/ten-things-i-hate-about-prenuptial-agreements/

First, this is ridiculous, they are not always unfair. Second, one can always include provisions in the prenup to give credit to the wife if she makes certain sacrifices for the family. These examples of the things that a wife might do are often times little more than a smoke screen to hide and divert discussion from some provisions in the default marriage contract that sometimes have outrageous divorce consequences.

Although this attorney focuses on what the wife might do, default divorce laws compensate the wife of a wealthy man far more for who she married than what she did or did not do. A wife may have promised to bear a man's children, and though fertile, she breaks this promise. She may start refusing to have sex with him. She may refuse even to live with him. She may break her wedding vows by sleeping with another man. But, if a divorce comes the fact that she broke her promises, refused him sex or even simple companionship, broke her wedding vows, and did not sacrifice one iota for the family makes little difference. The primary thing that matters is that she married well and he has a lot of assets to go after. In some locales, the default divorce laws entitled her to one half the gain on any of his premarital assets. She gets this independent of anything that she actually does or does not do. If he has  (premarital) 10 million dollars in a stock mutual fund that becomes 20 million during the marriage, the law in some locales gives her 5 million dollars (half the gain), independent of her contributions or behavior. So, although I am in favor of prenuptial contract provisions that recognize and reward contributions and good behavior on the wife's part, the default divorce provisions are abominable because they essentially depend on who she married, not what she did. These examples of what a wife might do are largely irrelevant because she has no obligation to do these things and can do them, or not, as she alone chooses, and her divorce settlement from a wealthy man will be almost independent of what she has done.

The attorney's stated concern about major sacrifices the wife might make by "mutual decision" can be specified in the prenuptial contract. There are a small enough number of  common major sacrifices that a prenuptial contract can specify appropriate compensation terms for common sacrifices such as a wife staying home and raising children. Indeed, this attorney indicates that she can fix the prenuptial contracts that she gets her hands on. For any uncommon major sacrifices not specified in the prenuptial contract, a post-marital agreement can be written (before the sacrifice is made) establishing both that the sacrifice was a mutual decision and the agreed upon value or "consideration" due for the sacrifice. But, this attorney is against prenuptial (and presumably post-marital) agreements that openly and explicitly deal with these concerns. Instead, this attorney prefers to wait until divorce comes and it is impossible to establish unequivocally that the sacrifice was mutually agreed upon and a mutually agreed upon valuation for the sacrifice. The attorney does this, of course, because she knows that the default law will:

1. assume that the sacrifice was mutually agreed upon (absent exceedingly strong evidence to the contrary), and

2. will obtain a better valuation than the attorney can obtain by negotiation

With respect to item 2, note that the attorney is not acting in her client's interest if the attorney could obtain a better valuation in a prenuptial (or even post-nuptial) agreement. She wants the default because she believes (with good reason) that the default gives her client more than she could ever hope to obtain with a prenuptial (or even post-nuptial) agreement. Indeed, under the default contract the man is disregarding the common wisdom "don't buy a pig in a poke." Inasmuch as the default contract is not written down and the terms vary depending on time and locale, this is very much "buying a pig in a poke."

I have some sympathy with some of the comments in this item, but there is no uniquely agreed upon definition of what is "fair."  Nobody should sign a contract that they consider substantially unfair. Indeed, this is the very reason that wealthy men refuse to sign default marriage contracts. This attorney seems to think that her assessment of "fairness" supersedes the fact that "fairness" is as agreed upon by the parties involved in the contract. Kudos to her for advising her clients about what she thinks is fair. But, in the end, this attorney has no special right to define "fair" for anybody but herself.

Click link and go to item 10 on the linked page:

10.  http://www.ivkdlaw.com/the-firm/our-articles/prenuptial-agreements-and-lawyering/ten-things-i-hate-about-prenuptial-agreements/

Inasmuch as the law includes the ability to modify the default marriage contract in accordance with needs of the parties involved, to say that there is a "disregard of the law" is absurd. The law is certainly used to modify the default contract to fit the needs of the people involved, but this is hardly "disregarding" the law. That is nonsense. The attorney's ludicrous assertion of "fair distribution" is belied by the fact that "fair distribution" can be orders of magnitude different depending on the locale where the divorce occurs.


I am done responding to this attorney's 10 reasons, but one should understand one more point about family law.

To appreciate fully just how insidiously evil family law can be, note that even when men do not sign any marriage contract, attorneys try to separate the men from their money (it would be called grand larceny except for the fact that is "done legally") by asserting that some relationship is "marriage-like." Check out "palimony." The most evil family law that I know of is the 2013 British Columbia law that simply changed the definition of "spouse" so that a woman could plunder a man even if he explicitly and publically refused to marry her.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/common-law-couples-as-good-as-married-in-b-c-1.1413551

http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2015/11/no-means-no-except-when-man-says-no.html

Life in Los Alamos: Nuclear Missiles and Toasters

In the days at Los Alamos National Laboratory before we had voice mail or answering machines, office partners would routinely answer each other's phones and take messages. (For instance, see  stupid secretary.) I often knew roughly what my office partner (Jane Doe) was working on and this knowledge helped in taking a message with sufficient context. Occasionally, Jane was working on a new project that I was not yet aware of.

One day a man from General Electric Corporation called on Jane's phone. I knew that  Jane was either doing calculations for General Electric or perhaps advising General Electric about how to set up calculations for some aspect of the Navy's ballistic nuclear missile submarines. To ensure that this was not a new project and to provide context for the message, I asked "Does this concern the Navy's nuclear missile submarines?" There were perhaps two or three seconds before the man responded.  (I thought maybe there was a problem with the phone call on my end or his end.) At long last, the man sheepishly said with some hesitation and uncertainty in his voice "She called about her General Electric toaster?"

My Lingerie Calendar Interactions at the University of California

Circa 1992 my first wife and I were Christmas shopping at a mall in Newark, California. Why we had to celebrate Christmas, especially the purchase of gifts, stretches my comprehension a bit as neither of us were religious at all. I don't like shopping very much, but I tolerate shopping when I need to buy something specific that I have in mind. Christmas shopping is particularly unpleasant because it is very crowded and noisy and one needs to buy something thoughtful; because it is the thought that counts (they say).

Despite telling my wife numerous times that I didn't want anything, she kept asking and I could see that I was not escaping the mall until she bought me a gift. When she asked yet again we happened to be walking past a Frederick's of Hollywood lingerie shop that was uncrowded enough that I could see a sign by the cashier advertising lingerie calendars at a small fraction of the original price. I seized the opportunity and told my wife that I would like a calendar. So, for one dollar and less than a minute wait at the cashier, I made my escape! I felt very clever indeed.  Anyway, I actually did need a calendar and, as a bonus, there were some fetching photos on the calendar.

Although a Los Alamos employee, I had a guest office at the University of California (Berkeley) in the Nuclear Engineering Department. I posted the calendar above my desk and all was well for about two weeks. One day I arrived and saw the department secretary (who had access to my office for administrative reasons) staring at the calendar. As a matter of courtesy and consideration, I asked if the calendar bothered her. She said no, she just liked to look at the lingerie. Had the calendar bothered her, I would have removed the calendar as a matter of personal courtesy. There are a lot of things that I would do out of personal courtesy for women, or men, for that matter.

Perhaps two months later, a female student asked to talk with me. She indicated that seeing the calendar bothered her. Attempting to be courteous and reasonable, I asked if it would be okay to move the calendar to another wall inside the office that was not visible from the hallway where she walked. She indicated that moving the calendar would be okay. I moved the calendar, but the first time the phone rang, I realized I needed the calendar close to the phone as before. So, I moved the calendar to its original location and covered the photo with a blank sheet of paper, leaving the calendar part usable.

The next week when I saw her pass my doorway, I asked if I could talk with her. I pointed out that:

1. The calendar was a gift from my wife.
2. I had to be in the office roughly 8 hours a day.
3. The calendar made my work space more pleasant.
4. She seemed to pass by my office perhaps twice a week (she accepted that frequency)
5. She knew the calendar was in my office, could she just not look into my office for the half second it took to pass my doorway?

She rejected my suggestion that she could simply not look into my office and allow me a pleasant work space. She explained that my calendar was somehow responsible for nearly every problem in society and seeing it made her uncomfortable. (The explanations seemed ludicrous to me, especially the claim that my calendar was somehow responsible for slavery?) Despite her intolerance, I was a guest in the department and did not want to make an issue the department would have to deal with. So, I decided to ensure that she did not have to be "uncomfortable." I kept the photo part of the calendar covered, though I was not comfortable kowtowing to her intolerance. Courtesy and consideration were part of my family upbringing; kowtowing to self-important and self-appointed tyrants exceeding their authority was not.

It occurred to me after about a week that covering the entire photo was not a good solution to the problem. Instead, I used "post-it" notes to cover what I presumed to be the objectionable parts of the women in the photographs. The post it notes looked a bit like an exceptionally modest bikini. When the student did not complain about my "bikini" solution, I was relieved. Problem solved. Confrontation avoided.

Although the post-it notes had been a good idea, it occurred to me after another week that the post-it notes could be used in an even better manner. I took the post-it notes and folded them 90 degrees at the glue border so that the glued portion stuck to the calendar and the remainder of the post it notes protruded outward at 90 degrees from the calendar's plane. The view from the hallway was now blocked by the protruding post-it notes, but the post-it notes were no longer obscuring my view of the calendar. Again, no complaints from the student. An all around great solution: She did not have to view the calendar and I could view the calendar!

One unforeseen side-effect was that a number of people would pass by my office, do a double-take on the protruding post-it notes, and ask to see what I had blocked from hallway view. I was happy to oblige.