Susan's Musings

Six Secrets for a Successful Marriage—and They Can Build Your Business Too

“What’s the secret of a good marriage?” This question was asked of my husband twice this past week as he spoke for several events in Arizona and Tennessee. I’ve attended bridal showers where each guest was asked to give the bride her best piece of advice on this topic and I’ve seen lists in woman’s magazines detailing the same. Both of this week’s questioners, by the way, were male. 

The frequently given answers given are usually true. Can anyone disagree that laughing together is important or that commitment matters? Even when tips contradict each other, they have validity. You can make a case for never going to bed angry just as you can make a case for not speaking in anger but giving yourself time to cool off. 

The bottom line, of course, is that there is not any one magical tip for a happy marriage. If there was, the divorce rate would be minimal. Yet, because the second person to approach my husband did so at a business conference, I began to ponder the parallels between running a successful business and having a successful marriage. Here are some of my thoughts:

1. Most people start both a new marriage and a new business with excitement, grandiose dreams and rose-colored glasses. This is great, because it encourages people to take a scary, risky leap into the unknown. However, those factors are based on fleeting emotions that hopefully will be recaptured at moments in the future, but certainly not on a daily basis. Know that.
2. Only a fool embarks on a new business thinking that while it may take tons of work and time at the beginning, a time will come when no effort is necessary. Expect to give your best forever. 
3. Outside and unexpected forces will intervene. An economy that crashes, illness, new technology, family crises...there is no way to know exactly where challenges will emerge, but emerge they will. Don’t be thrown by them.
4. Despite #3’s surprise factor, you need to anticipate and make plans for difficult moments. If you’re opening a retail store or your business involves shipping, you may not know when bad weather will come but you should have a plan for bad weather. If you’re married, life will at many points make it difficult for you to nurture your marriage and you need to think about that before crunch time arrives. Plan ahead.
5. Preparation and continuing education are vital. Hopefully, no one starts a business without a business plan. You may be a dentist or baking cupcakes, but if you have no idea what a profit and loss statement is you probably won’t be successful. If you think that whatever tools and knowledge you have now will be all you’ll ever need, you may have short, but not long term success. The marriage skills needed for a new marriage won’t carry you as you are blessed by children, as you age and as your economic needs and resources vary. Some of the skills you need will be out of your comfort zone. Make time and have a desire for growth.
6. There will be failures. An employee will turn out to be a disaster; a ‘sure bet’ will be a dud. Your spouse will disappoint you; as a couple you will put your hearts into something that will bomb. Cultivate resilience and grace. 

My starter list is missing essential elements and it could be doubled and tripled without great effort. What would you add to the list?

You can still get the sale price on
Buried Treasure: Secrets for Living from the Lord's Language

Internalizing the meaning of words like happiness, table, love and laughter
can help your marriage thrive!

 

Zipper Fashion

 

This past weekend, my husband and I had the pleasure of hosting long-time friends who came to our neighborhood to meet the parents of their soon-to-be daughter-in-law. Sharon and I have been friends since first grade, while my husband and David’s close relationship goes back to 1978. The sensitive among you will refrain from examining the math too closely to discover exactly how many years have gone by. Suffice it to say, our conversations range far and wide. 

When we were out walking on Sunday, Sharon and I chatted about needing to buy clothing to adjust to east coast winters.  The topic arose of how zippers on women’s clothing used to be hidden. In fact,  learning how to insert invisible zippers was the bane of sixth grade sewing class. We observed that nowadays zippers feature prominently as integral parts of clothing design. When we concurred that the fashion industry constantly changes, thereby encouraging women to buy new clothing every year, it became clear that the men were listening to our conversation.

“It’s sweet how naive you are,” one of them said while the other nodded his head.  

If you asked me to name four adjectives that describe me, I don’t think that naive would be among my choices. There is much, like profanity, that I choose not to allow into my life, but I’m aware that many things of which I disapprove exist in our society and are rampant. Yet, I had no idea that zippers could present a hidden message that completely eluded me. 

During our friends’ visit, David, who is a passionate  music lover, explained sonata form to us. While my husband and I may enjoy listening to classical music, David ‘gets it’ on an entirely different level. Similarly, he recently shared a video analyzing the artist Vermeer’s masterpieces in a way that completely magnified my appreciation of the painter and his work. Now, it seemed that I also needed him to help me take a deeper look at women’s fashion as well. 

According to the men in our lives, Sharon and I were naive for not recognizing that wide, prominent zippers on women’s clothing send a message to men saying, “Unzip here.” While this may not be meant to be taken literally, subconsciously men’s imaginations are being directed to think of whatever is beneath the impossible-to-miss zip. Certainly, the fashion industry wants women to wear this season’s clothes and tries to make those clothes easily identifiable. That is why different seasons feature different colors, lengths, styles and patterns. I knew that clothes portray an image, whether the sophisticated and feminine look of Kate Middleton or the, masculine look of women’s power suits in the 1980s, and that the styles match the times. Was I completely missing more subtle clues and messages? 

I have long been mystified by the woman who wears a cleavage-revealing top while asserting that she wants to be judged by her mind. The balance between dressing in an attractive vs. seductive manner is one that leads some women to look frumpy while others err in the opposite direction. Yet, if men, who know more about men’s reactions than I do are right, there’s messaging going on that I hadn’t even begun to consider.  Are they right? 

Many other hidden messages are being given all the time. Right now, you can save money while  learning to recognize the messages of socialism disguised as compassion and fairness. Find it all in ancient Jewish wisdom's exploration of nine verses of Genesis.

On Sale Now

2 audio CD set

Useful Idealists

When I wrote last week’s Musing a week in advance and declared that whatever was happening, I was not going to pay much attention, I had no idea that my Musing would run right after one of the most momentous weeks in American history. Two major Supreme Court decisions came down, each of which, in its own way reshaped this country. (As for my week, it was wonderful and you can see some pictures below.) 

The Obergefell vs. Hodges ruling did not happen in a vacuum. It is, in many ways, the logical conclusion of the 1962 and 1963 Supreme Court decisions removing prayer and Bible reading from government schools. A featured player in those endeavors was Madalyn Murray O’Hair, who, according to her son, openly stated her goal of bringing down the United States. These rulings effectively began the powerful process dedicated to replacing the idea from our Declaration of Independence that our rights come from our Creator, with the concept that rights emanate from government. 

The overwhelming majority of those who supported Madalyn Murray O’Hair, including I daresay, the Supreme Court Justices who signed on to the ruling, did not share her adoration of the Soviet Union or her hatred for America. They weren’t even the Americans and other Soviet apologists around the world who were known as ‘useful idiots’. Those people believed the propaganda put out by the Communists and, depending on their level of influence, helped suppress any facts that contradicted the false, rosy picture those in control painted. Their passionate defense of what they wanted to believe rather than reality made them the unwitting supporters of misery and bloodshed. 

However, the average American of good will who felt sympathy for the atheist child in school, or Heaven have mercy, the way too many misguided Jews who saw these rulings as a victory, were mostly good and virtuous people. Those who supported taking prayer and Bibles out of schools were often highly schooled themselves, articulate and accomplished. However, they lacked a Godly moral compass and the historical wisdom that would have told them that their efforts would lead to the dangerous and ineffective school system that exists today. They scoffed at those who claimed that education institutions would be harmed, thereby trapping children of all and no faiths in wretchedness and effectively ending America being a land of opportunity for so many. Many would still argue that those Supreme Court decisions have no bearing on the decline of education, rather they simply happened to coincide. I disagree. 

The majority of people supporting homosexual marriage today are neither evil nor stupid. In many cases, they are the result of an education that left them historically ignorant, stripped of a Biblical moral code,  and open to manipulation. They are well-meaning, kind and intelligent. Nonetheless, they are being used to advance an agenda that already is leading to suppression of free speech, association and religion—in other words, the end of America as we know it. They sincerely believe the replacement will be better; I sincerely believe it will be a tragedy leading to greater poverty, increased inhumanity and more barriers to opportunity— all results that will dismay these useful idealists.

We are seeing the results of almost sixty years of a societal take-over. Too many in our country, let alone immigrants who are kept from learning what ‘American culture’ traditionally meant, are highly schooled though poorly educated; highly indoctrinated with underdeveloped powers of independent thought; technologically advanced but deprived of the gift of insightful contemplation, highly emotional  and poorly equipped to handle thoughts that differ from their own. They pride themselves on ‘inclusiveness’ while exhibiting breath-taking bigotry. 

Are there enough Americans willing to still fight for the country of our Founders? It will require individuals who, struggling to feed their families in a moribund economy, will still take the time to educate themselves in history (both ours and of other countries), in politics, in logic and in elocution among other fields. It will require courage, stamina and firmness of character to withstand ad hominem attacks. It will require determination not to be dissuaded by setbacks. It will require faith in God, despite economic and social punishment for that belief. I personally hope I am up to the battle—I will pray for strength and strive to be. 

Here are two places to begin. In World War I, especially in Britain, white feathers were distributed to those men who didn’t enlist. It is time to shame those who profess love for this country and God but do not vote, whether in a presidential, senatorial or school board election. There should be 100% turnout among those appalled at the direction this country is taking.  

Secondly, we all must fight for the next generation. That means taking charge of our children and grandchildren’s education, protecting them from the culture and presenting loving, coherent and intelligent counter-forces. It will be a full time job, but like the man who planted a tree knowing that it would never grow quickly enough for him to enjoy its shade in his lifetime, it is our obligation to take a page from secular fundamentalists and plan for decades down the road even as we try to fight the onslaught currently heading our way. 

 

 

 

 

Awkward or Scandalous?

You probably despair, as I do, when you read of the latest sexual scandal involving a religious leader.  You probably sigh, as I do, when you read of the latest sexual scandal involving a political or cultural leader. (Let’s leave economic scandals for another time.) Have we reached the point where we don’t even bat an eyelash when a sexual scandal involves the guy next door? In fact, have we reached the point that we consider those who would use the word scandal in that context, out-of-touch, old-fashioned and prudish? 

This past Sunday, the New York Times Sunday Styles section ran a disturbing question and answer in Philip Galanes’ Social Qs column. I may be dating myself, but I can remember when a column with that type of title would have answers by Emily Post or Miss Manners. Those columns dealt with issues such as friends not responding  to an invitation or what to do with a pal who never seems to have her wallet with her when you get together for lunch. 

In contrast, the June 21, 2015 column of Social Qs, a feature meant to, “provide help with your awkward situation(s),” included a question by someone whose four-year-old son’s babysitter was propositioned by the married father of another toddler. The awkwardness arises because the parents of the two toddlers have become friendly and, “...there will be a huge elephant in the room,” the next time they meet. 

To Mr. Galanes’ credit, he does tell the letter writer that his priorities are backwards and that his first concern should to ensure that his college-aged babysitter feels safe. However, while acknowledging that it will be awkward to hang out with the other couple after what happened, the columnist seems to think that is only because of who the father propositioned. He ends his response saying, “Here’s hoping that the parents of your son’s other pals cheat normally (i.e., at a reasonable distance from the playroom).”

Excuse me? I did not know there was a normal way to cheat. I should have gotten a clue from the fact that the question was asked in this column rather than in another potential New York Times venue, The Ethicists column. In 2011, Randy Cohen penned his farewell article as he passed on the baton of The Ethicist. He wrote of the variety of questions he had received over the years, including whether, “...you must blow the whistle on a friend’s adulterous spouse.” Fast-forward four years and adultery has morphed from an ethical problem into an awkwardness issue. 

There are religious leaders who do embody holiness. There are politicians who are upright. Sadly, we seem to be exposed more frequently to those who betray their positions than to those who elevate them. In the final analysis, each of us needs to uphold what is right. Disappointment in the failure of others doesn’t relieve us our own individual responsibility.  We need to constantly monitor ourselves to make sure that we aren’t confusing immorality with normality, not exclusively in the sexual area, but certainly  including that realm. 

For questions asked and answered more in keeping with your sensibilities, get our Ask the Rabbi book. Entertaining and enlightening, share with your family and friends and get a healthy conversation going. 

At this sale price, you won't worry about sand, ketchup or suntan lotion
getting all over the book.

Take It or Leave It

When you’ve applied for a job and receive an offer for the position you want, do you say, “Thank you so much. I look forward to working with you,” or do you start negotiating for better terms? Your answer might depend on whether you are male or female. Men tend to bargain and usually end up with a better deal than first offered, while women rarely do. Furthermore, women who do make a counter-offer tend to be perceived negatively. 

For this reason, a number of cutting edge companies such as Reddit and Magoosh are instituting a ‘what you are offered is what you get’ policy.  The only choice prospective employees have is to accept or reject the job offer; there is no opportunity for negotiation. In this way, they are hoping to make their companies more inviting to women. 

I read about this policy change almost immediately after finishing Sheryl Sandberg’s book, Lean In. While I disagree completely with her thesis that a better world,  “...would be one where women ran half our countries and companies and men ran half our homes.” she does provide some fascinating observations, research and data. She makes a compelling case that it is harder for women to reach leadership positions in the corporate world and provides guidance for changes that would help achieve that goal.   

Like all of us, Ms. Sandberg, who is Facebook’s chief operating officer, is shaped by her own personality and life experiences.  She writes of her partnership with her husband, Dave Goldberg, (sadly, since writing the book she has been widowed) and wishes a similar relationship for other women. While a committed marriage between two high-powered and well-paid corporate executives with healthy and happy children might sound ideal to many impressionable young women, I think this is about as achievable on a mass level as the dreams of young boys who watch Michael Jordan play basketball and fantasize about an NBA career. Most women might like the results in the abstract, but they aren’t as naturally gifted or as keen on the hard work and trade-offs that achieving those results demand.  Meanwhile, even fewer men than women fit into that picture. 

As for women running half the world’s countries, I would gladly exchange Nancy Pelosi for a male who shared my vision of America. Voting for Hillary because she is a woman sounds bigoted and backwards, let alone foolish, to my ear. Too many liberals look only at color and body parts. Any conservative pundit who promotes Carly Fiorina  because of her gender loses my respect as much as would anyone who opposes her for the same reason. 

I think Sheryl Sandberg’s attempt at social engineering is quixotic. That in itself is fine, but the minute the government (including the United Nations) gets in the picture to help achieve her goal, it turns into something dangerous. When the government institutes tax incentives, or mandates quotas, day care and maternity/paternity policies, an idea becomes a fearsome cudgel. I’m intrigued by Reddit and Magoosh’s new hiring policy and curious to see how it plays out. I love the idea of individual companies innovating and experimenting. If a policy works, it helps the company thrive; if a policy doesn’t work, the results are evident and something different is tried. Unfortunately, with government, failed policies get expanded, entrenched and enhanced, piling one bad idea upon another. I personally don’t like to bargain, but I like even less being forced into someone else’s picture for an ideal world. 

_________________________________________________

Would understanding the Hebrew words for family and work
help guide your life? 

Choice or Consequence?

 

More than 6,000 people attended 90 year old Winston Churchill’s funeral. More than 400 people attended 92 year old Chaya Gretman’s funeral. Both these lives were irrevocably altered by the Nazis, and the homage paid to them at death directly reflected this fact. 

Who was Chaya Gretman?* Most of the Israelis who escorted her body to burial knew little about her. What they did know was that she was a Holocaust survivor who, as the victim of Nazi medical experimentation, could not bear children.  When she died, her neighbors used social media to ask her extended family, the Jewish people, to pay her this final respect. Hundreds responded.

Last week, our Ask the Rabbi questioner asked whether there were single mothers in the Bible. We printed only part of the response we originally wrote. We were concerned about sounding insensitive to women who are despairing of marriage and yearning motherhood, so we deleted part of our answer.

What we left out was a paragraph discussing how the Tanach (Five Books of Moses, Prophets and Writings) heavily links widows and orphans. Society is obligated to care for widows and orphans, clearly suggesting that the word orphan refers to a fatherless child. What does this mean for our society, where so many make the voluntary choice to raise fatherless children? Does this suggest that mothers don’t matter, that a motherless child is not an orphan? 

God’s instructions provide guidance for successful societies. A child  whose mother is dead lacks so much, but society as a unit cannot fill that void. Individuals can and should provide extra warmth and loving kindness to such an orphan, but by definition those maternal qualities are hard for society to command or supply. A child whose father is dead lacks much, including protection and financial support. Those are things that we can obligate extended families and society to supply. The Bible does so.

Is this a proof that we must increase taxes and provide more social services to single mothers and their children? No, it is not. You see, the number of fathers who die is finite. We can deal with that. Once society devolves so that fatherhood is not valued and is voluntarily renounced, compensating for what those children lack moves beyond what is possible. In a similar way, in a healthy society most people marry and have children. Those children, and the children’s children, mourn the death of their parents and grandparents. When the rare individual dies childless, either because he or she was not blessed with children, or tragically because children pre-decease them, or, as in the case of Chaya Gretman, human cruelty decrees they be childless, society in general can step in. 

As today’s culture validates, and even encourages, people not to have children, more and more people will - by choice - die without descendants. The older they are when they die, the fewer of their same-aged relatives and friends will be around. Perhaps, like Winston Churchill, they will have benefitted so many during their lives that multitudes of all ages will yearn to honor them (as did my husband who as a young boy attended Churchill’s funeral). Barring that, society will not be able to substitute for offspring, as it did for Chaya Gretman. 

 

*A thank you to Jewish Mom blogger, Chana Jenny Weisberg, for bringing Mrs. Gretman’s funeral to my attention.

________________________________________

Encourage the young people in your life to make wise choices

 

 

Male Bashing = Boring

I’ve now read two reviews of a new book that is getting attention, Women After All. While both the reviews were well-written and both highly praised the book, I’m bored by it before I even open a page. The thesis of Melvin Konner’s book seems to be that women are great; men are unnecessary at their best, but most of the time they just destroy civilization. As women become more influential - ta da! - the world will be a better place. 

I did chuckle about one aspect of the Wall Street Journal’s review. A few pages earlier in the newspaper, an article about the enduring affection women have for Jane Austen novels appeared. You could call it, reality meeting fantasy. 

Aren’t you tired of the gender wars? As far as I’m concerned God already answered the question of whether men are better than women or women are better than men. He could have created one man and many women. That statement would have been open to interpretation. Are men valuable while women are breeders or are women valuable and men’s sole purpose is to impregnate them? He could have created many men and one woman. That would have been open to interpretation too. Are men valuable but a female is needed so that procreation can occur? Are women so valuable that a stable of men is assigned to work for her? 

What God did instead, is create one man and one woman. Initially, “male and female He created them,” and on another level he created man and from his body brought forth woman. (You can hear the ancient Jewish wisdom on this in Madam, I’m Adam: Decoding the Marriage Secrets of Eden) Both sexes are created in His image; the sexes are different and incomplete without the other. A world where masculinity has exclusive rein is a perversion of the ideal, as is a world where femininity rules. 

If the reviews are accurate, Konner’s book celebrates a world of female ascendancy, where men acknowledge the superiority of feminine qualities and adopt them. This la-la land ignore the Jane Austen conundrum. Women who argue that they are capable of doing anything a man can do, and do it better than a man can, still seek to be loved by a great man, one they can look up to and respect. Mr. Darcy has his flaws, but he exudes traditional masculinity. By contrast, women reject en masse the feminine men they try to create. When men cross the line and become too feminine, women don’t desire them as mates. Neither turning women into men or men into women is a successful strategy for civilization. Do we really have to repeatedly obsess over failed ideas? 

 

Give yourself and those you love some gender reality

 

Decades of Our Discontent

When I picked up the phone and heard Marcia’s voice saying, “Can I please speak to the Rabbi?” I knew it wasn’t time for chitchat. Buzzing through to my husband on the intercom, I told him, “Marcia’s on the phone and it sounds like something really bad has happened.”

When he came out from his office, I expected to hear of a parent’s death or a serious illness. Instead, he said that she had a question about how to make her new house’s kitchen kosher. Although Marcia and her husband were new to our congregation and I didn’t yet know them well, I was shocked at how I misread her voice. I soon learned that she always sounded like tragedy was sitting on her shoulder. I can’t pretend that when they relocated again a year later, I missed her.

I was reminded of Marcia when I read the introduction to and beginning of Betty Friedan’s classic book, The Feminist Mystique. How unhappy she makes women sound back in the 1950’s and early 1960’s. The problem is, today, very few women have the housewife, stay-at-home, focus on husband and children life that she thought was making them so unhappy. Yet, everywhere I look, I’m still reading about how unhappy women are. They can’t find a good man to marry, or their bodies don’t provide pregnancy on demand when they are ready for it,  or their employees aren’t accepting their need for advancement despite fewer hours at work or their spouses don’t do enough housework or, or, or...

Could it be that, like Marcia and her perennial voice of doom, women are just complainers regardless of what is happening? Could it be that women expect full sexual freedom, gentlemanly behavior from men, love, marriage, family, lucrative work, fulfilling careers, “me time,” “girlfriend getaways,” with some exciting fireworks, soothing cocoa, designer kitchens, chefs on call and so much more thrown in – right away and right now? Anyone expecting all that would be unhappy when life turns out to run by different rules.

My mother, aunts and their friends didn’t seem miserable to me. They expected life to have challenges and they balanced their needs as best they could. My friends, daughters and their friends don’t seem miserable either. They are too busy juggling lots of balls and recognizing that there is a limit to how many they can manage at one time. They see happiness as their responsibility and not a gift to be delivered by society. I don’t know what factors developed Marcia’s voice into the gloomy cavern it was. I do know that our culture breeds discontent, encourages entitlement and produces women no more attractive or desirable than Marcia. She was an individual in a community of upbeat people, who were striving to grow and flourish. Her presence stole peace of mind from those around her. Today, the media, academia and many politicians encourage all women to be Marcia-like.  Those of us who wish to be happy need to inoculate ourselves against that virus, surrounding ourselves with women looking for realistic joy rather than victimhood. I want to thank my friends, family and readers who provide that antidote to me.

 

Absorb and act upon the tips, tools and techniques in our
Income Abundance Set 
and start 2015 off on the right financial foot.
On Sale Right Now 

2 hardcover books; total of 3 audio CDs

 

Breaking Trust

I hesitate to say this and hope it is not misunderstood or taken out of context, but there are times I don’t trust my husband. This has nothing to do with anything he says or does. It happens when a respected male community member turns out to be a pervert or when an esteemed pastor is caught in an act of lewdness or a revered rabbi is discovered to have a hoard of pornography. It happens when a neighbor, relative or friend betrays his wife and has an affair. Simply based on a shared gender with the scoundrels above, my confidence in my spouse gets shaky.

Does my husband likewise not trust me? The statistics for vulgar, sinful (and often illegal) behavior aren’t gender neutral. On the rare occasion that an abused wife kills her husband, I honestly don’t think my husband lies in the dark trembling. There is no equivalence with our marriage or me. The only similar concern would be if a female we love and cherish was discovered having an affair, and that hasn’t happened. Unfortunately, the reverse has.

My husband has never given me any reason to doubt his loyalty, fidelity or honor. Still, it shakes my trust when I hear a woman sobbing as she says about her spouse, “I can’t believe he would do this. I had no idea.” It makes me question if I am stupid or blind, even though I rationally know that her experience bears no relationship to mine.

In his oft-quoted poem, “No Man Is an Island,” English poet John Donne said, “... any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind.” He could as well have said, “...any man’s sin diminishes me.”

Just as physical diseases are often contagious, spiritual diseases are as well. In the camp of the ancient Israelites, certain sinners were isolated so that they would not affect others. They were threatening society’s bonds and as such needed to be sent away. It is untrue that what one does in the privacy of his home or what consenting adults do is their own business. Second hand smoke may or may not be a danger. Second hand immorality most certainly is. This is not only because of the danger of contagion, but also because it causes good people to look at one another warily.

In a world that is exceedingly judgmental about the type of light bulbs we use or the car we drive, the shattering of traditional moral values seem to be the one thing people aren’t allowed to condemn. It is completely unfair for my husband to suffer from “guilt by association” with 50% of the world’s inhabitants or for a young woman to approach my son with suspicion for the same reason. Yet, that is the reality. They swim against the tide to be trusted. Not only must their own behavior be faultless but they must hold the men in their circles to a high standard as well. In today’s sad world, like Caesar’s wife, they must not only be honorable, they must also be above suspicion.

Time to start thinking of a hostess gift for Thanksgiving? Take advantage of the 24 hours
remaining on our Buried Treasure sale.
(The chapter on the Hebrew word for dinner tables will be most appreciated)

hardcover book

 

 

And the Darwina Award Goes To...(+a rebuttal to Sept. 18th's Musing)

The Darwin awards, given posthumously to those who inadvertently take their own lives in some stupidly reckless stunt and thereby “protect our gene pool by making the ultimate sacrifice...” are overwhelmingly awarded to males.  Nominees outdo one another in ridiculously foolish and fatal acts. The mugger who tried to elude his police pursuers by  jumping into a tiger’s cage at the zoo or the fisherman who tried to stun the fish by pulling a live power line down into the lake in which he was standing are only two examples.

What is the female equivalent of the Darwin awards? Male champions generally display impulsiveness, macho posturing and/or egotism (What a great idea! I can’t believe no one has tried this before!). Could it be that women tend to engage less in physically destructive acts but instead compete in the soul-killing realm? Rather than being impulsive females are more likely to destroy their lives one tentative step at a time. Instead of macho posturing, women contort themselves to fit feminist rhetoric.  Instead of over inflated egos, they respond to vanity. Perhaps it is time for the “Darwina awards.”

Two recent articles from The New York Times made me consider this question. Who Runs the Girls by Ashley Mead and Why I Will Be Wed by Elizabeth Wurtzel both portray women as self-destructive. Questioning why attractive women participate in the game of being invited to events and clubs as a means of attracting desirable men to those affairs, whether at frat parties or business rendezvous, Ms. Mead ends on this plaintive note, “When it comes to women, popular culture confuses pleasure and power. Sure, girls may run the world, but men run the girls. And the girls don’t seem to mind all that much.” She recognizes that as she ages the assets that she is trading diminish while those of the men making important contacts at the parties she attends increase.

Ms. Wurtzel is delightedly planning her wedding—at age 47.   While I wish her well, I wouldn’t recommend her as a role model. She dated a string of losers and by her own admission was a loser herself. She concludes:

“I believe that we all know what we are getting into with another person early on, and it is worth it, whatever the duration. A lifelong thing is lovely, but a one-night stand is also lovely. It is my good fortune never to have wed the 374 or so men I dated before Jim. I don’t know how many times I should have registered at Tiffany and celebrated extravagantly for the mistakes I did not make...

So I guess I have nothing to regret, after all.”

Wouldn’t it have been better had she striven for maturity two decades earlier? While she pats herself on the back, I see her article as tragic.

The Darwin awards often revolve around speed, explosives and testosterone.  The Darwina awards I am recommending usually pivot around one thing – men. While the men eliminate themselves from the gene pool by unwittingly killing themselves, the women eliminate themselves from the gene pool by not realizing until too late that the love, affection, attention and respect they crave are best provided through the outdated, old –fashioned milieu of husband and children.

SALE: 25% off   The Ten Commandments: How Two Tablets Can Transform Your Life

_________________________

REBUTTAL to The Eyes (Don't) Have It

The following letter was sent to me by someone who disagreed with my Musing about not watching videos of the recent beheadings. I thought he made some worthwhile points, though I am not planning to change my own behavior. What do you think?

 

Susan,

 

I too have not watched any videos of the actual beheadings. However, i'm not sure I would advocate not watching them for the general public.

 

It has been my experience not only on this recent trip to Eastern Europe, but my visits to Yad Vashem and similar holocaust institutions that there is a common behavioral response. The impact of the horrific events are short-lived. Soon after the visits they'll go out for coffee or lunch and shortly forget the experience. Yes, Auschwitz did seem to carry a bigger impact as one or two people on the trip could not sleep well that night. In general, people just want to put these horrific scenes behind them. They remove these thoughts to a far corner of their minds. I am sure it is for protection.

 

So, I believe it may be a valuable experience for the majority of the population that really does not pay attention. Many people truly cannot go beyond their own belief system. They cannot believe due to their innocence and Judeo-Christian moral character that such evil exists. They think of the world from their own value system They don't want to believe the horrors that the Islamic terrorists can inflict and plan to inflict on the world.

 

I believe many need to see this, internalize it, digest it and then come to accept the realities. Otherwise, it will be difficult or impossible for them to accept the outcomes that America and Israel will need to do to erase this evil.

 

Look at the progress of the Muslims throughout Europe. They're beginning to dominate. They are continuing to expand in Europe as well as coming to the US. A recent beheading in Oklahoma, and  a shooting at a Jewish synagogue in Baltimore. All the news outlets do not refer to Islamist doing the beheading in Oklahoma. We are a soft society. I believe we need strong visual Messages to change the societies attitudes and force them to confront the realities of what's coming to America and Israel. We both know it's going to get worse. The sooner we except and internalize it, the easier it will be to respond, act & eliminate.

Dr. M.R.