Monday, October 15, 2012

Is It Really A Win When The Other Team Doesn't Show?

Two other manosphere pieces converged with something I'm currently writing for the book, and at the risk of blowing some of the freshness out of it I thought I'd chime in.

Specifically, Badger's excellent Educated Women's Contempt For Men, in which he follows the feminist attempt to mainstream the war on masculinity and how it's not exactly working out the way they expected, and Dalrock's How The Destruction of Marriage Is Strangling The Feminist Welfare State, in which he examines the demographic fallout from the smoking crater feminism created at the center of the social state.

Why are these two articles particularly interesting, when taken together?  Well, part of it is the third blogger Dalrock riffs on, The Social Pathologist, when he quotes this:

The social, sexual and economic liberation of women in the latter half of the 20th Century has meant that for the first time women were able to compete with men in society without restriction. The result has been spectacular if not particularly beneficial to the happiness of women. Whilst not all degrees are created equal (men still overwhelming dominate the "hard" fields of knowledge) the fact that there are now more degree credentialed women than men is simply astonishing. As income is broadly correlated with economic well being,  its safe to assume that women have been able to achieve a economic parity with men. The manosphere may not like this result but the fact is that women have been able to effectively compete with men when the shackles of social convention have been removed.

Emphasis mine.  I reprint the quote because it underscores my point (and the point I'm currently trying to make in the book): that women cannot declare this a true "victory" of feminism over the patriarchy, or even women over men, or even realistically as "economic parity", because while the fact is that women have been strongly incentivized toward college both culturally and bureaucratically with four decades of feminist affirmative-action and aggressive anti-male policies. The "shackles of social convention" have been transformed into the "shackles of anti-male sentiment", and the "level playing field" is a sham, as Dalrock points out:

Feminism didn’t demolish a barrier between two seas and let the water levels adjust;  it is a massive pumping operation.  Turn off the pumps even for a little bit and reality will come flooding back.

That is, the economic system that allows women economic advantage (industrialism and post-industrialism -- which was, coincidentally, invented and developed by men) exists in a network of social governance and a vast government bureaucracy (also, invented and developed by men) in which the taxpayer (heretofore majority male) provides social and economic support for the impoverished, particularly single mothers and their children (mostly female, of course) while artificially fiddling with the "rules of the game" to favor one particular side while punishing the other side.

That's the "level playing field" that they are "winning" on.








So what happens when one team just fails to show up?  Is that still a "win"?

One thing that the smug little "end o' men" articles we've been seeing so many of lately love talking about is how the fact that more women having advanced degrees than men means that women have finally "out-competed" men in the workplace.  Now that they have declared where they are "the top" of the social and economic structure men created and developed, they are quick to dismiss the men who can't seem to compete successfully on the "level playing field" as losers or worse.  Badger amply demonstrates the dripping contempt that educated women feel about their male professional peers, much less their mates and males in general.  

Only, is it fair to judge the "success" of women competing in the workplace when the dis-incentives provided to their male peers are so severe as to discourage competition?

One point I'm making in my book is that the "success" of women in advancing careers has to be seen in the context in which men who would ordinarily have been competing for those positions have effectively "dropped out".  They didn't get on the bus to begin with.  The women "won" by default, because the best possible person for the job never interviewed for it in the first place.  

Feminists will bridle at the suggestion, but it's true.  MGTOW didn't precisely begin with Freedom Twenty Five; men have been walking away from societally-prescribed ambitions for almost two decades now, in the face of penalties and disincentives relating to their unfortunate ownership of a penis.  

There's a case I cite in the book, anecdotal, of course (I also make the point that you can't hang a metric on the lack of someone's ambition, which is pesky from a statistical perspective) of my neighbor, Sid.  Sid was a business-school graduate and an RN, and had spent ten years and a marriage climbing the ruthless corporate ladder of the American pharmaceutical industry.  He was good at what he did, and consistently out-performed his peers, male and female, and seemed to have a lock on a solid middle-management position with stock options and bells and whistles, every MBA's dream.  His last year was his most productive, and he logged millions of dollars worth of business for his company (now bought out by an even bigger company -- Sid would have been loaded).  

But when Sid looked at the competition he faced, he realized he was doomed.  Women were getting special seminars on leadership, mentoring opportunities, and other career-advancing perks.  Sid was getting assigned diversity training courses and being set up to fail by being assigned a "mentor" who had a pronounced dislike of men and especially manly men like Sid, who refused to kiss her ass just the way she wanted.  He was boxed in: he couldn't proceed further in the company without getting this woman's approval, and he couldn't get this woman's approval while still maintaining his Y chromosome. 

So Sid . . . dropped out.

He "Went His Own Way" long before it was called that.  Sid turned his back on his advanced degree and his education, his ex-wife and his expensive car, and Sid found a third-shift job working in a county hospital ER that paid him just enough to survive comfortably upon.  He turned his back on a decade of learning one of the most intricate businesses and regulatory systems ever invented, on the lucrative prospects that could have made him a millionaire, and he walked away.  The "level playing field" contains a fifteen-yard penalty for having a penis, so Sid walked away from it and accepted -- for now -- a far lower status job in return for personal happiness and fulfillment.  He didn't drop out because he couldn't hack it, he dropped out because the juice wasn't worth the squeeze.  

Now, someone got that next management spot Sid walked away from.  Sid could have had it, had he stayed on and fought for it.  Did the person who get it (it was, indeed, a woman) get it because she was the best qualified for the job?  Or did she get it because she was the most qualified candidate (under the adjusted rules) who was willing to show up and interview?  Did she get that office and that name plate and the parking space and the "Director" title because she was superlative?  Or did she get it because the other team just didn't get off the bus?

It's been over a decade since Sid dropped out -- close to two, actually.  But in the early 1990s, when feminism was throwing its weight around with reckless abandon, it knocked a lot of highly talented men out of the way in its quest for a "level playing field" that ensured no real competition.  Feminism's attempt at "fairness" in the corporate world became a hymn to mediocrity as the men who would have competed against them decided to resign the game rather than subject themselves to unfairness, emasculation, and professional humiliation in the name of "equality".  

Sid wasn't the only one who left back then -- as feminist-inspired corporate cultures sought to punish men and traditionally masculine endeavors, plenty of dudes dropped out and pursued other interests.  Sid enjoyed the fast pace of a late-night Emergency Room to the prison of an office, and so his vast talents and knowledge about the business end of the pharmaceutical industry never got put back on the table.  The women at Sid's company who survived their flight might gloat at their "victory", their high earning potential, their wealth and power.  But they'll never be "the best" because Sid didn't come back and give them real competition.  

Sid was smart, educated, and very astute -- you don't follow nursing school with an MBA and land a high five figure entry-level job by being cute -- and he was smart and astute enough to know that his career options in a corporate world where Personnel regulations overcome fair competition is a losing proposition.  No future in it.  Why bother?

This isn't just a few isolated losers, disheartened by competition in general and angry at their loss of "male privilege  -- this is a talented group of men who have no real social or financial incentives to pursue the societal roles that feminism desires for them.   The female insurance executive may very well be there because she worked hard, did her job, and made money for the company.  But she may also be there because the dude who would have been even better in her position decided that being an insurance executive really just didn't sound like a lot of fun, after his divorce, so why stuff his wife's alimony check with extra dough when he can take a job at half the pay that can support a lifestyle that suddenly doesn't include fancy suits and shoes designed to impress female insurance executives?

In a way, I almost feel sorry for these feminist "winners".  What they have won is what men in their positions have earned in the past, earned in earnest competition against the best their industry had to offer.  If you were the top salesman in your district, you knew that it was because all the other sharks weren't quite as hungry as you.  Now if you're the top salesman in your district, you have to wonder if it's because you really are the best . . . or if the competition just decided to forfeit because there were five-foot breakers at the beach that day?

I'm not just blowing smoke rings here.  I used to work in the personnel industry (bargain-basement headhunter and temporary placement), and I still keep in touch with some of my old colleagues.  One of whom just had a boy graduate from a decent college . . . and demonstrate not a lick of ambition, despite a lifetime of being primed for it.  Meanwhile, his younger sister (who was always a little slower academically than he was) was already lining up summer internships a year in advance.  My former colleague was despairing about his utter lack of ambition and angrily confronted her son when he revealed he hadn't even bothered to apply to graduate schools this summer.  

He gave a litany of damned good reasons why pursuing his chosen professional career path (including a graduate degree and another four years of student loans) was a losing proposition for him.  Why kill yourself to get to the top of your class when your female colleagues are just going to cut your knees out from under you with affirmative action and such?  So he can find a good ex-wife who can bleed him dry and not let him see his kids someday?  

At 22, this young man is jaded and bitter and unambitious . . . and there's not a damn thing my friend can say to him to dissuade him from a life spent working part time and playing Disc Golf professionally (slightly more lucrative than playing WoW professionally) and NOT preparing for a life as a husband and father . . . because she knows everything he is complaining about is exactly true.  She can't deny it.  She's in Personnel, where the rules that punish male performance and push female mediocrity are forged.  She's pushed underqualified female candidates in with overqualified male candidates into interviews herself -- and was fiercely proud of it . . . when her son wasn't involved.

But her son is absolutely right.  There's just no good future in it for men.  "Climbing the corporate ladder of success" only makes sense if there's a reward at the top, not a punishing ex-wife, a battleaxe of a feminist boss above you and a constantly-eroding sense of your own masculinity.  Better to throw little plastic discs around and enjoy life for a decade or so in the beer-soaked bosom of the Puerarchy, than subject yourself to that kind of punishment.

Is it a "waste" of good masculine intellectual capital?  That depends on whom you ask.  To women, of course, these men are "losers" because they have withdrawn from the competition they cannot win.  They have made the conscious effort to make themselves the men they want to be, not the men women want to be, and feminists in particular can't allow that to have positive social standing.  

But there is a silver lining to this, for dudes.  As more and more women assume the tax burden required to fund a female-oriented husband-replacing welfare state, their sensitivity to the unfairness of such things will rise.  What happens when the 40 year old spinster has to write a tax check in the thousands before trudging her way to the office, no hope for romance or reproduction in sight, while watching the 20 year old single mom down the street take her three kids to the park through the window?  What happens when men drop out to the point where it is busy, single female workers who are left holding the bulk of the welfare bag . . . while being denied the benefits of romance and motherhood that they are subsidizing in their sisters?

Had Sid stayed in his career-track, he could be senior management by now making in the high 6 or low 7 figures -- your Viagra dollar at work.  He didn't.  He makes just over fifty grand as the senior nurse on shift at his hospital, and spends the weekends he doesn't work hunting, fishing, or (if his neighbors don't shoot him first) zipping around the neighborhood at 4:00 am blasting Skynnard from the radio of his vintage 1974 VW microbus.  Instead of paying tens of thousands in taxes, he gets a refund.  Instead of working for his ex-wife, he works for himself.  Instead of spending thousands and thousands a year on new suits and shirts and ties, he spends a couple of hundred on scrubs he wears both on and off the job.  

Meanwhile, the woman who got the job he could have had, he tells me, is getting her second divorce, is being sued by a competitor for unfair practices, and is miserable with her "success".  

That's what happens when the other team just doesn't show, ladies.  You end up holding a trophy devoid of meaning.  A forfeit isn't a real win, no matter how you rationalize it.





30 comments:

  1. there were tens-of-millions of guys who experienced exactly what you describe all thru the eighties, nineties, and oughts -- not just in corporatae life, but throughtout the culture, especially in public sector employment

    the matriarchy selects-out for masculinity, and its purpose is to destroy both fatherhood and masculinity -- and it is self-righteous and joyful about doing both

    any male remaining in the workplaces during those decades was required to subjugate himself to the gynocracy, or else his life was made impossible at work, and often privately also

    all real men left employment during those decades, knowing that remaining meant constant attacks from the sisterhood and its male enablers . . . with the full force of the mammy prison-state backing them

    few of those guys, however, took 50,000 a year jobs in nursing (lol, or anywhere else!) . . . because even most of the "marginal" jobs are ruled by the female imperative (certainly includes nursing)

    the "economy" of course croaked after many decades of forcing actual men out of education and employment, and younger guys (like your 22-year-old) seeing the gleeful betrayal of prior generations of men, dont bother to enter the matriarchal mangrinder at all

    no problem can be fixed until it's acknowledged, and the u.s. gynocracy is dying quickly, but can't even yet ACKNOWLEDGE that its own selfishness, hatred, lies, and plain old evil has brought about the "downturn of the economy" and the "unhappiness of women"

    instead, the matriarchy can only bleat out more lies about "the end of men" and how "peter pan males" need to "shoulder responsibility" (i.e., obey femerica, and come back to work, so The Grrls can kick the shit out of you some more! then feel ever-so-much better about their self-esteem afterwards!)

    this nation -- and all who follow her -- will reap what it has sown from the willful and profitable destruction of its boys and men

    it will not be pretty, but it will be just

    for a change

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ian,

    Have you heard of Eivind Berge, the Norwegian man who was put in prison for his anti-feminist writings in Norway? He was eventually released. But if the local police and some feminists have their way, Eivind will be back in jail for many years. Here is his website (http://eivindberge.blogspot.com)

    Maybe you will want to write about him?

    ReplyDelete
  3. The story of Harrison Bergeron predicts this future.

    http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

    The first time I read it was from a comment on Dalrock's I believe. It has stuck with me ever since.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "this nation -- and all who follow her -- will reap what it has sown from the willful and profitable destruction of its boys and men"

    The author of this blog makes the same case here.

    "Women are having a lot of fun these days laughing at the dumb, inarticulate, clumsy men they are finding on college campuses. The situation has grown more noticeable in recent times as colleges and universities tinker around with “affirmative action” for males in their admission practices. According to numerous news articles over the past four or five years, college women hate the idea of “affirmative action” programs that admit sub-par males to campus (at the expense of more women on campus),.."

    http://invincibleprobity.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/why-are-american-men-so-dumb/

    and

    http://invincibleprobity.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/americas-greatest-social-shame/

    Here are some testimonies from reddit:

    http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/11hws6/do_any_of_you_have_childhood_memories_of_sexist/

    The best example would be dilbert creator scott adams, whiskey did an article on him:

    http://whiskeysplace.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/scott-adams-and-the-casual-disclosure-of-social-change

    ReplyDelete
  5. Great stories. The myth about Hercules and Atlas comes to mind, where each tries to trick the other into having to shoulder the weight of the world.

    I think there is another aspect to this which makes it sting even worse for the ladies at the top. Feminists very clearly show no interest in creating something new. What they want is to bask in what they see men experiencing, manly pride. This is why competent women don't focus on starting their own company, but breaking into the all male boardroom, etc. For a small few they seem to get at least a bit of this feeling, and if they do it right they earn the respect of the men around them. These women are the ones who fight the hardest against other women changing the rules. They understand that it will ruin it all. Still, the ruin is inevitable once entry is formally offered to women (and the field tilted as you describe). The feminist dream is to break into the all male sphere. The feminist nightmare is to work in an office full of women who broke into the same sphere.

    Their core misunderstanding is that manly pride isn't something men get from their institutions, it is something men impart on them. Sid didn't walk away from his manly pride when he left the high powered lifestyle. He re-channeled it into his new pursuits. The woman who replaced him found this out the hard way.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I almost forgot. Thanks for the linkage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. De nada, Dalrock. You're the bedrock of the Manosphere.

      Delete
  7. I have a corporate peon desk job..after being emasculated severly by my cunt boss a couple of times..I just go thru the motions adding very little value to my company. But my at home side business is booming. That's correct gentlemen transfer you efforts elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Fascinating. How does this reflect on the brilliant, capable, high-earning Mrs. Ironwood? Is she an exception?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not exactly. Mrs. I's niche of the industry tends to be overwhelmingly female-dominated, and traditionally has been, so there haven't been a lot of dudes to compete in the first place. That being said, however, I'm not saying that she hasn't benefited in some way because of the lack of ambitious men. In the last several jobs she's interviewed for she hasn't had one male competitor. I think that says a lot right there.

      Delete
  9. Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert comic strip, encountered a fate similar to your friend, Sid. Adams had worked his way up at Southwestern Bell; he got the advanced degree; he did all the right things, and he was the BEST candidate for the next level promotion. However, his boss said that the company had gotten heat from the media and feminists, because they hadn't 'done enough for women'; ergo, the promotion that should have been his went to a lesser qualified woman-all in the name of 'equality', of course...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I saw that. It just bears out what I'm saying. Of course, no one in corporate America is going to admit such things happen, but we've all seen them enough to know that it's true.

      Delete
  10. For the life of me, I can't understand why any woman would want to be stuck in traffic for 1.5 hours each way to work, be stuck inside a 10X10 cubicle, and push paper and deal with ridiculous office politics five days a week. All they really have to do is live simpler and cheaper so that one person can pay the bills - hard to do, yes, but not impossible. Therefore, all the woman needs to do is stay in shape, know how to cook, and start a home based business to bring in income.
    That's my take on it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't understand female psychology (not sure anyone does, but . . . ). You're approaching the subject like a man, that is, without the presence of the FSM in the background. That colors everything, including things like success, status, and motivation. When you factor those non-pragmatic, more feminine issues into the equation, it does make more sense . . . for a woman. Men and women have different values, which is one reason why feminism (which promotes female values over male values) is such a bust.

      Delete
    2. Understood, but feminists should know that the ultimate display of power would be to be their own bosses in their own businesses. She can have kids, wake up at 8:00 am instead of 4 like us men, wear pajamas AND run a successful business at home calling all the short. She has time to workout, hang out and chat with girlfriends, and do whatever the hell she wants. Under a situation where these women and their husbands agreed to live simpler in a cheaper house, they can survive, even if the home based business doesn't. I'm trying to put myself in a woman's head with this, and I can't find anything wrong with this arrangement, other than them not being able to be around the presence of other alpha males at the office (and yes, the status that comes with "corporate" working.

      Delete
    3. They should . . . but they don't. They mistake position (in the FSM sense) for respected authority. It's not the title that earns you the respect, it's the respect that earns you the title. Status is everything in the Matrix, and in the Feminist side of the Matrix children give you little and corporate titles (in corporations someone else built) give you a lot. Don't try to apply reason to it -- it will just make your head hurt.

      Delete
    4. The Female Social Matrix:

      http://theredpillroom.blogspot.com/2012/05/female-social-matrix-introduction.html

      Delete
  11. If all is a level field, there are no mountains. If there are no mountains to climb, there is no Hillary. If there is no Hillary, we can all be Hillary.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I've heard that the armed forces have it pretty bad in terms of different fitness competency requirements.

    I'm a prof. in the physical sciences. We have LOTS of programs encouraging "the under-represented" Often we'll see people getting into a program who are totally unprepared, unwilling, and/or unable to perform at the required level. Is it competitive? Yes. At the end of the day, there are definite, unambiguous Right and Wrong answers in science. Which is why, in spite of all these efforts, we still do not see women "dominating" the STEM fields.

    Attempts to artificially "level the playing field" has been bad for students and programs alike. Lying to people about their abilities and chance of success is just plain poor practice.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I am living this nightmare, as I am the only man and the only non-salaried person in our office. I am nano managed down to every minute and task and sub task minute as a nickeled and dimed consultant, while hoards of females are brought on as full time employees with benefits.

    ReplyDelete
  14. At least I get paid for the two plus hour meetings that devolve into discussions about shoes and cupcakes!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Your recounting of Sid's story recalls a cab driver I met while stationed in San Diego in late 1980-early 1981. I didn't get a car while there for my first tour, because I knew it would only be temporary; why get one when I'd be gone in 3-4 months? So, I either took a bus or a cab somewhere when I was in A School at the time.

    Anyway, I remember taking the cab over to Mission Valley one time, and I got to talking with the cab driver. It turned out that he had a master's degree, had been in corporate life, etc. I asked him why he left it all, and he told me that it was because of the BS one had to put up with to survive and thrive in corporate life.

    Unfortunately, being a clueless 18 year old, I didn't understand any of this; I'd never been in the corporate world at that point-not when I was just out of high school. Years later, after working in two of America's best known, Fortune 500 companies, I WOULD understand; oh, how I understood what this man told me!

    I left the corporate world myself. Though I work in a STEM field, my company is part high tech, part old school manufacturing. Though we have women in our company, NONE work in our department. I could not, and did not, appreciate how STRESSFUL it is to work with women-especially modern, college educated (read feminist indoctrinated) women-until I had to do it. I literally had chest pains on occasion from doing it! In fact, I went to the local hospital to get checked, because I'd heard that chest pains are a possible indication of a heart attack. Luckily, it was nothing serious, but I knew it wasn't good to have chest pains in any case-not when they're stress induced.

    But yeah, working with women in the corporate world is, at best, stressful. You're constantly walking on eggshells, because the slightest, most innocuous word and/or gesture can get you in trouble; that was a lesson I learned the hard way. It's emasculating, stressful, and it just plain sucks.

    It wasn't the nature of the corporate jobs themselves that prompted me to leave; if anything, they were a better fit (in terms of my capabilities, abilities, skills, etc.) than my present STEM job is. However, with women comprising over half of all offices, it's not a healthy environment for a man; there's too much ESTROGEN! If the corporate world were more masculine, I would have stayed. Unfortunately, it's not, so I left.

    I suspect that that cabbie who gave me a ride all those decades ago would have stayed too. I didn't understand at the time WHY he'd left, but now I do. He was a MGHOW long before that phrase was invented. Much like your friend Sid, he made enough to support himself and have some left over; without a wife and kids, he didn't need the big salary he'd had in the corporate world, so why put up with its BS? He was another man who never showed up for the rigged competition that is life in modern, Corporate Femerica...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Above, I meant to say that I couldn't appreciate how stressful it is to work with women until I no LONGER had to do it-my bad. I would have corrected my comment above, but there's no provision here to do so-hence my second comment here.

      Delete
  16. I related to Sid. I walked out too, although not as a victim of being passed over / hassled at work. I just looked at the entirety of the deal (work hours, stress, high tax etc) and decided it just wasn't worth it. As soon as I realised I don't care about the big house / sportscar / Armani suits etc, I realised I can get women for free.

    This is how I wrote about it at the time: http://krauserpua.com/2010/03/16/i-announce-to-all-that-i-am-unplugging-from-the-matrix/

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm ready to be a cheerleader again. They get to wear cute skirts and leave with the football players. Though there's nothing like showing up for the game when my team doesn't. :(

    Also, as a woman in STEM, I struggle with not becoming my boss. She has a reputation as the company ax, since she's gotten so many people fired. So far, once I stopped trying to prove myself all the time I realized that almost everyone I worked with was respectful and helpful. I think women tend to paint men as the problem, and become a problem in the process.

    Of course there are still men who ask me to make copies for them or get their coffee, whom I tend to be a little chillier with.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This research is highly relevant:

    http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2012/01/13/major-study-boys-education-suffers-most-from-single-mother-upbringing/

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11151143

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102759/Why-boys-failing-grade-classroom-Lack-male-teachers-reason-according-new-study.html

    This study found a truly mind-blowing result. With the teaching style used before 1970 boys will learn to read faster and better than girls and maintain that advantage in later years:

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmeduski/121/5020702.htm

    ReplyDelete
  19. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/05/the-war-against-boys/304659/

    ReplyDelete
  20. I too left the corporate world back in 1989.

    In a department of 79 people, there were only 2 males. Tech support for business software.

    I started my own business and never looked back.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I rarely have time to study what others are writing, but I happened on this article by accident. Some interesting points.

    I happen to believe that American men would get a LOT more traction to their complaints if they just wrote themselves off and devoted their attention instead to tomorrow's men – today’s boys. Otherwise they’re just senselessly perpetuating the problem - which is exactly what all other "victim" lobbies have been doing for themselves. And actual men can help those boys in the US easily just by using existing federal civil rights law in court.

    But one of the first things you need is history that has not been very heavily filtered through self-serving interest group propaganda over the past forty years, even (especially) in the classrooms you attended. Maybe a social scientist who actually participated in that history over then past half century can help. My WordPress blog (Invincible Probity) has numerous such articles written on the fly over the past three years, but the one on this topic that gets the most international attention is titled "Why Are American Men So Dumb?" (Turns out that a major question that people outside the US have is "Why are American men so stupid?)

    ReplyDelete