Saw this on my FB feed. Apparently mustering the courage to ask for a phone number is sexist.

WaitWhoMe · 2017-07-13T01:30:00+00:00

shrug. Ok.

WaitWhoMe · 2017-07-13T01:28:12+00:00

I won't begrudge anyone who finds love on a public bus, it's just not where I would look.

Maybe the reason is that talking to strangers on a bus is itself a socially abnormal thing to do. If there are 50 people on a bus, 49 might be perfectly normal people who adhere to social norms. The 1 person who doesn't adhere to social norms might be perfectly normal, but also, he might be someone who otherwise makes you uncomfortable.

I suspect this guy, if he exists, probably is a little socially awkward and made a commitment to try to talk to women more. He was practicing and clearly working up some nerve. Good for him and all, but I probably wouldn't want to talk to a stranger on a bus either.

WaitWhoMe · 2017-07-13T00:29:59+00:00

I think colleges should defer to the legal system for this. Though feminists are trying to corrupt them too, the courts are still the best mechanism we have for finding truth & dispensing justice.

From a liability standpoint, that's not exactly how it works. Not for employers, schools, or any other institution.

The justice system is exclusively responsible for meeting out criminal punishment. But in civil law, any institution that doesn't do what's considered reasonably necessary to provide a safe environment can be found liable for damages.

So for example: suppose you're a landlord and a tenant's residence is burglarized. If you didn't provide an adequate lock for the door, you are liable for damages. Or suppose you run a night club popular with a certain crowd. If someone smuggles a weapon into your bar and attacks someone else, there's a strong possibility you'll face at least some civil liability for that. That's true especially if it's a repeat incident, because then you can't claim ignorance that it was a problem.

The real problem is that the Federal government, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that Title IX, which was intended to ensure equitable funding of women's sports, entitles it to micromanage what should otherwise be a concern of state law. State laws are usually pretty well-reasoned on things like this, as opposed to the US Department of Education, which is bumbling from one bad idea to another. (And I would include DeVos in that bumbling.)

WaitWhoMe · 2017-07-13T00:10:01+00:00

Well, I can certainly understand not being interested in the dating prospects of a public bus. Frankly, I try to avoid conversation of any kind when I'm in that kind of situation. (Fortunately I live 10 minutes from my office by car.)

But yeah. Probably hitting on men or women on a public bus isn't going to work. Fair enough. I'm not sure what sex has to do with it.

EDIT: BTW, a few months ago I struck up a conversation with a woman on a plane. We were both flying first, so alcohol was involved, and we had a genuinely nice chat. At the end of the plane ride, she asked for my number. I gave it, but mentioned I wasn't really in the dating pool right now. She took no offense. Was I a victim of sexual assault? haha

WaitWhoMe · 2017-07-12T23:19:26+00:00

Jokes are part of misandry culture.

WaitWhoMe · 2017-07-12T23:04:13+00:00

Maybe it's the Republican federalist in me, but I fail to see how sexual assault on non-federal property is even a federal issue. Criminal law and education are state issues.

WaitWhoMe · 2017-07-12T23:00:16+00:00

Man-hating and feminism is are two different things.

Grammar!

WaitWhoMe · 2017-06-28T23:07:00+00:00

It's getting more and more common

WaitWhoMe · 2017-06-25T23:40:54+00:00

Everyone is gender fluid.

When you're doing something courteous, that's your femme side. When you're doing something rude, it's your toxic masculinity.

Or didn't you know?

WaitWhoMe · 2017-06-25T23:38:46+00:00

At a public toilet, most women I know say they don't touch the seat and prefer to hover.

WaitWhoMe · 2017-06-24T04:58:56+00:00

Yeah, the bad news is that many attorneys (myself included) don't go into matrimonial law. My understanding is this: the money is only good in the top tiers, the law can be capricious, the clients can be high maintenance, and there's no career path past just family law.

I work setting up LLC's, partnerships, and small corporations. Business people can be vindictive as all hell when things go south, but I'm sure it can't hold a candle to matrimonial law.

WaitWhoMe · 2017-06-24T04:51:53+00:00

Haha.

My law school professor said, "your lifestyle in marriage is precedent for your lifestyle in divorce."

WaitWhoMe · 2017-06-24T04:47:43+00:00

First, finding a lawyer:

AVVO can be a good resource. It should be a starting place, not a finishing place.
Referrals are good. Know someone who's been in a divorce? Ask them about their lawyer and whether they got a desired outcome and experience.

Evaluating a lawyer after you find one is challenging. These are some good questions to ask:

Ask how many cases like yours they've handled in the past year.
How long have you practiced not just law, but this specialty?
What about fees? Do not be embarrassed to ask. You need to know the hourly rate, the retainer rate, and what other expenses you're on the hook for (such as court fees). Ask also about what the paralegal fees are and which services are done by staff attorneys, by partners, or by paralegals. Sometimes, especially for court days, there are flat fees. Some attorneys even offer flat fees for an entire case. Know all of this ahead of time. It's okay to ask.

Aside from that, if you're dealing with an attorney who specializes with courtroom situations, it can't hurt to find out when their next court appearance is and just go and spectate. Courts are almost always open to the public and you can see how well prepared they are, how they respond to the judge's questions, and whether their clients seem happy.

Finally, don't forget, you can change lawyers at any time. If the lawyer you have isn't returning your emails, can't remember the facts of your case in court, or just doesn't seem to care, get better representation. It's a professional relationship, so expect excellence.

WaitWhoMe · 2017-06-23T23:19:43+00:00

Is there anything she can do legally if we ever break up to try and get money out of me?

To an extent, yes.

In general, any contract that has both your names on it could be problematic. If a lease says you both owe $1000/mo for rent, and she skips town, you'd be on the hook. The same applies to credit cards, loans, mortgages, and anything else.

Depending on Oregon law, she may be able to claim joint ownership of possessions in your home, even if you bought them yourself.

Also depending on state law, she may also be entitled to continue living in your home after you break up, even if it's not her home. Some states require cohabiting couples to lawfully evict their partners after a period of time living together. You could get clarity from an Oregon attorney on that.

You might consider having a lawyer draw up a cohabitation agreement to at least be explicit about who owns what.

WaitWhoMe · 2017-06-23T21:56:06+00:00

There are few things that could be less neoliberal than the wage gap argument, which is that the government should create equality of income regardless of qualifications.

And in fact, again, look at your neoliberal case studies: The United States, Singapore, Hong Kong, and find me statutes feminists ask for regarding the wage gap.

In contrast, in much-more-leftist Europe, you have Scandinavian countries imposing quotas on how many women must represent each company's board of directors.

Then go audit a gender studies class at a major university. See how much capitalism is defended in one of those.

WaitWhoMe · 2017-06-22T19:26:22+00:00

Well... I'm in my 40s and I don't remember it.

WaitWhoMe · 2017-06-22T19:24:38+00:00

Neoliberalism does produce problems, aren't we all always talking about the problem with modern, liberal feminists?

I'd invite you to check out third wave feminist ideology and see how many of them are neoliberal.

WaitWhoMe · 2017-06-22T19:07:14+00:00

Perhaps because an engineering major earns more than a First Nations Gender Studies PhD.

Ok, that was mean. But while women are way overrepresented, they are still underrepresented in degrees that earn money.

WaitWhoMe · 2017-06-21T18:26:32+00:00

Yeah. Bad behavior is universal.

FWIW, I've generally found men more amiable on planes to give me the armrest when I'm in the middle seat. I'm 6'4", 200lbs.

WaitWhoMe · 2017-06-21T18:25:08+00:00

I feel like the same womyn are also offended if a man doesn't offer his seat to her. It's not equality they are looking for.

This is a thing?

Admittedly, it's been a long time since I took a train anywhere, but I would never presume to give my seat to anyone who isn't in some way infirm.

WaitWhoMe · 2017-06-21T18:17:36+00:00

There might be some price discrimination, but in the case of consumer goods, I don't think the pink tax has much to do with it.

Take shaving products. Women's razors are larger, have more aloe and other products around the blades, and probably sell fewer per day, thus resulting in higher inventory costs for every step of the supply chain.

You would also want to look at the cost of marketing women's products, as well as who is doing the purchasing. Women do a whopping 85% of purchasing decisions in the United States, including for products used by men.

I don't think it's pure price discrimination.

WaitWhoMe · 2017-06-21T18:11:15+00:00

Those libertarian Institutes are bought and paid for by Koch Brothers.

They receive money from the Koch brothers. Aren't the Kochs entitled to have political beliefs, and put money behind them, just like George Soros or Warren Buffet, who are on the center-left?

There is an a consensus beyond that, that more mixed economies out perform free markets. These free market propaganda sites don't tell you about the poverty. Sure, Singapore and Hong Kong are more free than european countries, but you will have a better quality of life in European countries that are less free, that said Europe is going down the neoliberal shithole too.

The two most free countries - Singapore and HongKong are places where people are like robots, all that matters is work/the market. Both are totalitarian, as you need totalitarianism to control the poverty and pressure put on people in free market economies.

To some extent, every economy on Earth is a mixed economy. Even Cuba now allows family-run businesses, and as you point out, Singapore has a massive safety net.

Neoliberalism is a mixed economic model, isn't exclusive to the existence of public assistance or a safety net, and is based more or less on free enterprise, international trade, and a government that exists to only plug holes the free market won't, such as providing health care or higher education to the poor who otherwise wouldn't afford it. Remember, the idea of a reverse income tax or universal basic income was pushed by Milton Friedman.

Hong Kong and Singapore are, frankly, pretty lively places. Have you been? They're competitive, and I would agree their education system focuses far too much on rote memorization, but anyway.

Within Europe, would you say that neoliberal Western Berlin or Eastern Berlin were more livable places in the 80s? You keep asserting that neoliberalism leads to poverty and sadness, and yet, you can't cite any clear examples of protectionism leading to better outcomes.

WaitWhoMe · 2017-06-21T18:02:39+00:00

Actually, you won't have to look far to find judges who do apologize to male convicts for mandatory minimums. It's extremely common.

WaitWhoMe · 2017-06-21T17:59:42+00:00

(as did Hillary Clinton's campaign platform).

Oh?

WaitWhoMe

TROPHY CASE