Archive | Screechy! RSS feed for this section

So what ARE the best jobs for women, then?

18 Sep

It’s kind of funny to see how confused the crew over at Jezebel is in response to this very strange article by Erin Gloria Ryan.  Erin argues that women should NOT go to business school because it will delay their reproductive plans, will offer no real economic value and besides, business schools are filled with douchey frat boys who are all majoring in how to be a dick.


Spending time when you could be having babies… um, not having babies puts you years behind your peers who stayed in the workforce.

A Vanderbilt study found that mothers who graduate from élite institutions are more likely to opt out than graduates of less selective ones, particularly when those women have M.B.A.s. Another Harvard study found that among Harvard college graduates with professional degrees, women with M.B.A.s have the lowest labor force participation rates.

If anything, when a young woman considering a Harvard M.B.A. looks at the choices of her predecessors, she should be even more skeptical of the value of the degree.

I think is my favorite comment:


I second the opinion that this [article] is disgusting. If it was intended to be satire, the effect has been lost in the offensive down-talking…and the lack of humor. You can say a lot of this same stuff about any graduate education, but where would we be if every woman listened to this instead of her goals & interests.

Indeed, VanillaBean.  Where would we be?

Why, we might be in the sort of society that recognizes that women’s ambitions and skills tend to differ from men’s, and that we are doing a piss-poor job as a culture in talking to women honestly about what their true “goals and interests” are likely to be.


What Erin hit on, almost certainly inadvertently although maybe not, is that women with advanced business degrees find that those degrees give them an opportunity to dodge a bullet they didn’t know was coming:  they can choose to be full-time mothers, and most of them do exactly that.

Why does an advanced business degree give women that choice?

Because the degree puts them in contact with high-income men, or men with the potential to earn a high income.  Grad school is an excellent place to earn an MRS, and the kinds of jobs women with newly minted MBAs get lands them in a large pool of high-income men aka “investment banks”.

Win-win, right?

Not really, because the fact that women with business degrees find themselves actually having a choice when it comes to deciding how to raise their families comes down to LUCK.  The vast majority of women in business school probably think they’re going to kick-start some kind of awesome “career”, but when the first little bundle arrives, they realize cubicles SUCK and home is where they really want to be.

We are doing such an enormous disservice to men and women alike when we teach women their “goals and interests” should be the primary motivating factor in deciding what to study at college, and then following that up with some giant lies about what those goals and interests will be.

So let’s talk specifics.  Let’s begin with the assumption that almost all women will want to be out of the workforce when they have young children at home.

What kinds of jobs make sense for women who plan on taking a huge chunk of time off?  Obviously, the jobs dominated by men are off the table, because we NEED those jobs to be done or society as we know it simply collapses.

When women enter male dominated professions, two things tend to happen:  the wages that normally accompany those professions begin to decline, and we end up needing MORE workers in that occupational category.

Why? Because women don’t work as many hours as men.


Medicine is great example of that.  Women now make up half the nation’s medical students, but once the ladies do the math, their ambitions take a sharp turn.  Four years of pre-med is usually complete around 22 years of age.  Another four years of med school takes them to 26 years of age.  Add two years of residency on top of that just to qualify as a GP and the lady doctors are suddenly seeing the wall looming directly in front of them.  Another four to eight years to qualify as a specialist, and most of them can kiss husbands, kids and families goodbye.

Instead, they quit at the GP level, and then argue for fewer hours, so they can spend more time with their children.  It takes two women GPs to cover the patient base of one man.  Obviously, wages decline for each individual doctor.

It’s been proven repeatedly—female doctors “will not work the same hours or have the same lifespan of contributions to the medical system as males”

Women physicians make less than male physicians because women traditionally choose lower-paying jobs in primary care fields or they choose to work fewer hours.

Even when women ARE specialists, they still make less money than men.  Because sexism?  Nope.  Because they accept lower wages in exchange for time.

…female doctors were taking less pay in exchange for regular schedules or other family-friendly benefits

It’s not really a problem until you consider the enormous expense of training doctors, and then combine that with needing to train twice as many women doctors to replace retiring male physicians.

As long as women understand that they WILL and SHOULD make less money than their male counterparts, owing to the fact that their hearts will always be more firmly in the kitchen than the operating room, I have no problem with women as doctors.

In fact, I think it’s a pretty sensible choice, because it gives women an unassailable credential that they can use to transition back to the workforce when and how they like.

Credentials.  That is what women should be striving for.  Something, that once you have, you have for good.  Credentials are what give women choices.


The single most sensible credential I think any woman can pursue is an accounting designation.  An accounting designation (CA, CMA, CGA, CPA) gives women enormous career flexibility, and requires only a minimum amount of maintenance to remain in effect. Accountants work in every industry, from 80-hour-a week-big-name accounting firms to hang-out-a-shingle and do the books for the local cornerstore.

You work when you want to work, and you can ramp up when you have finished the business of raising a family.

Accounting and medicine are not the only occupations with credentials.  There are lots of them.  Go to beauty school and become a hairdresser, by all means.  You can cut hair and do foil highlights in your kitchen while the kids are little and work for the big salon when they hit grade school.  Some credentials you don’t even need to go to school to earn.  C++ or Java programming languages can be learned on-line.  For FREE.

Do some recreational programming or work for a charity part time while the kids are little to keep your skills up to date and then consider full-time employment later on.

The point is that women should PLAN to be out of the workforce while their children are little.  If that doesn’t happen, well, fine.  But at least you have a choice.

Of course, Operation Raise Your Own Children requires one tiny little upgrade:  women will need to financially rely on a man.  Preferably a husband.  Who is preferably actually the father of the children she is at home raising.

And here is where we run into a massive, massive problem.

Women have been taught to hate and fear men and to never rely on them for anything.  Which would be funny if it weren’t so blindingly, enragingly stupid.  Our whole fucking society relies on men.  Water, power, communications, protection, transportation – they are all designed, implemented, operated, maintained and repaired by men, and since the lights continue to go on and shelves in the grocery store continue to be stocked, it looks like men can indeed be relied upon.

Last night, after following the commentary on yesterday’s article, my husband and I were discussing MGOTW.  Men who are simply opting out of marriage and family altogether, which as Goober points out has benefits for individual men, but is completely ruinous for society.

My husband came up with a good analogy, I think.

© Copyright 2010 CorbisCorporation

Let’s say you’re a black man or woman, and your whole life, all you have dreamed about is becoming a doctor.  You dream of saving other people’s lives.  It’s not just a “want”, it’s a calling.  A force within you that cannot be ignored.

But there’s a hitch.

At any time, any one of your white patients can legally enslave you.  Just apply for personal ownership, and boom, you’re a slave now.

Would you still be a doctor?

I figure that’s what MGTOW boils down to, and the men are saying “hell no, not a fucking chance”.

It’s easy to say “the laws have to change”, and I’ve trotted out that little truism myself.  But what laws?  And how should they change?  We can make divorce harder, but will that stop women from divorcing?  We can make custody agreements more fair, but will that stop women from destroying their families? We can outlaw alimony and enforce a more fair division of assets, but will that stop women from dividing up the assets?

Not likely.

Women have always had one power that men will never have:  the power to give birth to new life.


I think that’s where the solution will need to originate.  Some mechanism to mitigate against that power.  The idea of robo-wombs makes me ill, quite frankly, because it’s all too easy to imagine a nightmarish Matrix scenario of rows and rows of human beings coming into existence without the profound human connection pregnancy entails.

But reliable, reversible male birth control.  That could be a very real solution.  No woman can become pregnant without the explicit permission of the man she wishes to father her child.  Pre-gestational agreements determining who gets custody of the child in the event of relationship breakdown could be an amazing bargaining chip.  The role of the law would simply be enforcing those agreements.

If we wrest the power to control the creation of life from women’s hands, and make certain that power is shared, we may have a solution to men’s unwillingness to be enslaved at the whim of women.

Let all the divorce and custody and division of assets laws stand as they are.  Pre-nuptial agreements, when carried out properly, can circumvent all those laws.  Pre-gestational agreements can do the same.  Women who wait until the last minute to get pregnant will be making themselves more amenable to fair agreements, and any woman who knows she will lose custody of her children should she decide to trade in for Husband 2.0 because 1.0 just isn’t doing it for her anymore will have cause to reconsider.


If co-habiting couples can agree on who gets the IKEA couch when they break up, before they have even moved in together, why not have agreements about who keeps the house and the kids BEFORE the kids are even conceived?

Well, this post took a detour from my original intention, which was to spell out for women how to plan their lives assuming they WILL take time off from work, but it all makes sense at the end of the day.  Women can’t make any plans of the sort without a man to rely on, and men have approximately zero incentive to financially support a woman for years upon years when the result can be utterly ruinous for him.

Male birth control.

That’s where we should be throwing our healthcare dollars.  The ramifications could be life-altering, for all of us.

Sadly, BigPharma isn’t interested in the most promising avenues of research, because BigPharma makes a lot of money selling pills to women every month.

Perhaps BigPharma is being a little short-sighted, though.  Once men understand just what kind of power a reliable, reversible method of birth control gives them, you might see every last fertile man in the nation lined up for a dose.

And that’s a lot of customers.

A satisfied customer is the best business strategy of all.

Michael LeBoeuf

Women better be brushing up on their own strategy, not only in terms of their jobs, but in terms of negotiating how that baby is going to arrive.  There won’t be any “oopsie I forgot to take my pill” bullshit once we have true equality in birth control.


Equality.  That’s the goal, isn’t it?


Lots of love,


Drunk sex is NOT rape

21 Aug

Well, the avuncular Dr. Phil has found himself enmeshed in the quite the controversy, following his Twitter question about whether or not having sex while drunk is okay.


The Professional Victim Brigade ™ and Purveyors of Rape Culture and Other Guaranteed Snake Oil Cures ™ were all over him, demonstrating their outstanding grasp of logic, rhetoric and just straight up mastery of the English language by interpreting Dr. Phil’s question as IS IT OKAY TO RAPE WOMEN?  Which is obviously the same thing as asking whether having sex while drunk is okay.


Alcohol + Sex = Rape

Oh, I suppose this is when I should mention that it’s only rape if the WOMAN is drunk.  Men can’t get drunk, so obviously, they can’t be raped.  Wait, no.  That’s wrong.  Men can’t get erect when they’re drunk and if they CAN, then obviously, they totally wanted it!  No rape!  Actually that might be wrong, too.  Men can’t escape their legal responsibilities no matter how drunk they are, so they can’t be raped.  Crap.  I’m not sure how it’s supposed to work, but just go with me on this one.

It’s only rape if SHE is drunk.

Let’s try an analogy to sort this out.

Yoo hoo!  Lost Sailor!  Where are you?  Come and play for a second.

So me and Lost Sailor decide to hit up a vineyard for some wine-tasting.  It’s out of the way, we’re driving and we both plan on sampling a whole lot of grape!


The Cab-Sav is okay.  Maybe a bit too much like jam and not enough like blood.  The Merlot is much better. Oooh, look.  18 varieties of Merlot!  We’ll try them all!

wine 2

By the time the Shiraz is down and the Zin is beckoning, we are both well and truly trashed.  And having a great time!  It’s what we went there to do, for god’s sake!  The whole point of wine-tasting is to taste wine!


Now Lost Sailor decides we are just crazy to pass up on watching the sunset at that sweet little look-out spot we cruised by on our way up to the vineyard.  I enthusiastically agree!  So we both stagger to the car, and off we go!

Oh dear.


Lost Sailor is fucked.  He has no defense.  He was drunk, he willingly got behind the wheel of the car and he made the decision to put it in gear and drive.  He will now own those decisions.  He’s up on a drunk driving charge.

But wait!  What about meeeeeeee? I hurt my foot and broke a nail.  It could have been much worse.  I want Lost Sailor charged with attempted murder.  I was way too drunk to understand that A) Lost Sailor was drunk, too; and B) I was way too drunk to consent to riding in a car with a drunk driver.

He could have killed me!  He almost did!  By the very act of driving, no matter how enthusiastic I was about the sunset, he ATTEMPTED TO KILL ME.


He needs to be held responsible for that. It’s not a crime for me to sit in the passenger seat.  What crime have I committed?  I went to a wine-tasting.  No crime there.  I had a LOT of wine.  No crime there. I wanted to see the sunset.  Still no crime. I got in the car.  I even PUT MY SEATBELT on. Not even the hint of a crime.

But he crashed the car, fucked up my manicure and endangered my precious life.

Attempted murder.  Along with the drunk driving charge.

This is essentially the argument Rape Culture Vultures are making when they insist that drunk women cannot consent to sex, and that no matter how enthusiastically they participated at the moment, they cannot be held responsible for their decisions.

The men most certainly will be NO MATTER HOW DRUNK THEY HAPPEN TO BE. Drive a car while drunk?  You will face the consequences.  Get in a stupid fist fight while drunk? You will face the consequences.  Forget to pay for your bar tab because you are drunk?  You will face the consequences.  Have sex with an equally drunk woman?  You will face the consequences.  You will accept all the responsibility for your OWN actions, and for hers as well.


This is what I mean when I say Rape Culture infantilizes women.  The idea that women cannot consent to sex while drunk robs them of agency, responsibility, accountability and obviously, equal treatment before the law.


drunk 2

Can we make a distinction between drunk and totally obliterated?  That’s almost too stupid to even address.  Comatose is fairly easy to distinguish from silly, dancing drunk girl. No one gets to have sex with people who are passed out.  The only people who actually need to be informed of that don’t give a shit.  Why not?  Because they’re RAPISTS.  There aren’t a whole lot of them, but you can bet your ass they don’t give a shit what the rules are.  Not caring about the rules is what makes them CRIMINALS.

Campaigns to inform the sweeping majority of men who are NOT RAPISTS that they should remember not to rape anybody are insulting, degrading and calculated to inspire fear from women and self-loathing from men.

Dr.Phil has a legitimate question:  is it okay to have sex with a girl who is drunk?

Define drunk, first of all.


Is it okay to drive a car while drunk? The answer to that requires a LEGAL definition of drunk.  The mere fact that you have consumed alcohol does NOT mean you can’t drive.  The amount of alcohol in your bloodstream determines whether you can drive or not. So sometimes, YES, you can drive a car while drunk.

Can you have sex with a girl when she is drunk?

Under the law, actually, you can’t.  Drunk women are children, remember, and cannot consent, no matter how enthusiastic they are at the time.  They can charge you with rape. The courts are curiously reluctant to CONVICT men based only on an allegation, and still seem to think that whole “presumption of innocence” thing is important.


But it doesn’t matter.  Just a CHARGE is enough to destroy a man.–ruined-victims-life.html

If we treated women like grown-ups, capable of making decisions and facing the repercussions, no matter how distasteful and unpleasant they may be, the answer to Dr.Phil’s question would be pretty straight forward.

Is it okay to have sex with a drunk girl?


Is she into it?

Is she receptive to your advances?

Is she making her own advances?

Is she taking off her clothes?

Is she taking off your clothes?

Is she an adult capable of deciding where, when and with whom she would like to have sex?

Party on, young ‘uns!

Just remember, while sex is great good fun, if she ends up pregnant, you are the one who will be fucked.

Condoms, lads.  Use them.  And bring your own!


Lots of love,


There are no lady anti-heroes on television because SEXISM! Well, except for two of the most popular television series out there, but reality never counts when it’s time to invent the next Women as Victim Narrative. Will they ever get tired of this bullshit?

29 Jun



James Gandolfini passed away last week, leaving behind a grieving family and an iconic role that redefined the television landscape. Gandolfini’s portrayal of Tony Soprano is heralded as one of the finest, most deeply nuanced and conflicted characters ever to grace the big-screen TV.




Tony Soprano was the quintessential anti-hero. He is immoral, violent, sociopathic, completely dedicated to his family, and utterly ruthless in carrying out his business, which happens to be criminal. And rather than see him as a bad guy, we love him.


That’s how the anti-hero works. He’s basically a bastard, but we can’t help love him. Mad Max. Dirty Harry. Tyler Durden. Travis Bickle. All classic anti-heroes.


de niro


And Gandolofini was on par with DeNiro and Eastwood in his portrayal of a very bad man who is still so very good at the same time.


The actor’s transfixing blend of gruffness and vulnerability breathed life into most memorable TV protagonist ever.


The majority of commentary on Gandolfini’s passing was respectful and appropriately elegiac, as common courtesy dictates that it should be. But give the world ten days, and sure enough, the Atlantic has an article up about how, yeah sure, Tony Soprano was a great character, but let’s not forget that characters like Tony Soprano are only ever written for men, and waaaaaaaaaah – where are all the lady anti-heroes?


None of this is a knock on James Gandolfini, a phenomenal actor who will be missed. Nor is it a knock on his legacy of extraordinary roles currently being written for other actors. But when people talk about antiheroes, the rise of character actors, and a new age of dramatic television, it is important to note that these changes do not yet fully include women.


Akash Nikolas, the man who wrote the piece at the Atlantic apparently spends a lot of time watching television, and he keeps a sharp eye on the ladies, and valiantly raises the flag that there just aren’t any lady heroes quite like Tony Soprano.


Most of those characters appear on cable, which is still friendlier territory for the antihero, but more importantly, all of those characters are men. In contextualizing the sea change of antiheroes in TV dramas, we must remember that it is still limited to male characters and male actors. There are very few leading antiheroines on television, and virtually none of them have a drama series built around them.


Yoo-hoo, Akash, you seem to have missed two of the best shows on TV, both of which feature amazing anti-heroes who also happen to be ….. WOMEN!


Let me introduce you to Cersei Lannister, Game of Thrones.



And the Dowager Countess Grantham, Downton Abbey.




How did Akash miss Game of Thrones and Downton Abbey? How do you miss two of the most talked about, most watched, most awarded shows on television? It’s hard to fathom, other than to guess that he came up with his premise first, and then went hunting for his evidence, discarding whatever didn’t fit his preconceived ideas, and in the process ignored the TWO BEST SHOWS ON TELEVISION.


That’s quite a feat. Rather like looking for the best American car and discarding Ford and GM off the bat. What does that leave? Tesla?




Actually, Tesla is pretty cool, but it’s market share is tiny compared to Ford and GM.


Cersei Lannister. What an evil witch. She marries Robert Baratheon at her father’s urging, but has sex with her twin brother to produce the heirs to the Iron Throne. When little Bran Stark catches the incestuous pair, she watches Jamie Lannister throw him to his death without flinching. When Bran survives his fall, paralyzed, but very much alive, she conspires to have his throat cut in his bed.


She is nasty, vindictive, scheming, brutal, sarcastic, cruel and utterly dedicated to her children and the throne. When Littlefinger tells Cersei that “knowledge is power”, Cersei turns to her guards and says this:


Seize him. Cut his throat. Wait! I’ve changed my mind. Let him go.

Power is power!





When she sees Sansa Stark, only 12 years old talking to Sir Loras, her first thoughts are to violent retribution.

Tyrion Lannister: I don’t suppose there is anything we can do about this?

Cersei Lannister: We can have them both killed.




When Ned Stark explains his modus operandi to Cersei, she responds in kind.


Eddard Stark: I was trained to kill my enemies, Your Grace.

Cersei Lannister: As was I.


Cersei is ruthless and merciless and has approximately zero concern or sympathy for anyone outside her blood family. And she is magnificent!


It’s hard to imagine her as anything other than an anti-hero. She is just a terrible, awful person, and her flaw is that she is incredibly intelligent and conniving, but she cannot see that others are just as intelligent as she is. Cersei is compelling, we watch her with spellbound fascination, but she is a not a woman any of us (one hopes) would like to be.


Cersei is not “on the fence” in terms of her anti-hero qualities. It boggles the mind that Akash sat down and wrote a mewling piece of feminist boot-licking all the while ignoring someone as powerful and captivating as Cersei Lannister.


I call bullshit. It’s a deliberate attempt to create a complaint, and a suggestion of unfairness and misogyny where NONE EXISTS.


Cersei is not alone in her anti-heroism. Here is the Dowager Countess of Grantham, played by the incomparable Dame Maggie Smith.


violet 2


Bitchy, snotty, self-absorbed, insulting, classist, racist, and utterly dedicated to her family and ancestral seat, the Dowager Countess is an anti-hero of epic proportions. She has zero concerns for anyone around her other than her family, and she does not want any part of her life polluted with those she considers “beneath her”, and that is almost everyone.




She is offended when her son only wears black tie to dinner (he ought to have been in tails).

Violet: “Do you think I might have a drink? Oh, I’m so sorry – I thought you were a waiter.”


She disapproves of Mrs. Crawley’s philanthropic enthusiasm:

Countess Violet: “You are quite wonderful the way you see room for improvement wherever you look. I never knew such reforming zeal.”

Mrs. Crawley: “I take that as a compliment.”

Countess Violet: “I must’ve said it wrong.”


She is unapologetic about leaving her children to be raised by the help:

Isobel: “Were you a very involved mother with Robert and Rosamund?”

Violet: “Does it surprise you?”

Isobel: “A bit. I’d imagined them surrounded by nannies and governesses, being starched and ironed to spend an hour with you after tea.”

Violet: “Yes, but it was an hour every day.”


She is offended by Edith’s ambitions to write.

Matthew: “Edith has had an invitation to write a newspaper column.”

Violet: “When may she expect an offer to appear on the London stage?”




She doesn’t think the death of the Turkish Ambassador in her home is that big of a deal, because he wasn’t English, after all.


Violet: “One can’t go to pieces at the death of every foreigner. We’d all be in a constant state of collapse whenever we opened a newspaper.”


She dislikes any attention paid to the “little people”. They are servants and that is all.

Violet: “It always happens when you give these little people power, it goes to their heads like strong drink.”


lord anthony


Even when you make the cut, socially, Violet is still ruthless. At her grand-daughter’s wedding, she has this to say about the groom:

Violet: “He looks as if he’s waiting for a beating from the headmaster.”


In short, she is insufferable. There is really nothing to like about the Dowager, and yet she is the highlight of every episode. Beloved for being a crotchety, curmudgeonly snob with hopelessly antiquated views on pretty much everything. Within the context of period drama, which tends not to feature a whole lot of violent bloodshed, she is an anti-hero.


The one thing both Cersei and the Dowager have in common is that their unpleasantness is dedicated to preserve one thing, and one thing only: their families. Cersei doesn’t lust for power for herself, although she does rather enjoy it. She is loyal to the idea that her son shall win the game of thrones, and all her sons into the future will be kings. Violet isn’t a snobby cunt for fun, although she does enjoy it. She is protecting a class system that has privileged her son and she wants to see those privileges continued and damn everybody else.


When Tony Soprano is fiercely, psychotically protective of his family, that’s admirable. It’s what men are supposed to do. Provide, be loyal, be useful, be devoted. A man whose world centers on his wife and children is a man doing what he ought to be doing, and no matter how unpleasant and ugly his methods, we can respect and admire him for at least getting the point of his existence.


But when a woman’s life centers on her family, and her SONS in particular, that triggers a bit of anxiety. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that both Cersei and Violet’s husbands are dead, and the majority of their effort goes towards promoting the interests of their sons.


Game of Thrones and Downton Abbey are stories about legacy. What you leave behind you. For most of us, that will be children. And there we have the sticking point. Children are your most important accomplishment. Anti-hero women turn the relationship between mother and son into a dysfunctional web of lies and deceit and pretensions and conspiracy and generally make a giant mess out of what should be their greatest achievement, but there is absolutely no question that their children are the only things that matter.





And that is just the story feminists try to squash.


Children do not matter. Children should NOT matter. Children are a burden. They are a trap designed to subjugate you to a man. They are expensive, time-consuming afflictions that will bring you not pleasure and fulfillment, but regrets and frustrated ambitions. You’ll wish you never had them.




So don’t have them. Very clever. Good plan.


Akash is dead wrong that there are no female anti-heroes on television. I wonder if he realizes exactly what narrative he is promoting when he ignores two of the biggest shows on TV? And what does he get out of kow-towing to an ideology that comes down to nihilism?


Without children, we all lose. There is no society. When you play the Game of Thrones, you win, or you die. There is no middle ground. In the Game of Declining to Reproduce, you can’t win, but you will die, and leave nothing behind you.


And if everyone plays, we all die.




There’s nothing heroic about that.


Lots of love,



%d bloggers like this: