A gathering of academicians drawn from a range of disciplines will meet on April 7, 2010, at Wagner College, Staten Island, New York, to examine the declining state of guys, stemming from cataclysmic changes in today’s culture, environment and global economy.

The live teleconferenced colloquium will be co-chaired by Judith Kleinfeld, PhD, Professor of Psychology and Director of the Boys Project at the University of Alaska, and Lionel Tiger, PhD, Rutgers University Charles Darwin Professor of Anthropology. It will encompass a broad range of topics relevant to the study of guys in contemporary society ranging from our roles in the family and workforce, as well as our physical and emotional health, to the growing problem of misandry—the hatred of guys, an unacknowledged but underlying socio-cultural, economic, political and legal phenomenon endangering the well-being of both genders.

It is only $15 to sign up online for the two-hour teleconference.  It runs from 11AM to 1PM, so you can listen-in over a cell phone during lunch hour and neither your wife nor girlfriend nor employer will even know.

Click on pen to

Once again, the need for a straight guy guyinist advice columnist has become painfully obvious.

In my post  In Defense of Guys, I laid out the case that it is simply unacceptable that the best guys have had for a pro-guy guy columnist is Dan Savage, a gay activist.  As I wrote:

“You could probably walk into a sex club and bend over—lord knows some gay men do just that—but it would be a bad idea.

“But you can realize your fantasy … and here’s how: Most swingers clubs permit couples and single women to attend parties (sorry, single guys). Go to a few parties, keep your pants on, introduce yourself around, find a couple or two whom you click with. Share your fantasy with your new friends and ask if they might be interested in helping you realize it.

“And your fantasy is totally realizable—I’ve seen very similar ones realized once or twice—but the only way to realize your fantasy safely is with a couple of trusted friends hovering nearby. You need someone there who’s making sure that men who take advantage of you in your bent-over-and-blindfolded state have condoms on and don’t attempt to do anything other than what you’ve consented to.

“Sometimes realizing a fantasy requires a little suspension of disbelief, TAN, so you’ll just have to pretend your guardian angels aren’t there watching out for you. And if part of what makes the fantasy so hot is being a helpless sex object in a room full of strangers, you can always go with your friends to a different sex club, one where you don’t know anyone but that your new friends checked out for you in advance.”

At the Red Rooster, in Vegas, which many regard as the best club in the whole U S of A, single guys can get lucky 7 nights a week.  While there are limits on where guys can cruise the club solo, says the club:  “Some single women are at the parties but there is normally a lot more single men then women. This is not a bad thing though, there are many couples that are looking to party with single men” (emphasis supplied).

At Trapeze, in Fort Lauderdale, regarded by many as the best swingers club on the East Coast, $100 gets a single guy a monthly membership, and as little as $45 more (on a Thursday, $75 on a Wednesday or Friday) gets the guy in the door of a club which requires – requires! – nudity throughout about a third of its square footage.

Now, my disciples, go and spread the word – before Dan Savage makes it even harder for us guys by talking even more chicks into not just going out and getting blindfolded and randomly and properly fucked.  There are few enough such women to begin with.

And Dan Savage, I hereby issue you a challenge.  Find me a website of just one on-premises swingers club in the United States  – just one – that is open at least two nights a week and, by policy, does not allow single guys into the club.

Betcha can’t do it.

Click on pen to

Three posts by DirkJohanson on The Balls Monologues have been nominated in the Online category for the prestigious Gerald Loeb Awards, presented by the UCLA Anderson School of Management.

The Loeb Awards were established in 1957 by the late Gerald Loeb to honor journalists who make significant contributions to the understanding of business, finance and the economy. He intended to encourage reporting on these subjects that would both inform and protect the private investor and the general public.

According to Anderson School’s website, “Distinguished journalists nationwide participate.”  And now one journalist not so distinguished.

The nominated Monologues posts are

— EconGuyinism, which demonstrated that the world financial meltdown of 2008 had its root cause in debt-fueled spending by and on behalf of overly-empowered women,

— the Monologues’ maiden Benedict Arnold Kristof Watch, which debunked New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof’s theory that the absence of women in the upper-echelons of Wall Street caused the crisis, and

— Fuckanomics in the Spotlight,which initiated the idea on these pages that there is, in effect, already a global currency, and that the currency is sex.

Last year’s winners in the online category were:

“Keeping Up With The Wangs,” by Art Lenehan, Anh Ly and Suzanne McGee, of MSN Money

“South of the Equator: Ford and GM Prosper,” by Bryce Hoffman, John Greilick and Rob L’Heureux, of The Detroit News

“Globe 100,” by Bennie DiNardo, Tito Bottitta, Elisabeth Goodridge and Ronald Agrella, of Boston Globe/Boston.com

This year’s Final Judges are found here.  The Preliminary Judges in the Online Category are:

CHRIS PALMERI
Los Angeles Senior Correspondent
BusinessWeek

BENNIE DINARDO
Deputy Business Editor
Boston Globe

VINDU GOEL
Deputy Technology Editor
New York Times

SUSAN WARFEL
Managing Editor
Investor’s Business Daily

MATT KRANTZ
Reporter
USA Today

In case you know of any of them, put in a good word for me, or pass a bribe if that’s what it takes.

The awards dinners is set for June 29, and I already have plans to be in L.A. that day.  Unfortunately, for some odd reason, the L.A.-based school is holding the dinner in New York, so I’ll have to accept by video.

Not a problem – its safer that way.  Less chance I’ll be assassinated.

Click on pen to

Not surprisingly, I have not heard from Amy M. -  the self-purportedly petite, self-proclaimed “toothsome” but dateless lawyer who considers all guys babies – in response to my offer to ask her out on a date.

Perhaps surprisingly, however, is that all trace of Amy M.’s multiple comments to The Wall Street Journal concerning the article in question have disappeared.

Score another for Guyinism - a woman attacks us with lies, we fight back with the truth, and – take special note of this part, guys -  as usual (apparently), the woman promptly retreats.

Thank our balls.

Click on pen to

Some people think swingers will have sex with all comers at the drop the hat.

This is simply not true. 

Close – but not entirely true.

In fact, all swingers have rules and nearly all have standards, as demonstrated by the email I received today below (for interpretation purposes, I note that again that the word “lifestyle” is insider lingo for swinging):

From: _________@yahoo.com
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:26:42 -0500
Subject: wife going to Jamaica alone

Wife going to lifestyle resort alone – pls advise

Me and my future wife have been in the lifestyle for 5 years. We are members of AFF and LoveVoodoo and we have been to a few conventions together and have had a great time. We will also play with couples and singles, the only rule is that if she plays with a single guy I have to be there…

So we are getting married this June, and she plans on going to Hedo II for an event called Loco (see www.lovevoodooloco.com) with 7 of her friends (brides maids) for kind of a bachelorette trip. 5 of their girls are wild and two are prudes! My fiancée wants to play while she is there. I think I am ok with it, and actually a little turned on thinking about it. I only asked that she take pics and show me when she gets back. Maybe email me a few! Has anyone done anything like this before? Was their any jealousy? Is Hedo safe for 7 hot single girls? She says she knows a bunch of other girls that are going also and that they wont stick out. You advice would be appreciated!

Paul

I responded to Paul:

When are they going?  I’ll be happy to go down there and keep and eye on things for you.  Just warn me which two are the prudes first.

Dirk
  

P.S. to Monologues readers:  Five hundred bucks to me gets you their email.

P.P.S.  In the interest of full disclosure, the only June trip mentioned on www.lovevoodooloco.com was Big on the Beach, which proclaims:

“GO BIG GIRL, GO BIG GIRL, GO BIG GIRL”

Yuch.  Better you guys than me.

Click on pen to

The Superfreakonomics Virtual Book Club on the New York Times online ran a discussion between two labor economics on the guy-female wage gap. 

While largely siding with the guys’ side of on the issue in presentation their justifications for the gap – after all, the Freakonomics people are known for poking holes in conventional stupidity - the economists (Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz) did not touch a third-rail.  Since I don’t shy away from third-rail issues - indeed, I view them as invitation to touch – I submitted the following comment:

Like any discussion of this topic, there is one thing no one ever wants to consider:  the possibility that guys, on average, are simply more valuable workers than women.

Guys are from Earth, women are from Venus.  As I noted in We can do anything better than they can – Part I in a Series of About a Billion , look at the Earth, and nearly everything on Earth that has been accomplished worth mentioning – its nearly all been done by guys.  Maybe there’s a reason for that – and any study that does not explore that possibility is fatally flawed.

A presumptive Guyinist named Brian also added some wisdom on an aspect of the issue which I have also long considered under-considered.  Here are Brian’s words, reproduced in their entirety:

Did you control for height? It is well known that tall men make more than short men, and men are taller than women, so I wonder how much of the difference could be explained by that

Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised, if, adjusted for height, the wage gap actually favors women.  Remember, most of them wear high-heel shoes. 

I’ll have a strategy for you to fight back on height/wage gap issue later.  For now I’ll just leave you with a URL:  http://tallmenshoes.com/

Just remember Guyinism when it comes to making donations with all that extra money you’ll be earning  – unless, of course, you blow it all on all the extra women you’ll be getting.

Click on pen to

According to police in St. Petersburg, Florida, Bettis-Ware was arguing with her guyfriend about something that happened on “American Idol.”  The guy went to bed, and awoke to Bettis-Ware wielding a 10-inch butcher knife. Bettis-Ware stabbed the guy five times in the back and twice in the chest, an arrest affidavit states, and when he managed to take one knife from her, she chased him with another in the parking lot of the motel they live in.

Police said she also severely burned the guy with hot cocoa.

As you can see, while she is herself cocoa, she ain’t by any stretch of the imagination hot, other than being hot-tempered.

Cynthia E. Bettis-Ware

Surprisingly, despite being a female attacking a guy, Bettis-Ware was actually arrested.  She’s even being held without bail.  More evidence that Guyinism is taking hold.

For more details, click here.

Click on pen to

Amy M., the self-promoting “by all accounts, toothsome” but dateless lawyer who called guys – all of us – “babies” on The Wall Street Journal online, has responded to my post.  In the interest of the facts, at least as related by Amy M., I hereby “reprint” her reply:

… I’m petite – five feet tall and 100 pounds. Insinuating that looks is the problem makes you wrong, but perhaps not unusual.

I’ll let you guys be the judge as to whether my statement, “why would a guy want to date a woman with enough money that he can … not worry about staying in a job he hates,” somehow hints that the guy would stop working.  I certainly didn’t mean that – what I meant was that, removed from the financial pressure of supporting a broke chick, the guy would be able to get another job – one that he doesn’t hate.  Of course, we all know what a woman writing what I wrote would mean:  stay-at-home status, plus a nanny.

In reality, Amy M. is apparently making another disingenuous excuse for her choice to become the Harriett Miers of the future: a lawyer, once hot – now still-single, old, and not.  Amy’s not even willing to state that a guy lazing around the house unemployed might be undesirable because of his negative financial impact.  Rather, Amy M. would have us believe a moocher is only undesirable because mooching is “not sexy.”

Anyway, I’m a sucker for spinners, so rather than argue, I wrote – in (or is it “on”) The Wall Street Journal:

I’m a petite-ophile – I’m attracted to just about any woman your size. If you’re located near where I live (Tampa) or anywhere I regularly go, send me a picture and you can pretty much count upon me asking you out. Hope may be on the way! Hit me up through my blog, “The Balls Monologues,” at http://guyinism.com/

Of course, as my blog makes evident, you’ll probably just end up regretting what you have been wishing for, but one never knows!

No reply yet from Amy M., in the Journal, on the Journal, through the Monologues, or otherwise.

Click on pen to

So says an Op-Ed piece in The Wall Street Journal, featuring a “tall” young woman named Rachel Downtain, who works for Sprint/Embarq in Kansas City.

Or maybe  – not to go out on a limb here – women, with ever-increasing spending needs and years of nabbing alpha males for sexual rendezvous, are just getting snobbier.

Echoing the old canard that guys are afraid to ask out hot chicks, an urban legend that met its bitter-end when hot chicks with money started hiring bodyguards to accompany them to clubs, commenter Amy M. related to Rachel’s “plight” discussed in the piece.

…  are men such babies they can’t handle dating a woman who makes more money than they do or is better educated?

I am 35, a lawyer, and by all accounts, a toothsome senorita. Men simply do not ask me out and since I’m not a feminist, there is no way I am asking out a guy or talking to him first. Period. Won’t happen. So, because I have no dates, I work all the time. Because I work all the time, I make money and become, how do you say, “career-focused.” I do not want to be career-focused. I want to be “relationship-focused,” but it’s just not happening. I do not know where the men are. My best guess is they’re already married. I have officially given up. If I will not have relationship success, I at least want some success, thus, I work harder.

 I will die alone, but at least I’ll be rich.

 My response:

What Amy has written makes sense. 

After all, why would a guy want to date a woman with enough money that he can live without financial worries, not worry about staying in a job he hates, take great vacations, and buy anything he wants, when instead he can marry a woman not any better looking than the rich one, live paycheck-to-paycheck, spend his entire day in a job he hates, not be able to afford to go anywhere, and be buried in debt just from buying necessities?

Oh, brother-  I’d love to know the real story.  Anyone found a picture of Rachel Downtain yet?  The article describes her as “tall.”  Since when is tall a plus for a chick?

A lawyer who doesn’t dare talk to guys before being spoken to (just the kind you’d want to hire, right?), Amy M. is one of the few commenters to the article who has not revealed her last name, a tactic which conveniently makes it more difficult to confirm the veracity of her claims of “toothsome senorita” status and asked-out-lessness.

In any event, probably because we’ve been told over-and-over by successful women that they won’t date a guy who makes less money than they do, guys are reticent to ask the Amy M.’s of the world out.  Of course, it could just be because, in reality, she’s foul, unsociable, and sits at a desk all day queefing into sweaty panty hose, and would be better-off working out once in a while than just plain-old working all the time.  Either way, we can safely assume that, like most female lawyers, Amy M., a self-described non-feminist in a feminist’s job, had her sights set on some super-wealthy clients.  It didn’t happen, and now she’s past the almost-universally accepted female marriage-by date (34).  We can speculate that her cha-cha’s been actionless since The One Night Stand following her best friend’s wedding back in ’06, or whenever it was, or something like that.

Whatever the case may be, because we don’t ask her out, for Amy M. there is only one conclusion:  despite the fact that at 35 she’s unwilling to initiate a conversation with a guy, we – all of us – are “babies.”

Just hours ago a girl, one of the women I am dating told me she had applied for a place to live through a homeless coalition.  Saturday night, the other woman I am dating told me she had moved, with her baby, back into her mother’s place due to not being able to afford sharing the apartment she had been living in.

 Commenter William Brewer, apparently not hiding his true identity, added some wisdom to the discussion:

“Hypergamy” is the key to stable marriages; i.e., when women marry at-status or above. Absence of hypergamy frustrates both partners, resulting in increased incidence of domestic violence.

The bell curve for males in flatter than for women resulting in more elite males that elite females. Feminism’s success in equaliz the two (i.e., shifting the whole curve for women to the right) has created a huge population of females with no chance of achieving a hypergamous relationship.The long-term effect is being seen in the demise of Western civilization, with fewer and less successful marriages along with fewer and less successful progeny from the marriages that do occur.

Sure, guy right is indeed getting harder to find.

Because guy right has to be that much more now.  At least for the Rachel Downtains and Amy M’s.

Thankfully, guys don’t seem to have be all that great to land hot strays.

After all, look at me …

Click on pen to

Add E. Jean of Elle to the list of guy-bashing advice columnists Dan Savage was talking about.

In a January 15 advice column entitled,  I Caught My Boyfriend with a Call Girl, E. Jean advised the woman to keep packing her bags, and attacks the raging popularity of sex for hire, referring to us payahs as ”dickweeds”  and to sex for hire as “the newest dickweed obsession.”

Says E. Jean:

In the old days of 1999, well-bred men kept their porn well hidden in a hole under the floor in the garage, but no more. New technologies like YouPorn have made pornography so chic among the smart set that a gentleman—out of sensitive regard for the feelings of his girlfriend or wife—will now freely give “fooling around with porn on the Internet” as the excuse when he’s, in fact, enjoying the amorous embraces of another woman (or two…or three).

Don’t fall for it. When he crawls to your new doorstep and starts beseeching, the only proper thing to do is hand him the bills for the medical tests he’s forced you to frantically undergo for STDs. Then slam the door, catching as many of his fingers as possible. (After all, those appendages have been doing things that can never be forgiven.)

And here I give an affectionate wave to the working girl who stepped up, did the right thing, and told you the truth. (P.S. Let her know the test results too.)

Unfortunately, the oldest profession is now the newest dickweed obsession

My response:

As documented in my blog,  The Balls Monologues, the traditional marriage framework worked like this:  if women wanted money, they were at the mercy of their husband.  They didn’t have their own income, or access to funds, and were expected to rely entirely upon their husbands for money. 

On the other hand, if guys wanted sex, we were at the mercy of our wives. 

Feminism came along, and suddenly women weren’t at the mercy of their husbands for money, but guys are supposed to be stuck relying entirely upon their wives for sex.  As noted by E. Jean, guys are increasingly refusing to abide by this double-standard.  Its called Guyinism – i.e., guys not taking it anymore.

As noted in She’s cheating on you – why shouldn’t you cheat, too?, fair is fair.

What’s so shocking is that E. Jean has nothing but affection for the hooker in this scenario – but the guy, of course, is a dickweed.  As if the hooker didn’t know she was fucking guys with wives and girlfriends.  In the eyes of the nearly all of the female advice columnists of the world, only guys can be culpable – women are always right.

DirkJohanson:  defending guys.  Defending dickweeds.

Dickweeds like me!

Click on pen to