Category: Thought Box

0 Trade School > College

January 5, 2019
by Connie Morgan
· In the News · Thought Box

There’s a lie that’s being fed to every young person in America. It’s a lie that’s not good for the individual kid and it’s not good for society. The lie is that we all should go to college and get a degree. This is entirely false, not only should we not all go to college, but we should encourage trade school more than we encourage university. This coming from someone who went to college, had a blast, and doesn’t regret it.

I entered university without a set plan or major. I was open minded and figured I’d use the prerequisite classes to figure out what I should study. I enjoyed a lot of my classes but it was Econ 201 that changed my life. The very first day, Professor Hedrick asked the class what the biggest cost of going to college was. People shouted out, “Tuition!” “Groceries!” and “Girlfriends!” After chuckling, Professor Hedrick shook his head and said, “Those are all wrong answers, the greatest cost of going to college is the opportunity cost.” In other words, the most financially damaging part of college is the money one isn’t making while attending. I knew then that I wanted to learn more about economics, particularly opportunity costs. To this day, I make all major decisions by considering the opportunity cost first. Unfortunately, most people go their entire lives without understanding opportunity costs; certainly most 18-year-olds don’t.

We’re sold this idea in high school that you make more money when you go to college. We’re shown a chart (like the one to the right) illistrating what a high school grad vs college grad make over their life. Those charts aren’t wrong: a college grad will make more money than a high school grad. What those charts don’t show is net worth throughout your lifetime.

There is a shortage of trade workers in America. “Blue Collar” jobs that pay well sit vacant while high school graduates rush to get an art degree. There are roughly 30 million jobs in the United States that pay $55,000 or more a year and don’t require a bachelor’s degree. These jobs include construction, plumbing, lineman, or my personal favorite, farriers (horse shoers) who make on average a whopping $92,000 a year. More than the average college graduate’s peak salary of $84,500. A $55,000 yearly salary may not seem much, but considering the avoidance of debt and money made during the average 5 years and 1 month it takes someone to earn a bachelor’s degree, it’s significant. *For examples in this blog average electrician will be used as comparison to the average college graduate because the average electrician salary is around $55,000.

For those who aren’t mathematically inclined let me put it this way; the average electrician has the opportunity to have about $30,000* in retirement in the same time the college grad has no money in retirement and will owe roughly $120,000* in total for their degree. Quite the difference. Because of the ever-increasing cost of college, it is estimated that students graduating in 2015 or later will have to push retirement back to 75. Not the case for the average electrician.

Given current average rates of return (6%) and average student loans, the most significant difference between a college grad and tradesman is not money made but rather money saved. An electrician and and college grad will net $1,000,000 in combined lifetime earnings and retirement savings at essentially the same time – 50* years old for the electrician, 49* for the average grad. Where this gets deceiving is that at that same age, (50) the average electrician will have roughly $375,0000* more in retirement savings than the average grad. The electrician has been saving for 32 years now, at a 15% recommended rate of savings they’d have almost $600,000* saved by age 50. By age 58* they’d have $1 million in retirement savings and $1.5 million by 64*.

The college grad starts saving later and is hindered by loans. On average, graduates with debt are putting 5% of their paycheck or less into retirement, nowhere near the 15% – 20% recommended. Because college students are now taking 20 years on average to payoff debt, recent graduates can expect to have the minimum $1 million for retirement at age 70*. Around age 76 is when $1.5 million in retirement would accrue.

According to data from Sallie Mae, 42% of student debt belongs to parents. For simplicity’s sake, calculations in this analysis were done with students assuming all debt responsibility. Ultimately, the total time spent and cost of interest on debt in this analysis is accurate, it’s just frequently split between parents and student instead of all on the student. More on parent college contributions later. For a full breakdown of how lifetime earnings and savings accrual were calculated click here.

In lifetime earnings, yes, a college graduates get bigger checks than the average electrician. That picture is the one painted in our mind. The first chart is all they show us, what they don’t show us is the good pay combined with retirement potential that a trade-skill can provide.

The data on college debt can be pretty confusing and misleading. Reports will tell you graduates average $30,100 in student loans. While this is a large increase from years past, it still doesn’t seem that bad, but I couldn’t figure out where they were getting this number. School is now costing on average $16,575.75 a year but is increasing at a rate of 2% per year. So the average five years and 1 month of schooling should cost around $120,000* after accounting for the average 28% covered by scholarships/grants according to Fannie Mae, $167,000* before scholarships/grants. An average of $30,100 in debt would mean 54% of college costs are being covered by something other than student loans and scholarships/grants, which didn’t seem right to me. Then I realized the flaw in the $30,100 figure. It does not account for debt held by parents or non-student loans. It also doesn’t account for cash paid from family or personal savings which, albeit isn’t debt, but certainly worth considering.

As I put the pieces together, it started to make sense. Out of the $167,000* it costs to get a degree, 28% is covered by scholarships/grants, 25% is covered by the student (most likely a combination of loans and a part-time job) and 47% is covered by parents (most likely a combination of loans and savings). Of course the $120,000* cost of school after scholarships/grants isn’t the actual cost, after interest the total amount paid in one way or another for a bachelor’s degree is closer to an optimistic estimate of $160,000*.

The cost to parents who want to help pay for school is not talked about enough. Even a parent who saves early often delay their retirement by ten years. The average student-debt (for their child) held by couples over 60 is $23,500. About 55% of parents have more than $40,000 in student debt and parents average $9,000 in cash out of their own savings to help pay for college. It is not uncommon for college-contributing parents to work into their 70s or retire with half of what their current lifestyle costs. Whether planned or not, parents’ contribution to their child’s education means sacrifice. Funny enough, although not conclusive, there is evidence that children whose parents foot the bill perform worse in school. Even if the debt or cost isn’t technically “yours,” passing that along to your parents isn’t something that most 18-year-olds consider or even grasp.

Speaking of what 18-year-olds can grasp… Why do we encourage young people to decide what they’re going to do for the rest of their life five years before their brains are done developing? A third of students change their major at least once in three years which explains why folks are taking over five years to earn a degree. Not only do many people go back to college to get second bachelor’s degree, but 8% of community college students have already earned a bachelor’s degree. Only 27% of college graduates work in their field of study. Perhaps “older and wiser” people pushing college onto high schoolers is one of the biggest scams known to man? High Schools push college because that is how their success is measured, colleges recruit even those likely to drop because one year of tuition is better than none, and universities push financial aid packages to students who don’t understand them. Universities are embroiled in financial aid scandal regularly. Students graduate college with confusing loans and usually without a job in their field BUT the high school tallied them as a win and the universities will get their money one way or another.

Why is college pushed on high schoolers? That’s what high school faculty know! All your teachers went to college; very few if any went to trade school. Those who haven’t gotten a college degree (teachers’ aides and such) often blame their lower income status on not going to college; very few will say “wish I went to lineman school.” Furthermore, the consensus seems to be that college prep is what high school teachers should focus on. High School teachers are rewarded for and chided for not prepping kids for college.

Recruiters from universities visited my high school but I didn’t hear from a chef or plumber or elevator repairman. Country-wide, 66% of high schoolers immediately enroll in college upon graduation. This number differs wildly from community to community. In my podunk town well under a third of my class immediately went to university – yet high schools everywhere are increasingly tailoring their curriculums to be mini colleges. Furthermore, out of that 66% that do attend college nationwide, 60% of those will end up dropping out. Out of the 40% left, 27% will get a job in their field of study. In short, a measly 7% of high schoolers go to college right away, complete college and get jobs related to their major.

Instead of prepping the majority of students who won’t attend or finish college, High Schools largely focus on college prep. I suppose it’s assumed kids going into the trades will figure it out but the future college students need every resource available. If the focus on college prep over trade prep feels backwards, it’s because it is. You have two years to adjust to college before you pick a major, with countless resources on most university campuses. But we expect the 74%+ who don’t graduate college to immediately adjust to entering the workforce at 18 or 20? Most high schoolers don’t know how to balance a checkbook but damn it they know how to take a standardized test!

Trade school will run you about $35,000 with programs as affordable as $5,000. Additionally, with many trades, apprenticeship is an option eliminating the need for trade school at all. There are also scholarships for trades, shoutout Mike Rowe. When it comes to lifetime net, an electrician has the opportunity to make out significantly better than the average college graduate.

Another point worth making, the initial $50,000 salary right out of college is average. The $120,000* is the average cost of college. That peak salary of $84,500 is average. This means half of all college graduates – 950,000 people each year, make less than $50,000, spend more than $120,000 on college and peak at less than $84,500, maybe not in combination, but still. Are you willing to bet $120,000 that you’re above average?

In review, there are seven things they don’t tell you in high school about college:

The huge opportunity cost.
The difference between net and gross pay.
Which high-paying careers don’t require college.
What school will actually cost you – beyond the initial cost.
What your parents are sacrificing when they help you pay for college.
Dropout rates.
The reality behind all those averages.

*See spreadsheet here.

0 Trump Is Not Black America’s Problem

December 15, 2018
by Connie Morgan
· Culture · Thought Box

Those who know me know I do not like Kanye West. Like realllly don’t like him. I have spent more energy than I should have professing why I think it’s stupid he has had so much success. I have almost broken up with someone over Kanye. I wish I was joking. So you can imagine what a pickle I was in when perhaps the famous person I hated the most started saying things I agreed with. Not so much the loving Trump stuff, but the free thinking stuff. Kanye didn’t drop any knowledge on me, nothing he said was anything I hadn’t heard before. But for many black people it probably was the first time they heard a person of color tell them they don’t have to be in lockstep with people just because they may look like them. But even more importantly, Kanye’s love of Trump helped illustrate 1) how narrow-minded the left is and 2) that the left doesn’t actually care about black people or really any minority they claim to protect for that matter. This post will focus on the latter point.

I was told by multiple persons that if Trump was elected all my rights as a minority woman would be taken away, including my right to vote. Two years later, the claim hasn’t aged well to say the least. To put it bluntly, black people are thriving under Trump. The black unemployment rate has hit an all-time low under Trump. Of course, the left can’t admit that fact to be a good thing. Now it’s “Well, the black unemployment rate is still higher than the white unemployment rate!” or “The black unemployment rate was declining under Obama anyway and has been for years!” or even “Black unemployment can be low and Trump can still be a racist!” All of these statements are true but allow the left to ignore a couple things; at the very least, Trump isn’t impeding on black success like they claimed he would. Furthermore, if Trump is racist, it’s not outwardly effecting his policy making. The left struggles to wrap their head around the idea that two things can be true at once. Blacks can be thriving under Trump and this progress has been in the works for a long time.

Even if the black unemployment rate was on a rapid decline that just happened to fall in Trump’s lap, that doesn’t explain the sharp increase in black entrepreneurship under Trump. It certainly doesn’t explain Trump’s aggressive pursuit of prison reform and his pardons/commutations of multiple black citizens. Pretty strange behavior for a supposed racist. If the man is racist, at this point I don’t care because his attempts to “cover for his racism” is resulting in good policy for minorities.

The real issue is that Trump’s approval ratings amongst blacks, though volatile, has approached 20%. If Republicans manage to hold an approval rating at or around 20% during and after Trump’s term as president, that would be enough to seriously affect Democrats chance at winning another presidential election. Democrats cannot afford to lose even a small percentage of the black vote which means even a nod at Donald Trump is not worth the risk for left leaning commentators.

The funny thing is, despite great jobs numbers and prison reform there is a problem in the black community that persists and is often ignored, the family. Government cannot save us on this one. The black population will never match whites in prosperity and success until we figure out how to keep the black fathers at home. So maybe we should stop worrying about whether a president who hasn’t impeded on our freedoms is racist and focus on getting the black family back together.

0 What’s Wrong with Reading as Written

August 28, 2018
by Dylan Morgan
· Culture · In the News

The hearings for the latest Supreme Court nominee will define the debate over the interpretation of the Constitution. On one side you have originalists; those who believe the Constitution should be interpreted by the written word and intent of its authors. On the other side you have those who believe in a living constitution; the idea the Constitution should be interpreted via the lens of current society. We can view both arguments in this way:

Let’s say a 14th century author wrote, “the nice gay boy tripped through the small town with a faggot.”

An originalist would claim the interpretation is, a foolish and merry individual skipped through a small town carrying a bundle of sticks. A proponent of a living constitution would say the statement could accurately be interpreted as, a kind homosexual stumbled through the small town with another homosexual. One claim would capture the intent of the author while the other would distort the story to a point incomprehensible to the writer. Is it fair to claim a story’s meaning changes based on the changing definition of words over time, or is the author’s intent more important?

It would be silly to apply the idea of “living literature” to the author’s story. The same can be said for the law. The law was written to capture the intent of the people at a given time. While the times change, the law’s meaning and purpose do not.

Suppose in the future a political party has decided it is in the best interest of the country to force people to house government employees at no cost while they are on an assignment. For instance, you must house the IRS agent who is auditing you. The passage of such a law is not implausible in the sense the party in favor only needs to hold both houses of congress and the presidency – a level of control which has occurred for the last four presidents. The upholding of such a law, however, would prove the greater obstacle.

An originalist judge would look at such a law as a direct violation of the Third Amendment which states: “No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” The intent of the law was to protect the civilian from the imposition of government employees in their homes. In 1791 this meant soldiers. Though the current scope and size of the government is beyond anything the founders could have imagined, a law forcing civilians to accept government personnel in their homes would still violate this right.

Today, you would be hard pressed to find a justice who would find otherwise, however someone who follows the ideology of a living constitution follows societal norms. 100 years ago, abortion would not have been a societal norm and yet in 1973, the Supreme Court found the right to an abortion in the Constitution and it is now virtuous to shout your abortion.

Thus saying, suppose in the future it became an acceptable idea for the government to force civilians to house government employees. If the party in favor of such action came to power, they could appoint justices who agreed rather than adjudicated based on the law. They may say that because the Constitution was written in 1787 it is no longer acceptable doctrine. Or maybe they will claim because the Third Amendment says soldiers it does not apply to an IRS agent. The reason is not as significant as the fact you could have government agents forcibly occupy your home. If justices are nominated simply to do the will of congress or the president, then why not abolish all branches in favor of a group of nine dictators?

Hopefully this example is universally abhorrent, but suppose a more contentious issue arose. Neither party would be in favor of judicial appointments to bend or create laws which are against the will of the people. The country is founded in such a way that citizens elect two of three branches (legislative and executive) who then combine to appoint the third – the judicial. The judicial branch then upholds the law which requires the greatest majority to pass: The Constitution.

The supreme law of the land is the Constitution. It is the job of the Supreme Court to ensure laws written by the legislative and signed by the executive branch abide by the rights guaranteed to the citizens. The Constitution can be amended in two ways. The only way utilized thus far requires the support of two-thirds of both houses of congress to propose and three-fourths of the state legislatures to ratify amendments. The other way, a convention of states, requires two-thirds of the states to call for the convention and three-fourths to ratify
any proposed amendments, skipping a congressional vote. Both methods require an
absolute majority of federal and/or state legislative bodies as elected by the citizenry.

The Supreme Court, by way of adjudicating the law as voted on by the people is what protects us from the tyranny of the legislative and executive branches. The utility of co-equal branches of government is lost, however, if one branch usurps power from another. The fear of progressives, in terms of the court, is more originalist judges would hold us strictly to the laws we passed while conservatives fear living constitutionalists would adjudicate by public opinion rather than the rule of law. The distinction of the utmost importance is, one group wishes to have laws written without fear of adjudication while the other wants the laws to be adjudicated as written.

The argument against originalism is truly mystifying to me. Originalists adjudicate based on what the majority of state and federal legislatures have agreed upon and written into law in their time. In other words, originalists do as they are instructed by the electorate. If the electorate wishes for a different outcome, they can put forth an amendment via the legislative branch or convention of states. This ensures a majority of citizens have a say on their rights. It is progressives who wish to remove this ability from the people by way of appointing justices who will interpret the law as it “should” be and not how it is.

Clarence Thomas, a stalwart originalist has often made decisions which go against his own personal interest. For instance, his discussion about the overreach of the federal government by way of the commerce clause would rule anti-discrimination laws and the ban on whites-only lunch counters unconstitutional. As a Black man, one would think Thomas should be in favor of such decisions. Maybe he is, but he insists that rulings, at least his own, be based on the intent lest any law be manipulated as justification to regulate beyond its designation.

It is worth noting that because a law is not constitutional at the federal level does not mean it is illegal at the state level. So, if Thomas were to rule something unconstitutional at the federal level, the states would not necessarily be barred from applying the same legislation.

Because we are a nation that values the rule of law, we have (usually) abided by decisions of the courts with the state or federal government enforcing their rulings. This, however, is done with the understanding that the Supreme Court serves the people through the law, which is why it is an appointed rather than an elected position – the job of the jurors is to be right, not necessarily popular. Furthermore, it is important that the branch that makes the decision is not the one who enforces it. If justices are nothing but legislative or presidential puppets or worse, authors of legislation, then government can simply be vacated and a tribunal of despots put in its place.

The founders understood the nature of centralized power and its inherent tendency to be abused. Therefore, they created a system of checks and balances wherein each branch had specific and enumerated powers. While it may be satisfying to see your party win at the expense of co-equal governance, you cannot then protest when the other side follows suit.

If you want to ensure what you stand for today remains tomorrow, your initial intent must remain intact. Before you castigate a justice for holding this opinion ask yourself why is it wrong to base your justification on those that were given by the author instead of another’s interpretation 100 years later? It is not the job of the judicial branch to manipulate legislation to satisfy society, but that of legislators to make new laws befitting the society they represent. The job of the Supreme Court is to hold us accountable for those we elect and the laws they pass. If you are unhappy with a law, elect politicians who will change it instead of interpreting it as convenient lest convenience replace justice.

2 What is Beyonce the Queen of?

July 23, 2018
by Connie Morgan
· Culture · Thought Box

One of the most recognizable and influential pop stars in the world right now is Beyonce. She started out as the front woman of Destiny’s Child, broke free as a solo act in 2003 with her debut album Dangerously in Love, and hasn’t looked back since. She has released six solo studio albums and very recently dropped her first collab album with husband Jay-Z, titled Everything is Love. A fashion clothing line, a perfume line, movie roles, an athletic wear line, and a handful of endorsements later, Beyonce is now worth a cool $350 million. The most valuable asset Beyonce has been able to cultivate is the “Beyhive.” Her loyal (though not as loyal as one might think for reasons later discussed) fanbase praises everything she does, sometimes going so far as to actually worship her and/or send death threats to people who dare critique her.

Notice how I said that Beyonce is the most recognizable, not the most successful or most popular. I say this because by many standards she is not the most popular. She isn’t even the most popular female artist right now…hell, she isn’t even the most popular black female artist right now. Taylor Swift, Adele (with only three albums compared to Beyonce’s six), and Rihanna have all sold tens of millions more albums than Beyonce. The Beyhive is loyal, but not loyal enough to go out and buy the record I guess. In fact, Beyonce’s best selling album is…her first one, Dangerously in Love, her second best selling album is her second album, B’day, with I Am…Sasha Fierce close behind. Her fourth album, 4 performed abysmally and is easily her worst selling album to date. Her self-titled album trails her first three in sales and Lemonade has sold half the amount of that one. You wouldn’t know it based on the hype, but Beyonce’s music is actually getting less popular as far as album sales go.

Even at her peak, Beyonce has never had a best selling album of the year. And she’s only been the best selling female once in 2014 when she came in second behind the Frozen soundtrack…so in a way she still wasn’t the best selling female artist. She’s rarely ever the best selling artist in her genre of female R&B/Pop having been beaten out by Rihanna, Christina Aguilera, Fergie, Mary J Blige, and more throughout the years. Her fame is actually very strange when you look at the sales of her main product – music. After her Coachella performance some people had the audacity to call her the greatest pop star of all time – yes, even ahead of Michael Jackson. Beyonce doesn’t even have an album in the fifty highest selling of all time! And it might surprise you to learn who does grace that list…Kenny G, Jewel, Boyz II Men, and Hootie and the Blowfish. Maybe not so surprisingly the list also includes Prince, Whitney Houston (twice), Bob Marley, Adele, Fleetwood Mac, and of course Michael Jackson at number one. Plenty of female representation, plenty of black representation, plenty of R&B/Pop representation…and no Beyonce.

As far as touring stats go, Beyonce is no slouch and pulls in big numbers. Alas, she still does not make the list of Top 20 grossing tours of all time (Celine Dion and Madonna x2 make the list). Her most successful “Formation” World Tour ranks 15th in top grossing tours of the 2010s.

I’ve established that the talk doesn’t match the walk when it comes to Beyonce fandom but granted album sales aren’t everything. Queen doesn’t have any of the Top 50 selling albums of all time and I argue Freddie Mercury is one of the most talented people to walk this earth on a regular basis. So what about Beyonce’s talent? Well she is stunningly beautiful, but that’s not really talent, more so good genes. She doesn’t play an instrument but she has a nice voice. She has a really good voice…but is she Whitney? Hell no. Is she ‘90s era Mariah? Absolutely not. And even right now we all know who the best pop singer is…I hate to bring her up again…but that’s Adele. Honestly, I’ve never heard someone make the “Beyonce has the greatest voice ever” argument so I won’t spend much time refuting it.

Then there’s real talent, learned and honed-in talent: music composing, lyric writing, choreography…things you can have a knack for but take lots of work to hone in. Beyonce’s not known for her producing and “beat making” ability like Kanye or Pharrell. She doesn’t play an instrument like Alicia Keys. She is frequently listed as a co-writer on her songs but when one of the songs she “co-wrote” was nominated for an Oscar but only three people could be listed as co-writers, her name was removed…But really, does she want to take credit for stuff like the garbage listed below. Lyrics for “ApeShit,” her single with Jay-Z that she co-wrote and co-produced:

[Chorus: Beyoncé & Quavo]
Stack my money fast and go (fast, fast, go)
Fast like a Lambo (skrrt, skrrt, skrrt)
I be jumpin’ off the stage, ho (jumpin’, jumpin’, hey, hey)
Crowd better save her (crowd goin’ ape, hey)
I can’t believe we made it (this is what we made, made)
This is what we’re thankful (this is what we thank, thank)
I can’t believe we made it (this a different angle)
Have you ever seen the crowd goin’ apeshit? Rah!

[Verse 1: Beyoncé & Quavo]
Gimme my check, put some respek on my check
Or pay me in equity (pay me in equity)
Watch me reverse out of debt (skrrt)
He got a bad bitch, bad bitch
We livin’ lavish, lavish
I got expensive fabrics
I got expensive habits
He wanna go with me (go with me)
He like to roll the weed (roll the weed)
He wanna be with me (be with me)
He wanna give me that vitamin D (D!)
Ice ornaments, icy style tournaments (woo)
You ain’t on to this (no)
Don’t think they on to this (no)

These are obviously horrible lyrics by an honest person’s standard. If you’re not sure, try saying them out loud. Good lyrics read like a poem even without music…these read like a teenager’s first attempt at rapping. At this point though, Beyonce doesn’t even have to try to write good music; anything she releases is praised as some sort of revelation.

Another thing Beyonce is known for is her dancing. I am not professionally trained but I do enjoy watching dance and can tell when something requires skill to execute. Beyonce’s dancing for the most part, does not. There is little footwork and it’s mostly bending over, shaking her ass, and whipping her hair around. Ciara is more athletic when it comes to dance and Janet Jackson has much, much, much, better choreography that she actually does herself unliked Beyonce who has a team of choreographers. One could argue Madonna had more revolutionary choreography than Beyonce. Are you rage typing “Single Ladies” into YouTube right now? It’s a fun dance, I’ll give you that, but not difficult, not choreographed by Beyonce, and not original!

But it’s her brand you say! Beyonce has the power to sell and influence beyond music. Well she dabbled in movies, and while Dreamgirls was a hit, let’s be honest, Jennifer Hudson is the reason why. Following Dreamgirls, Cadillac Records and Obsessed were both panned by the critics. Her women’s athletic wear brand, Ivy Park, which is literally normal-looking sweatshirts, t-shirts, leggings, and bras that say “Ivy Park”- such design genius – sold out upon its original release in 2016, but since then you haven’t heard much about the brand. Athletica and Lululemon continue to dominate the space with Adidas becoming a larger player. Kate Hudson’s Fabletics and Prana are doing very well too. On the other hand, I struggle to find any information on how Ivy Park sales are going right now.

“Well Beyonce empowers young women, especially black women so I don’t care about all that other stuff.” Does she though? Empowers means give someone the authority to do something which granted, Beyonce can’t really do, or make someone stronger and more confident which is the “Beyonce empowers” I assume people are referring to. I want to ask how exactly Beyonce empowers women? How many girls lacking self-confidence watch Beyonce sing “Formation” on stage and think, “Wow, now I have the confidence to open that restaurant I’ve been too afraid to pursue”? How many young girls look at Beyonce and Jay-Z’s relationship and go “that’s the true definition of a loving and devoted marriage; that’s what I’ll model mine after.” Or in reality, how many girls follow one of the most beautiful women on the planet, on instagram with her lavish lifestyle, constantly changing hair styles, and outrageous designer clothes and pursue shallow beauty standards because of it?

Beyonce’s lyrics aren’t empowering. The vast majority of her music is about sexing up a boyfriend. I’m sorry but repeating “Who runs the world, girls” over and over again does not make anyone a stronger woman. If Beyonce really wanted to help young black people, she’d sing about graduating from high school, acquiring and keeping a job and getting faithfully married before having babies. If Beyonce wanted to help black people build better relationships she’d sing about finding a partner who shares your values, is conservative with their money, and treats you with respect. Instead relationships in her songs are all about having sex and spending lots of money. Don’t get me wrong, the former is certainly important in a relationship but a good marriage is about more than physical attraction. Being a “bad bitch” is not the key to a fulfilling, healthy relationship.

The “I’ma strong woman and so are you” bit has proved ineffective in shifting black culture to more prosperous ways of living. Despite Beyonce’s huge audience and influential power she doesn’t talk to black people about improving the culture or really anything. She’s somewhat notorious for not giving opinions. She just collects your money and goes back to her mansion(s).

Beyonce has made some catchy tunes, especially earlier in her career. “Love on Top” and “Sweet Dreams” are great pop songs. (Love on Top is probably my favorite music video of hers too.) Are they a display of incredible talent and skill? No. But they’re what pop music should be. What Beyonce is not is a visionary talent revolutionizing art. What Beyonce is not is a positive black influencer. What Beyonce is not, is a god. She’s a pop star, and she should be treated as such.

0 What Even is Fair Trade?

June 25, 2018
by Connie Morgan
· Culture · Health and Fitness · Thought Box · Wellness

Fair trade is awesome. No, not the kind Trump talks about where trade deficits are bad and trade wars are awesome. What I and other hipsters who use the term fair trade mean is a product produced in a way deemed ethical and…well, fair. There are various fair trade certificates and organizations all differing slightly on what their standard of “fair” is. This is why using those stamps of approval are useful but it’s also worth thinking about your own ethical standard. What I define as fair might be a little different than you but for the most part fair trade for everyone refers to fair wages for those involved in the making of said product, fair working conditions, sustainable practices (does the product create a lot of waste and/or have an unjustified effect on the environment) and were animals abused in the making of the product. Seems pretty simple but there are many companies that don’t meet this standard, only meet it halfway, or don’t have the same definition of fair that I do. Below is how I personally, define each of these standards.

The makers of the product are paid a fair wage.
The makers of the product are paid according to the value they add to the company. This will vary country to country and it doesn’t necessarily mean they must be paid more than minimum wage. I don’t think minimum wage for a fast food cook is unfair but I do think minimum wage for a fast food manager is unfair. Perhaps you disagree with this standard but that’s the cool thing about a free market, you can buy according to your values and I to mine. Any product that’s made in America meets this standard for me. I believe America is a free enough place that employees are generally paid what they are worth and have the option to find better work if they believe they are treated unfairly. There are resources to learn more about fair wages around the world and you can find them here.

The makers of the product work in decent conditions.
What I mean by this is that no one is forced to work extreme hours at threat of losing their job if they refuse. Workers are also in air conditioned facilities or heated facilities if necessary. And this should go without saying but workers are not physically punished for messing up something on the job.
I also avoid products with chemicals in them in order to meet this standard. Even in the U.S. employees work with chemicals without even realizing the damage they are causing to themselves until years later. I also avoid meat products, especially from factory farms because of the negative effects breathing in all the fumes and dealing with animal waste can have. Check out this link for more info on the negative effects of factory farms on employees. Any product involving chemicals often have adverse effects on workers. Perhaps the best example of this is pesticides and farm workers. You can read more on that here. Chemical free and BPA free are things I look out for when buying stuff.

Sustainable practices.
This one was a huge reason why I gave up meat. As more and more people around the world adopt the American diet or westernized diet rather, we will need more and more land to raise the animals. There simply isn’t enough land on Earth to feed 7 billion people a animal centered diet. There also isn’t a good way to get rid of all the waste these animals create. You can read more about the sustainability of an animal based diet here.
When it comes to non-food products I am really not too picky. They don’t have to be green certified but I don’t want them dumping waste in rivers. In fact, a lot of companies will forgo the vegan/green/fair trade stamps because those usually cost money to apply for and they don’t want to transfer the cost to their customers which I totally get and appreciate. So don’t disregard a product simply because it doesn’t have the stamp you are accustomed to seeing.
It’s also a plus when the materials used to make the product are biodegradable, reusable etc. I try to avoid plastic when I can

Cruelty free.
Companies will always brag about this so it’s usually not hard to figure out. I am not against using rats in lab tests per say but animal testing can get out of control pretty quick. PETA gets a lot of shit, most of which they deserve, but when it comes to animal testing they make a strong case.
*With all these guidelines you have to be careful. Often companies will claim to be fair trade or green or cruelty free etc. because those who put the product together meet all these guidelines. Sometimes the people sewing the shoes together are treated well but the people who cultivate the shoe materials aren’t. Just something to keep in mind.

I started focusing on more ethical shopping funny enough, because of my capitalistic values. The trade part of fair trade actually drew me in just as much as the fair part. I realized I alone was responsible for the consequences of my actions and that through a free market system I could tell companies what was and wasn’t acceptable with every dollar I spent. Your value system might not be the same as mine, but I still encourage you to shop along your moral compass. People often tell me they feel helpless when they shouldn’t. The organic product market is expected to grow 14% from 2017 to 2021, from 2004 to 2016 Fairtrade International product revenue grew roughly 835%, sales of plant based food went up 8.1% last year and continues to grow, the natural (chemical free) beauty industry is seeing sales increase every year with growth at 7% outpacing overall industry growth and Jessica Alba famously became a billionaire almost overnight after starting The Honest Company.
This growth isn’t because companies just felt like it, it’s because their customers demanded it. A lot of my fellow naturalists claim to hate capitalism, but it’s the fuel creating massive change across all industries. You say something every time you buy something and businesses are listening. Compassionate capitalism isn’t a real economic term, but if it were, I suppose it would look like shopping fair trade.

1 Why the World Needs Dads

June 17, 2018
by Dylan Morgan
· Culture · In the News

Since I was little, I wanted to be like my dad. He did all kinds of cool things like wear chaps, drive tractors, and chop wood. I didn’t know why, but I wanted to do those things too. I wanted to be like my dad so much that when I was in eighth grade I decided I would do exactly what he did with his life: go to university on an ROTC scholarship and become a dentist. My life goals are as original as Will Smith’s music.

My upbringing, however, was much different than his, as when I was five years old my parents got divorced. I lived with my mom five days a week and, when I wasn’t participating in baseball or basketball tournaments, I would spend the weekend with my dad. There was a stark contrast between parents as my mom allowed for more play and my dad always seemed to be working, so much so that he ostensibly created a business just to teach my sister and me the value of a good work ethic. The dichotomy of parenting styles created two different expectations of me: while living with my mom I was essentially held to the same standard as my sister. My dad, however, established different expectations for the two of us. For example, if he needed to go work on a stretch of fencing, Connie was given a choice whether or not to participate. I, on the other hand, was not afforded the same opportunity.

My dad’s expectations of me created a drive to prove myself worthy. This was made more difficult by my dad making it clear he didn’t think we should be wasting our time on frivolous extra-curriculars when there was work to be done. Due to this opinion, he hardly came to any of my sporting events as he wouldn’t take time off work. Since my athletic prowess wouldn’t impress him, I found other ways. I remember the first time I carried a fifty-pound bag of grain on my shoulder not because it was a momentous occasion in my life but because he noticed! He didn’t say good job or anything, but I knew he was thinking it. I also remember his compliments any time I made a good point about some aspect of working the ranch. But more than the good, I remember my failures in his eyes.

I remember getting yelled at for stepping on the track of a tractor while it was moving. I remember almost coming to tears because I couldn’t unhook the gooseneck trailer from the truck before my dad got back from a horse ride. My sister and stepmom asked me what was wrong, seemingly not comprehending the fact that, though I was likely around ten years old, I was the man and it was my job to handle such things as unhooking trailers. How could I prove myself worthy if I couldn’t handle such menial tasks as that?!

My dad also has the ability to make me laugh – usually just at how funny he thinks he is, though his dad jokes often come R-rated or politically incorrect. Like when told a movie he had purchased was going to set off the alarm when he left but just to ignore it, he said to the clerk, eyes lighting up like he had been waiting his whole life for this moment, “I’d better let you take this then because I’m a Black man and they’ll shoot me.” He had a gift for making me laugh when I was angry especially when my ire was directed at him. I would fight so hard to keep from laughing thinking, “shut up dad just let me hate you for the next five minutes” but I never could.

As I got older I came to two realizations: chaps really weren’t as cool as I remembered, and I had a long way to go before becoming the man my father was. The former realization needs no explanation, but the latter came to me in two events. First, I witnessed my dad throwing 100-pound bales of hay 6-8 feet over his head into the loft after the hay elevator broke down. At this point he was over forty and not in good shape throwing the most awkward, cumbersome thing over his head. I mean, holy shit.

The second event came when I was seventeen or eighteen. While working one day, he locked our food in the car and took off on a ride with the keys. This meant I had to wait a full hour before eating! When he finally returned I made a snarky, smart-ass comment to him expressing my distress. The world stopped. There became an epic stare-down between man and boy. My dad who grew up dirt poor looked at me, who had the nerve to mouth off about not eating for an hour. I knew behind that steely gaze he was calculating the odds he could get away with beating me in public. Not wanting to blink lest I lose all dignity I stared back, hiding my fear behind a façade of righteous indignation, calculating the best routes of escape. After what seemed like forever, the battle of wills ended when he simply said, “you’d better remember who you’re talking to” and he threw me the keys. As I walked to get my lunch I almost laughed at loud: the laugh of someone who has just survived a near death experience. I realized that not only did I have a lot of room to grow, but my dad could have snatched my head from my shoulders before my life worked up the nerve to flash before my eyes.

My dad clearly impacted the type of man I’ve become. He is not alone fulfilling the fundamental role of father, a title which is becoming more rarely used. As of 2017 24% of homes with children under eighteen are single-mother. A staggering 55.3% of Black mothers fall within this category. There is some hope, as a study highlighted by the New York Times showed that not only is your own father important, but in his absence, male role models in the community can fill the role of father and negate the deleterious effect of a fatherless home. This could mean reducing the numbers of youth suicides, rapists, high school dropouts, and incarcerations. The issue, however, is there are so many fatherless communities that don’t allow for the realization of this benefit.

My dad never sat me down and said, “son, don’t rape people.” In fact, he only gave me direct life instructions once and that was, “if you get a girl pregnant, you’re pregnant.” The reality was he didn’t have to directly define his expectations. By watching him and listening to him talk about movies or shows we watched, I was able to interpret the expectations of a man: provide and protect.

Provide: As a man, you are the provider for your family. This is not to say a woman can’t provide, but a man needs to be in a situation where he is capable of doing so no matter how arduous a job is. My dad demonstrates this by owning two businesses even though he would do fine in his primary career.

Protect: My dad’s catch phrase, “just kill ‘em,” is likely only slight hyperbole. He leaves no doubt that should something happen to my sister, myself, or anyone in the family they will face the wrath of a mad Morgan. There was never a time in my childhood I didn’t feel safe because I knew my dad would take care of anything that came up; witnessing one such occasion myself. And, after watching him throw bales of hay around I think I can objectively say my daddy can kick your daddy’s ass.

Those are the two basic tenets of being a man. My dad showed me how he exemplified them and now it’s up to me to determine my own way. I will never be as physically strong as my dad but because of what he has instilled in me I know there is no excuse to not be able to protect. I am on track for a comfortable career but I am well prepared to work beyond that if necessary and in fact I plan to.

It was not until I grew older that I realized my dad, while fulfilling the tenets as well as most men could hope to, was still flawed. This was not an earth-shattering experience: in fact it seemed only natural. He was human after all and only a human can be a hero.

I cannot explain why fathers are necessary. It’s not difficult for a mother to explain a man’s role to her son. Maybe the need boys experience for dads is scribbled across the Y chromosome. Maybe it’s because boys love their moms and if she picked your dad there must be something worthwhile there to learn. Regardless of your explanation, it is apparent fathers are the most important aspect for the development of boys and their continued absence will have a negative effect on society as a whole. So today, tell your dad happy Father’s Day or be a dad who deserves one.

1 Appropriation is Awesome

May 17, 2018
by Connie Morgan
· Culture · Thought Box

People have been taking “cultural appropriation” way too far. By people, I mean the American left which has lead the mission to yell at, bully, and belittle anyone who participates in anything that wasn’t created by their ethnic group. White people aren’t allowed to make burritos, only black people should rap and in a recent example of cultural appropriation idiocy, a high school girl was shamed on Twitter for wearing a Chinese dress (and wearing it well I might add) to her prom. Thank goodness I am half-white and half-black and therefore allowed to dip into two different cultures.

So what exactly is cultural appropriation? It’s often described as someone adopting from a culture that is not his or her own – a hairstyle, a piece of clothing, a manner of speaking, even a type of exercise (yoga, for example). Everyday feminism takes this a step further explaining that cultural appropriation takes place when a dominant group borrows from a culture they have oppressed. It doesn’t matter if you specifically have never oppressed said group, just that someone of your same ethnicity has. Neither of these definitions seem inherently evil to me but whichever definition you use, cultural appropriation is confusing from the start.

First, let’s look at the broader definition of cultural appropriation. Take something from someone else’s culture and you’re appropriating. This means if your culture didn’t invent a style of dance, you should not participate. Well, white people invented tap dancing. If you’re familiar with the history of tap dance you might say nuh-uh, tap dancing was invented by blacks in the south. I’d say you’re right but tap was actually an appropriation of Irish clogging. Poor Irish and poor blacks lived amongst each other in the south. Both groups were discriminated against and faced socio-economic struggles. (Thomas Sowell’s Black Rednecks and White Liberals explains this in more detail.) The two groups ended up borrowing quite a bit from each other. It’s just fact that blacks appropriated the Irish clog to create tap and I’m glad they did…But that’s appropriation so I guess only the Irish should be allowed to tap. If blacks can’t participate in tap dance, we never would have had Savion Glover, quite possibly the best tap dancer who ever lived. Please take a minute to watch him here; he truly is astounding. Ballet certainly isn’t a part of African culture, so say goodbye to Misty Copeland too. If Hip-Hop is a black-American invention then someone better call Channing Tatum and tell him to stop dancing. Classical music isn’t rooted in Asian culture so forget about Yo-Yo Ma. Opera began in Italy so if you ain’t Italian don’t even bother. Flutes originated in China so literally every kid in my high school band’s flute section was way out of line.

The arts are an easy one to pick on but you can apply this to nearly any piece of the human experience. There would be great losses in our cultural advancement if people weren’t allowed to cross cultural lines. Weren’t we all told as kids that copying is the greatest form of flattery? If someone uses something from your culture to create something new, they most certainly respect your culture. If they didn’t, why would they use it? Now if a white person makes a dream catcher and says “hey, I invented this” I could see the issue but that is rarely, if ever the case in these instances of “cultural appropriation.”

But SJWs think they got ya on the second definition of cultural appropriation, the one that says only oppressors can appropriate meaning white people can’t participate in any culture that isn’t their own, but black people, who are the most oppressed, can borrow from any culture they want. (Actually Jews are the most oppressed, but that’s a topic for another day.) The problem with this idea is that it really only hurts minorities. Ok, so now white people can only wear jeans and eat italian food..not really a big deal. But that authentic taco stand? You just lost all your white customers. Black rappers? You just lost 70-75% of your audience. The UFC would not only see a huge drop in ratings; (can’t have white people viewing mixed martial arts) they would lose quite a few athletes as well, with Dana White following them out the door. His name is literally White! How much more offensive can you be??!!!

I realized that cultural appropriation had gone way too far when some of my friends admired a dress I have. It is a beautiful, colorful, handmade dress. I bought it from an online shop that sells dresses made by African artisans. My friends ranted and raved about the dress so much that I asked one of them why she didn’t just buy one for herself. She told me she was afraid if she did people would get mad because she is white. And you know what, she’s probably not wrong; someone might get mad. But the person who gets mad that a white woman supported a black designer is an absolute fool.

Why would you want to prevent 77% of the American population from purchasing goods made by minorities? Do you want minority culture in the U.S. to disappear, because without the white man’s dollar most culture-based businesses will fail. Do you not want white people helping uplift merchants in third world countries out of poverty by supporting their craft? It breaks my heart thinking about the dollars those African dress makers are missing out on because white women have been bullied into fear of celebrating the beauty of something not their own.

So appropriate, I say! Without it, we wouldn’t have tap dance or blues or MMA or ice cream cones or me! If you’re worried about it still, just follow these rules:

Give credit where credit is due.
Don’t claim you created something you didn’t.
Don’t wildly misrepresent a culture.
Don’t claim you’re giving props to Native-Americans when you’re in a skimpy outfit with feathers and just want to dress provocatively.

That’s pretty much it. Be respectful but be a sponge. If Drake isn’t proof we need more cross-cultural appropriation, I don’t know what is.

0 When Everything is “Problematic”

May 10, 2018
by Arianna
· Culture · In the News

The internet is awash with articles dubbing parts of the culture “problematic.” Whether it be films, songs, memes, words, or phrases; when it’s considered “problematic” it typically means that the author feels that there is some hidden or implied discrimination in it that is likely not immediately obvious to most people. When highlighting “problematic” things, the authors’ message is frequently to stop supporting or using whatever the thing is.

For films or tv shows, much of the criticism that brings out the word “problematic” comes from an expectation that all entertainment should be a reflection of the critic’s ideal society. This typically involves proportionate representation of minorities (at minimum) and messaging around the empowerment of underrepresented groups. While you can make good movies that fit these requirements, there are many that inherently will not and that should be okay. In an article titled “As A Black Woman, Everything I Love Is Problematic,” one writer discusses her internal struggle when she finds herself liking movies or tv shows that do not advance her ideal society. For example, she confesses a love of period pieces such as Poirot and Downton Abbey but laments that they are beautiful shows that can glorify some of the negative aspects of Western/European history, depicting rich, attractive people who are successful often just by dint of birth and who take advantage of less fortunate people, treating them poorly. Her feelings of guilt in liking these shows indicates that she feels that by watching and even enjoying them, she is somehow supporting the structure of society in those times and supporting the behavior of the characters.

This way of thinking puts a lot of pressure on the viewer to only watch things that reflect their own views or experience back to them. While I understand the desire to see your culture represented in film or tv, the pressure that this has created to only support diverse projects does not appear to be beneficial. To look at a period piece that accurately represents a time period and feel you shouldn’t like it for that reason indicates a problem with your feelings and not the piece. You absolutely can watch it and feel distaste for any of their bad behavior, even while appreciating the beautiful clothes and hair and architecture, because history is complex and very few things are all bad or all good.

When it comes to “problematic” words or phrases, articles typically focus on those that have racist or otherwise derogatory origins that most current users would not be aware of. While it can be worthwhile to explore the origins of the words that we use, savory or otherwise, I think it’s unnecessary to try to scrub out any words from our vocabulary that may have been used in a negative context at some point by someone many, many years ago. An example from the linked article is the phrase “No can do.” In our everyday lives, this is a simple, efficient way to let someone know we’re unable to do something. However, this phrase gained popularity in Western culture while making fun of Chinese immigrants’ broken English. After learning the negative origin of this phrase, we can stop using it – as the author suggests – because we oppose any mean-spirited taunting of immigrants doing their best to learn and communicate in our language, but what are we really accomplishing by doing that? This may make you feel more righteous as you act on your newfound knowledge, but that really only affects you.

If your goal is to improve society’s treatment of immigrants, then it makes more sense to worry about any wrongs that are being done to them now, not hundreds of years ago. When there are real problems that we can address together, why create problems in situations where there are none? This is where social justice warriors tend to lose an engaged audience that extends outside of other social justice warriors. I believe the grand majority of people in the United States want to combat bigotry and discrimination. The problem with social justice warriors’ approach is that so much of the messaging is focused on small things that may offend a minority group rather than combating barriers to success for minority groups. With this, the movement loses focus and the ability to create any real change. If everything is “problematic,” how do we identify and solve real problems?

1 Stop Pretending Sex is the Same for Men and Women

April 20, 2018
by Connie Morgan
· Culture · Thought Box

Biological differences between men and women matter. Because of biological differences men tend to be bigger and stronger. Because of biological differences women tend to be smaller and more flexible. Women tend to be more focused on people, men tend to be more focused on “things.” Men tend to like solving finite problems and women tend to like artistic challenges. This isn’t my opinion, these are facts based on evolutionary and biological research. As I’ve said many a time, men and women are different and that’s a beautiful thing.

It’s concerning that modern culture (starting in the 60s but really becoming a mainstream train of thought in the 90s) doesn’t recognize this when it comes to sex. TV shows, movies, books, blogs, magazines are all telling us that sex is exactly the same for men and women. What I mean is that promiscuity, one-night-stands and casual sex were once thought to have been something more sought after by men. Now we’re told that women should celebrate their participation in any of the above as well. Instead of teaching men that maybe they should be a little more like women when it comes to sexual activity, we teach women they should be more like men. At the same time, we’re told men are pigs! If that’s the case then why is the response for women to act more like men when it comes to sex?

In a perfect world, we would all live perfect sexually moral lives. In a perfect world, you could have the same conversation about sex with your son as you would your daughter. But it’s not a perfect world and people certainly aren’t perfect. Sex is different for men and women and there’s plenty of research to back up this statement.

Pregnancy
The most obvious difference between the sexes, is that women can become pregnant. Condoms don’t always work, hormonal birth control doesn’t always work; I know of women who have gotten pregnant while using either of these contraceptives. The only way to insure you don’t get pregnant is to not have sex. The maternal death rate in the United States is around 17 deaths per 100,000 births and pregnancy also has other life changing complications. Pregnancy takes a toll on a woman’s body and is not something to be taken lightly even when planned.

If a woman conceives she can’t keep it a secret for long like a man can because a man can’t conceive. Even if a woman decides to have an abortion, there are potential side effects, including the mother’s death in some cases. If a mother wants to give the baby up for adoption, the act of carrying a life and giving birth to a baby adds an additional emotional wrinkle that sometimes leads to a mother changing her mind after initially agreeing to an adoption. Pregnancies (especially unplanned) can lead to emotional consequences that women endure but men can avoid.

For this reason my dad’s advice to my brother and I was “don’t have sex with anyone you couldn’t do business with.” I say he told this to my brother but I actually don’t know if he did but he certainly said it to me on more than one occasion. Why me and not my brother? Because it is more relevant to me. If I get pregnant and I keep the baby, I am 1) forever connected to the baby’s father even if we are not in a relationship and 2) more locked into the responsibility than he is. From conception, the mother is literally and therefore emotionally more connected to the baby, making it harder for her to run away from the responsibility.

I do know that my father told my brother, if you get a girl pregnant, you’re pregnant too, (metaphorically) but in reality, we all know that especially in the baby’s early years, from breastfeeding to dirty diapers, the mother does much of the heavy lifting.

Injuries
Believe it or not, sex related injuries are a fairly common occurrence. Did you know 30% of women report having pain or discomfort the last time they had sex? This compared to only 5% of men. The pain could be due to a variety of factors including vaginal tearing, yeast infections and urinary tract infections. The main injury men get from sex that women don’t is a broken penis. Sounds pretty serious but it is extremely uncommon. To give you some perspective, In 13 years of analyzing medical records in a region with over 3 million people…researchers found only 42 patients with confirmed penile fractures. Yeast infections alone effect over 75% of women in their lifetime.

Forget pregnancy, sex is just more likely to cause overall discomfort for women.

Sexual Standards
While everyone who’s interacted with men and women know this, for some reason its controversial to say: men and women are different emotionally when it comes to sex. And there are countless studies to back this up.

The median number of sexual partners for a woman in America is three, while it’s five for a man. And let’s be real here, when it comes to gender, which one has an easier time finding someone willing to go to bed with them? I know very few females who couldn’t come home with a guy every Friday night if they wanted to. I know males who try to come home with a female every Friday night and fail most of the time. The standard for the average woman is higher than the standard for the average man. Most women report they do not marry the man who gave them “the best sex of their life,” but instead look for a loving, multi-dimensional relationship.

This theory has been tested in other experiments where a male and female walk around asking complete strangers if they would have sex with them. 75% of males agreed to have sex with a complete stranger where 0% of women agreed. This was the biggest gender difference ever discovered in psychological science. In a less scientific, but still fun version of this experiment, some YouTubers repeated the experiment finding less than 1% of women agreed to have sex with a stranger compared to 30% of men. Clearly, men are a little more eager to engage in casual sex than women, but why is that?

Emotional Differences
You may think women aren’t as into casual sex because of safety concerns, fear of pregnancy, or fear of being discovered but studies have also found that even when men and women are surveyed on the basis that none of the above concerns would be an issue, women are still far less interested in casual sex than men. Still think patriarchy is to blame? Researchers have found that in the most egalitarian societies the difference in the desire for promiscuity between gender actually grows larger. Furthermore, across all societies on Earth, even the least patriarchal, women always are less interested in casual sex.

Researchers have also found that men are far more interested in a two women, one man threesome versus a woman being interested in any threesome combination. Men are also more likely to have fantasies about short term sexual relationships. Men imagine having sex with more partners than women. Men spend more on prostitutes, strippers and porn..need I go on? This seems like common sense stuff to me, but I have to cover my bases.

So why do women crave longer term relationships? Why do women yearn for romance over cheap lust? Why is it that 84% of romance novel readers are women and romantic comedies are aptly nicknamed “chick flicks.” Because men and women process emotions differently.

Studies using brain imaging and blood tests have found that men are less reactionary to negative emotions because negative signals spend more time in the part of their brains associated with reasoning. A study out of Institut universitaire en santé mentale de Montréal and the University of Montreal looked at the amygdala (the brain’s threat detector) and the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (the brain’s regulator of perception, reasoning and emotional regulation) and saw that these two areas interacted more with men when they viewed negative images compared to women.

Coauthor Stéphane Potvin, an associate professor at University of Montreal’s department of psychiatry, said in a press release:

“A stronger connection between these areas in men suggests they have a more analytical than emotional approach when dealing with negative emotions. It is possible that women tend to focus more on the feelings generated by these stimuli, while men remain somewhat ‘passive’ toward negative emotions, trying to analyze the stimuli and their impact.”

Ok, so that explains why perhaps women tend to be more feelings focused. (Not a bad thing by the way.) But why does sex make us (especially women) get all emotional? While I have my own spiritual theories, the science isn’t conclusive. But, sex does appears to have a much longer lasting emotional effect on women.

A study done by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention found that as a woman’s number of sexual partners went up before marriage, so did her likelihood of divorce. Women with over ten sexual partners are most likely to divorce while the odds of divorce are lowest amongst those women with one or zero premarital sex partners. The same is not said in regards to men, meaning marital success doesn’t seem to correlate with the number of partners the man has had before marriage. However, both men and women report more satisfaction with their sex life the fewer number of sexual partners they’ve had.

We all know intuitively that sex affects men and women differently, both physically and mentally. Why do so many pretend we have the same attitude? And if we’re choosing to push one attitude over the other why are we pushing the male attitude towards sex on women instead of the other way around?! Virtually all data shows that the fewer sexual partners you have, the more fulfilling your relationships will be.

If someone gives different advice to a female when it comes to sex as opposed to a male, don’t call them a sexist, perhaps they are simply acknowledging that sex has different consequences for men and women, which isn’t sexist at all. Perhaps they’re aware that a woman has more to lose every time she engages in sexual activity.

I’m not saying everyone must wait ‘til marriage or they’re doomed. But be picky about who you sleep with. Not only should it be a privilege for someone to go dancing in the sheets with you, it should contribute to a romantic connection you and your partner are both equally interested in pursuing and maintaining.

0 The Surprise Success of A Quiet Place

April 9, 2018
by Connie Morgan
· Culture · Thought Box

While no one predicted A Quiet Place to be a failure, in its opening weekend it surpassed expectations. Opening at number one, the movie raked in $50 million, when Hollywood predicted that optimistically it would bring just $25 million. A 97% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and word of mouth is thought to have helped boost attendance. Ryan Reynolds, Stephen King and high-profile people aplenty are singing its praises. I was one of the people helping to spread the word.

I am a big Emily Blunt fan and, like everyone else, I have watched every episode of The Office. I was excited to see the real life couple work together for the first time, and while this isn’t the first movie John Krasinski has directed, it would be the first one I watched. I spread the word because it had good reviews and I wanted to support the actors involved.

Last Friday, opening weekend, I watched the movie. If you’re unfamiliar with the premise it’s about a family, Lee (played by Krasinski), Evelyn (played by Blunt) and their children, living in a post-apocalyptic world where monsters hunt anything living, but only by sound. Make a noise and they’re on you within seconds. A review I read said to watch it in a crowded theatre (and he was right). I really liked the movie. It wasn’t terrifying like I thought it would be but was good for reasons I didn’t expect.

*Spoilers Below*
A Quiet Place has surprisingly conservative undertones. The structure of the family is traditional. By that I mean the mom is feminine and the father is masculine. The dad is the protector and the provider while the mother is the homemaker and the teacher. Very early in the film, the family loses their youngest son. They’re walking home in a line and suddenly the boy starts playing with a loud toy. Evelyn, who is closer than Lee turns around and starts crying. It’s Lee, who is farther away, who sprints as fast as he can towards his child supposedly to try to push him out-of-the-way so he can be killed by the monsters instead. Evelyn isn’t a bad parent for not running towards her child; perhaps she’s the smarter parent because there is nothing any of them can do except potentially get killed. But Lee is a man, and traditionally it’s men who run towards a fight.

Femininity is needed as well. Lee is obsessed with protecting his family and figuring out how to kill the monsters. It’s fun seeing all the clever ways they have set up their home in order to communicate, protect themselves, and survive. That being said, the man is stressed. You can’t really blame him for this but it’s Evelyn who calms him down. She pulls him away from his desk and they enjoy a tender romantic moment slow dancing while listening to music through headphones. Evelyn also calms her son down when he’s extremely nervous about going to get fish with his dad. Evelyn is the calm in the storm, even when she’s not calm. Women are generally the calming force in a family and that is certainly the case in A Quiet Place.

Speaking of bringing the son to fish, my brother and I argued about whether Lee bringing his son out to fish and leaving his daughter who wanted to go was a gender-based decision or not. I don’t think it was, but my brother does. Evelyn tells her son that Lee wants to teach him how to take care of her. At first look I would agree, this is a gender based decision. But the sister is deaf and has a history of not listening. The truth is, the daughter is a liability in more ways than one, so I see why you may not want to take her out on an excursion into monsterland. Lee does tap into his son’s masculine side later in the film when at first his son refuses to run across a field. Only when Lee tells him his mother needs his help does the boy’s attitude change, and it changes immediately.

Lee is short with the kids. He loves them but he’s all about survival while Evelyn brings warmth and meaning to the kids’ lives and her husband’s. You can tell a difference even in the way that they sign, Lee’s hands are harsh while Evelyn’s are somehow kinder. But you need both: without Lee they die, without Evelyn they want to die.

Children are sacred in this movie. Not only the born ones but the unborn. Evelyn is pregnant. You can see how in a movie all about staying as quiet as possible this could be a problem. First of all, why is she pregnant? Clearly these are smart people yet they didn’t use any condoms? They have access to condoms and in the timeframe they still wouldn’t’ve expired. This makes me think they chose to get pregnant as the bringing of new life is fundamental to their survival and humanity’s. This means they’ve decided life is still worth living and they have an obligation to contribute to the ongoing of mankind.

But maybe they got pregnant on accident. If there’s any situation in which an abortion would be ethical, it’s a world where everyone gets killed if a single sound is made. We see earlier in the movie that they have access to drugs in a nearby town. While a surgical abortion is out of the question there are certainly other ways to cause “miscarriages.” One might argue that an abortion or killing the child shortly after it’s born would be the ethical thing to do because a baby puts the whole family at risk. This seems to have never occurred to the family who set up an elaborate plan for Evelyn to give birth and take care of the baby.

Now it may seem like I’m making Evelyn’s character out to be a weak, simple woman. She isn’t. At the end of the movie she is the first and only person to actually take out one of the monsters and she does so when it’s inches away from killing all three of her children. Not only does she kill the monster, she had the calm to wait to shoot the perfect shot, knowing other monsters would be on them at the noise. The mother figure isn’t weak, just feminine, and it’s modern day feminists who conflate those two terms. The woman has a baby with no drugs while being chased by monsters. Ain’t nothing weak about that, but is there anything more feminine than giving birth? There’s nothing more important to her than protecting her children; she literally tells Lee this in the film.

Because the family operates in this traditional way, they are believable and because they are believable, you emotionally invest in them. This movie made me care about the survival of the family more than I usually do for any type of film but especially when you talk about the thriller genre.

Feminism (in its current form) is all fine and dandy in theory, but when surviving is the goal, it’s simply not sustainable and Krasinski clearly knows this based on the direction of the movie. To make a film where women are just as strong as men or men are comforting in the same way as women wouldn’t be telling the truth. A woman isn’t going to be able to race through the woods carrying a kid for as long or as fast as a man. A man isn’t going to have as much patience teaching young kids as a woman has. Of course these are generalizations, but they’re generalizations with statistical significance. To get away from that, like so many recent movies have, is to ignore the truth.

Even in a hellish world there is nothing more beautiful than life. Humans are wired to protect life under a certain dynamic. That dynamic is man and woman, mother and father, feminine and masculine. A Quiet Place hits that nail right on the head.

Page 1 of 2