Friday, March 20, 2009

How the Double Standard Works Against Guys

Here's some research that begins to illuminate a fascinating issue that our society will eventually have to deal with head-on. From Canada's National Post:
Women have long complained that men enjoy a double standard when it comes to sexual behaviour, but a new Canadian study reveals a shift which actually puts more sexual limitations on men, while lifting those on women.

That men are traditionally high-fived for wantonness while women are often pegged as sluttish has been an age-old watercooler discussion, a point of contention among those seeking to level what they consider an unfair playing field.

But the reality, according to the study, is that men are not totally unconstrained. Instead, they are more limited by what is considered taboo in the bedroom; hit by a new double standard that expects men to be highly sexual, and yet expects them to be less experimental - while the opposite is true for women. The new sexual double standard

Every college campus has a Women's Studies department, women have tons of books on how to explore their sexuality, magazine articles about how to experience more sexual enjoyment and how to be a more satisfying partner. Guys have porn, woo-hoo. For men the goal of sex is to score, with no extra points for style, technique, or results. Is there a Men's Studies department anywhere? Maybe there is, I'm just asking.
The study, published in the Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, found that society accords men less "sexual latitude" than women, deeming it abnormal for a man to be disinterested in sex, to engage in homosexual fantasy, and to engage in submissive sexual acts.

"The double standard used to give men more sexual freedom than women, but these findings indicate that the dynamic is changing" said Alex McKay, research coordinator for the Sex Information and Education Council of Canada. "Men are forced to abide by a certain gender role, while women are today more free to be themselves. In this sense, the standard actually works against the man."

In our local controversies over sexual orientation and gender identity, this double standard is revealed in the fixation that certain groups of nutty people have with men who violate commonplace social expectations. You won't hear the Citizens for a Responsible Whatever complaining about lesbians, or about people raised as girls who take on a male gender identity in adulthood. It's all about gay men and transgender people who have transitioned from male to female. The pressure is on guys to be regular straight guys.

(I did think there is an ironic anomaly in this particular article saying that "women are often pegged" ... oh, never mind...)

Do you ever watch Craig Ferguson, that Scottish talk-show host who's on late-late? The guy is great, he's funny and I am blown away by how fast he is at improvising really funny stuff. Like once I was watching, and some beautiful glamorous actress was on, and she said "I do a lot of international traveling." And Ferguson said, "Do you? I eat at International House of Pancakes a lot. I love their Rooty Tooty Fresh 'n' Fruity," totally diverting her intended self-serving conversational trajectory. I wish I could think of things like that.

He does something that I think is really funny and good, which is that he makes jokes sometimes that imply he might be gay, and the joke is that you can't tell, maybe he really would like to get trapped in an elevator with Brad Pitt. Well, I understand he recently married a woman, but ... a number of ministers and Republican politicians have recently proven that that doesn't mean anything. Anyway, I take it as a healthy thing, he doesn't need to convince you that he's a straight guy, he is what he is and it's your choice to like him or not. In my mind that contrasts favorably with the Larry the Cable Guy kind of man, where every joke is about how straight he is, on some level.

Guys, this is a trap. Women are learning to enjoy sex and all we're doing is keeping score. You're going to wonder why there are articles like THIS out there, why some women are losing interest in men as romantic partners.
The researchers say the findings "underscore the conflictive nature of the sexual double standard when applied to men ... It demands that they evidence greater interest in sexual matters, yet also requires that this interest be channelled into modes of expression that are ‘socially appropriate.'"

One reason for why a greater number of "non-normative" behaviours are considered acceptable for women is that women are allowed to take on both dominant and subordinate sexual roles; men are not given that same exploratory space.

"Men have a clear idea of what's acceptable," said Sue McGarvie, sex therapist and radio personality. "They're more concerned about maintaining their macho persona. It's as if they think they need to have sex standing up with their boots on in order to show their manliness."

As women's tastes get more refined and their standards go up, old-fashioned Neanderthal men become less appealing to them. This creates a niche for men who are, shall we say, "liberated." If women are learning to explore and enjoy the many dimensions of their sexuality, why would they want to spend their evenings with a one-dimensional lover? Guys are going to have to change.
The study, by Todd Morrison, a psychology professor at the University of Saskatchewan, calls for a deeper look into the impact of these new dynamics on men.

"Greater research attention should be given to the burden that some men may experience as a function of exposure to a sexual double standard that demands they evidence an interest in sexuality and should lead and control sexual interactions," the study said.

That a greater number of sexual behaviours are considered normal, and desirable, for women exemplifies the trend that more once-taboo sexual behaviours are making their way out of what the study refers to as the "outer limits" and into what it calls the "charmed category."

For example, society now appears to accept the idea that married men and women masturbate, something that just over a decade ago was a "major area of contest," the study said.

But, while the study in a sense debunks the notion that men have the upper hand in the sexual arena, so too does it reveal that certain aspects of the traditional double standard are still at play.

When it comes to the traditional notion that it is more acceptable for men to watch pornography or be sexually active, for example, the study shows that women deem men's sexual prowess as more acceptable than their own, embracing their role as the gender of lesser promiscuity.

"Women, in certain ways, were shown to accept the longstanding double standard," said Mr. McKay.

This is very complicated and intriguing stuff. Our society underwent a revolution fifty years or so ago, and we have come a long way but we are still in transition. Women work with men, women vote, alimony can go either way, companies offer maternity leave, we worry about glass ceilings ... a lot has changed. And a lot has stayed the same. Now it's time for the other shoe to drop, a men's revolution, to adapt to this new order of things. I'm not holding my breath.

32 Comments:

Blogger Priya Lynn said...

"The study, by Todd Morrison, a psychology professor at the University of Saskatchewan..."

On a per capita basis people from Saskatchewan tend to be more successful than from anywhere else.

The world leading work studying LSD was done in Saskatchewan in the 50's and 60's, it is where the term "psychedelic" was coined. One Saskatchewan study into the therapeutic use of LSD showed that 50% of severe alcoholics who were treated with the drug stopped drinking, an amazing success rate compared to the 30% success rate of the religion based AA 12 step program. Sadly hysteria took over and research into the therapeutic research of LSD was banned in the 60's. How many lives might have been saved from servere alchoholism if this wasn't the case.

March 20, 2009 5:06 PM  
Blogger Clandaddy said...

Wow. How wonderfully off topic, Priya. :-?
Back to sex, though.
Sorry, but this is old news recycled. It used to be the emerging need for a 'sensitive' man who was not afraid to cry or explore his feminine side. So some guys, thinking they would score, became 'sensitive' and guess what?
Women rejected the reality while all of the talking heads were still blathering about how men need to sit up and take notice. A new day is dawning and women want more from men, blah, blah, blah.
Hollywood tried to cater to this 'new man' and, while there were some enormously talented artists found during this hunt for something other than Rock Hudson types, eventually good old fashioned capitalist demand pushed back and we got a return of the strong jawed, wide shouldered, forthright, manly man that you see in the theaters today.
Same ole sh*t, different day. The moral of the story is, be brave, be yourself and you'll always find someone whose going your own particular way.

March 21, 2009 9:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

just sick:

"MIDDLEFIELD, Ohio (March 20) — James M. Mason knew his wife since she was born a boy.

The janitor and former military man was a boarder in the child's home and was treated like family.

Many were surprised when he married Chris nearly three years ago, not just because he knew she underwent sex-change surgery 13 years before, temporarily calling herself Christine Newton-John after the pop singer with the same last name.

He was in his 70s, she in her 30s.

He was mild-mannered; she had a domineering personality.

Then, last summer, there was another surprise: Chris Mason was accused of exercising her frail husband to death so she could inherit his retirement benefits, in an attack caught on surveillance video.

Mason was sentenced Friday to four years in prison on her guilty plea to reckless homicide."

just sick......

March 21, 2009 9:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

how about the double standard for Bush and Obama?

could you imagine if Bush had maligned the special olympics?

"GREENSBORO, N.C. -- It wasn't a spectacular week, I dare say, for our sporting enthusiast of a president.

First, Barack Obama spent a fair amount of time filling out his NCAA bracket on television, making us wonder if his sports fixation is a bit silly and awkward in a national time of crisis.

Then, while discussing his bowling pursuits with Jay Leno, Obama compared his struggles to "Special Olympics,'' an astonishingly insensitive line that wasn't even his, recalling how Harold Ramis said it to Bill Murray in "Stripes.''

Now, a Special Olympian who averages a 266 and works in a Michigan grocery store is challenging Obama to a bowl-off.

"He's cool,'' Kolan McConiughey said of Obama, "but he can't beat me.''

Mike Krzyzewski, a GOP fundraiser from way back, who noted that Obama didn't have his Duke team in the Final Four.

"As much as I respect what he's done, really, the economy is something that he should focus on, probably, more than the brackets. So why would I care about that?'' said Krzyzewski. This effectively planted the first seed that Obama is too obsessed with sports, not a tag he wants if the economy continues to implode."

And how about those who complained Bush was running deficits? His deficits look quaint compared to Obama's plans:

"President Obama's ambitious plans to cut middle-class taxes, overhaul health care and expand access to college would require massive borrowing over the next decade, leaving the nation mired far deeper in debt than the White House previously estimated, congressional budget analysts said yesterday.

In the first independent analysis of Obama's budget proposal, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that Obama's policies would cause government spending to swell above historic levels even after costly programs to ease the recession and stabilize the nation's financial system have ended.

Tax collections, meanwhile, would lag well behind spending, producing huge annual budget deficits that would force the nation to borrow nearly $9.3 trillion over the next decade -- $2.3 trillion more than the president predicted when he unveiled his budget request just one month ago.

Although Obama would come close to meeting his goal of cutting in half the deficit he inherited by the end of his first term, the CBO predicts that deficits under his policies would exceed 4 percent of the overall economy over the next 10 years, a level White House budget director Peter R. Orszag yesterday acknowledged would "not be sustainable."

The result, according to the CBO, would be an ever-expanding national debt that would exceed 82 percent of the overall economy by 2019 -- double last year's level -- and threaten the nation's financial stability."

Can Obama be stopped before he destroys America?

2010 will be huge.

America will update the resumes of Congressional Democrats.

March 21, 2009 9:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts.

March 21, 2009 10:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

they might not except that, at the levels Obama proposing, inflation will be Latin American style

hard to believe now but that's what's coming

besides, hypocrisy is an issue too; Obama made this a major campaign issue

March 21, 2009 11:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

NEW YORK (AP) - Wall Street closed out its first two-week gain in almost a year Friday...For the week, the Dow rose 0.8 percent, its first back-to-back weekly increase since the period ended May 2, 2008.

The S&P rose 1.6 percent, its first two-week gain since December, and the Nasdaq added 1.8 percent for the week.

The stock market began to rally off of 12-year lows beginning two weeks ago after several banks reported being profitable in the first two months of the year. Even after Thursday's retreat, the Dow was up 13 percent from its lows, and the Standard & Poor's 500 index was up nearly 16 percent.

March 21, 2009 1:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

not to hard to be profitable if the government is handing you billions of dollars

March 21, 2009 2:16 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

Time has a great article titled,

"How to End The War Over Sex Ed"

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1886558,00.html


Just more evidence that comprehensive is the way to go!!


www.time.com

March 21, 2009 3:35 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

not to hard to be profitable if the government is handing you billions of dollars

We all remember stocks kept tumbling down the abyss after Bush handed out his $700 billion bailout package in October 2008. Why? Because the hole caused by deregulated greed in the housing industry was deeper than that and growing. It's hard to stop a freefall with somebody tossing a string instead of sufficient rope. Now that banks have been given enough money to lend, qualified borrowers can get a 30 year fixed mortgage at less than 5% interest. You couldn't do that last October.

Last year both Obama and McCain agreed that Bush's $700 billion bailout was not enough.

Oct. 6, 2008 Both major-party presidential candidates declared today that the global stock sell-off -- that pushed the Dow Jones industrial average below 10,000 for the first time in four years -- shows that the $700 billion bailout passed last week isn't enough to rescue the economy.

Democrat Barack Obama said another stimulus package is needed, along with more unemployment benefits.

"Not only are we seeing the stock market go down but there is still great danger of the credit markets not responding and the contagion is spreading to all parts of the globe. Europe is having some of the same problems," he told reporters in Asheville, N.C.

"It is a reminder that the rescue package that was passed last week is not the end of our efforts to deal with the economy, it’s just the beginning. I think it is very important for Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke to move swiftly and try to restore confidence as quickly as possible, and effectuate the plans based on the authority that has been given to them by Congress. I think it is still critical for us to move forward on an economic stimulus package that can provide people with some relief from high gas prices, food prices, help state and local governments maintain their payrolls. I think we have to extend unemployment insurance after the statistics showing that 159,000 additional jobs were lost just last month. We’re going to have to then, move on an aggressive plan to deal with some of the underlying structural problems in the economy including the housing market."

Republican John McCain said sweeping reform in the way Washington works is needed.

"The action Congress took last week to address our financial crisis was a tourniquet, but not a permanent solution," he told voters in Albuquerque, N.M. "Today we are seeing the stock market fall, and the credit crisis spread to other parts of the world. Our economy is still hurting -- working families are worried about the price of groceries, the price of gas, keeping their jobs and paying their mortgage -- further action is needed. We need to restore confidence in our economy and in our government."


John McCain's erratic changes during his campaign continue. McCain, who was once a believer in the importance of bipartisanship to get the job done, is now whipping up the conservative base that previously shunned him, talking about things like "generational theft." While he does that, President Obama is busy carrying forward with what he said he'd do: extending unemployment, giving consumers breaks so they have money to pump up the economy, spending targeted stimulus money to help stem job losses, and providing needed funds to allow banks to begin lending money to consumers again. And now, for the first time since last spring, the stock market has advanced two weeks in a row. Some of us are hopeful this is a good sign of what's ahead because we want the President to succeed in fixing the financial mess he inherited.

March 22, 2009 10:51 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Back to the topic at hand. Here's more evidence of a double standard at work:

Sheboygan girl, 17, charged for allegedly having sex with boy, 14

By Eric Litke
Sheboygan Press staff

A 17-year-old Sheboygan girl was charged Thursday with misdemeanor sexual assault for allegedly having sex with her 14-year-old boyfriend.

Norma J. Guthrie, of 1034-A Michigan Ave., was in court a day after a 17-year-old Sheboygan boy was charged with a felony for allegedly having sex with a 14-year-old girlfriend.

Guthrie admitted having sex with the boy between 10 and 15 times, according to a complaint charging her with fourth-degree sexual assault. She faces a maximum of nine months in jail, if convicted.

Police began investigating when the boy's mother reported he might be staying overnight at Guthrie's house, the complaint said. Guthrie told police the boy had claimed to be 16.

On Wednesday, Alan J. Jepsen, 17, of 1416 New York Ave., was charged for allegedly having sex with a 14-year-old girl who he claimed told him she was 16. Jepsen is facing a count of felony second-degree sexual assault, which carries a maximum prison term of 25 years.

The girl, who may be pregnant, had run away from home and was staying with Jepsen, a complaint said.

Assistant District Attorney Jim Haasch, who filed both complaints, said the misdemeanor charge was filed in part because Guthrie has no prior criminal record. But online court records show Guthrie has a pending charge of misdemeanor battery, filed in October.

Haasch would not say whether Jepsen has a prior juvenile record — which is typically sealed — but the boy has no adult charges listed in online court records.

Haasch also said the cases are different because Guthrie's boyfriend is "almost 15," with a birthday in February. Jepsen's girlfriend turns 15 in April.

Jepsen is in jail in lieu of a $1,000 cash bond, while Guthrie was released on a $1,000 signature bond after her initial court appearance Thursday, jail officials said.

Both Guthrie and Jepsen were charged as adults. All suspects age 17 and older are charged as adults by default in Wisconsin, though they can seek a waiver into juvenile court.

March 22, 2009 11:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the hole caused by deregulated greed in the housing industry was deeper than that and growing"

Crazy old Aunt Bea is at again.

Puttin' on the nutty economics professors' cap!

Explain to us, o crazed one, how the housing industry was once regulated and how and who "deregulated" it.

Truth is, our problems stem from the securitization of mortgages and President B.O. has no problem with that.

I watched him on Leno last week (classy venue, Barry) and, in addition to maligning handicapped people, he suggested he wanted to do the same with auto loans and college loans.

Will that cause another economic collapse in 15 years?

We'll see.

Barry's digging himself a nice hole for the 2010 congressional elections.

March 22, 2009 6:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dream on, oh witless one! Your prayers and supplications to whoever are not going to result in the desired failure of this President and this Congress (not counting the pessimist, naysaying Republicans of course) that you so fervently want.
Once again "Anonymous", you are on the losing side because your are a sniveling loser!
Diogenes

March 22, 2009 7:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dio

You sad fellow!

Obama's approval ratngs are dropping and are lower than Bush's were at this point.

March 22, 2009 8:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's right!

He ratings are dropping.

March 23, 2009 8:09 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Oh that's choice. You talk like a conflicted anti-science Econ professor and now you're projecting the professor role onto me. That's choice, barryo. I hate to burst your bubble, but I'm simply a suburban housewife who does research and reports the facts I find along with their sources so each reader can read them learn things for themselves, while you know it all already so you only bother to read Wash Post and WSJ op eds, which you sometimes post here without attribution.

I'll give you a gold star for proofreading though. I should have said "the hole caused by deregulated greed in financing the housing industry was deeper than that and growing"

I've more fully discussed that "deregulated greed" in previous threads, but I guess you want a quick refresher course. Here you go:

It started with Reagan, who took the "first step in our administration's comprehensive program of financial deregulation" when he signed the Garn-St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 into law allowing Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs) for the first time, and it continued through the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, "which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, opening up competition among banks, securities companies and insurance companies." in the selling of worthless derivatives of repackaged bad mortgages and credit default swaps, and continued right on up through Bush's 2003 American Dream Downpayment Initiative.

March 23, 2009 8:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Guys, go find a good econ blog spot to bitch about who is *really* to blame while *both* parties continue to drive our economy into the toilet.

Bea,
Back to the issue at hand: How does the equal (finally) application of law to *a* girl count as evidence of a double standard?
Guys, young and old, have been hit with statutory rape charges for a looooong time. I can match you easily with cases of adult teachers having sex with high school and middle school children who were not held accountable at all.
The original premise of the blog was that women are looking for something different in a man because they have developed such discerning tastes all of a sudden.
I'll say it again, Same ole sh*t, different day! Women who cannot be bothered to communicate across the divide (vive la difference!) have been wishing for a more womanly man for as long as men have been longing for a more manly man and for exactly the same reasons.

March 23, 2009 2:52 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Bea,
Back to the issue at hand: How does the equal (finally) application of law to *a* girl count as evidence of a double standard?


Read the story again. Their treatment was not equal. The 17 year old male (17M) got the book thrown at him while the 17 year old female (17F) got off comparatively easy, even though both of them were accused of having sex with a 14 year old.

The 17F was only charged with a misdemeanor and faces 9 months in jail if convicted whereas the 17M was charged with a felony and faces a possible maximum of 25 years in jail. Further 17F was released on $1,000 signature bond but 17M was put in jail because he couldn't make a $1,000 cash bond.

These events are a clear example of a double standard being applied.

March 23, 2009 6:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It started with Reagan, who took the "first step in our administration's comprehensive program of financial deregulation" when he signed the Garn-St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 into law allowing Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs) for the first time, and it continued through the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, "which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, opening up competition among banks, securities companies and insurance companies." in the selling of worthless derivatives of repackaged bad mortgages and credit default swaps, and continued right on up through Bush's 2003 American Dream Downpayment Initiative."

Crazy old Aunt Bea. Wacky as a loon!

So you favor outlawing adjustable rate mortgages?

Forbidding banks from competing?

You oppose government assistance to help lower income citizens make the down payments on homes?

Why then do you now favor government intervention when you feel it caused the problem?

Of course, Professor Taylor has shrewd and unique perspectives:

She regularly talks money with Gomer and Goober down at the fillin' station!

March 23, 2009 9:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bea,
Well then, right on! This is what *I* get for skimming rather than reading c-a-r-efully.
I've been kvetching about legal double standards since I was a mere wisp of a thing.
In MD, if my better half calls the cops and says, "He hit me." they are *required* to haul me away.
If I call the cops and say the same thing ... no such requirement. This is what comes from legislating because it *feels* right, rather than thinking first and making it *work* right.
Just like the new Md No texting while driving law. I listened to one of our reps, Brochin (sp?), say that this unenforceable law, designed to keep stoopid people from doing stoopid things, was the result of "having to sit in committee and hear weeping families who had lost someone because of someone who was texting and driving." Um, when did legislation become something thoughtless and feel-good?
I mean, other than the stimulus package that NO ONE READ before voting for it.

March 23, 2009 11:10 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Well then, right on! This is what *I* get for skimming rather than reading c-a-r-efully. I've been kvetching about legal double standards since I was a mere wisp of a thing.

What is the problem with reading comprehension on the right side of the aisle? Read it again, Goober, and this time notice that the DA is the one who chose which charges to file for which 17 year old. The story pointed out the DA said he selected lesser charges for 17F:

Assistant District Attorney Jim Haasch, who filed both complaints, said the misdemeanor charge was filed in part because Guthrie has no prior criminal record. But online court records show Guthrie has a pending charge of misdemeanor battery, filed in October.

Haasch would not say whether Jepsen has a prior juvenile record — which is typically sealed — but the boy has no adult charges listed in online court records.

Haasch also said the cases are different because Guthrie's boyfriend is "almost 15," with a birthday in February. Jepsen's girlfriend turns 15 in April.


There is no separate law for males and females, but there is often illegal discrimination on the basis of gender in the application of existing laws. Google how LGBT people, especially transwomen are treated, for some eye-opening gender discrimination tales and you will learn why is so important for Maryland to pass the same legislation as MoCo recently approved to protect people regardless of their gender identity from discrimination.

She regularly talks money with Gomer and Goober down at the fillin' station!

OK Goomer, if you insist...

I think ARMs started the slippery slope from post-Depression banking regulation to the deregulation that caused the 2008-and-counting recession.

I prefer banks stick to banking, you know being a place where people save their money that the bankers invest wisely so other customers may borrow money for their small businesses, mortgages, and other needs.

I'm all for government helping lower income citizens get into homes, but not if it saddles them with mortgage payments they can't handle and they end up in foreclosure with ruined credit ratings. The government needs to find a better, more effective way that not only gets lower income citizens into homes, but helps them stay there.

She regularly talks money with Gomer and Goober down at the fillin' station!

This ain't no fillin' station. This here's the Vigilance blog, barryo.

March 24, 2009 7:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

kudos on a civil and not self-conscious response, Bea

I disagree about the ARMs but reasonable people can, right?

btw, Geithner scored yesterday with a plan rather than a vague principle

maybe things will start heading in the right direction after all

watched Barry's interview on 60 Minutes- if nothing else, he's got the right temperment

March 24, 2009 8:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I watched the press conference tonight - Obama's got the right temperament and the brilliance we're going to need in these dark times.

March 24, 2009 10:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the darkest thing about these times is that the guy running the show just isn't that brilliant

March 24, 2009 10:51 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Obama's approval ratngs are dropping and are lower than Bush's were at this point.

Well that's what you say, but who are you? Just another spinner of unsubstantiated BS. Gallup says otherwise because it reports facts:

Barack Obama's Most Recent Weekly Approval Rating Average 63% (Mar 16-22, 2009)...

Other Elected Presidents in March of First Term:

George W. Bush 58% (March 2001)

Bill Clinton 53% (March 1993)

George H.W. Bush 60% (March 1989)

Ronald Reagan 60% (March 1981)

Jimmy Carter 72% (March 1977)

Richard Nixon 55% (March 1969)

John Kennedy 73% (March 1961)

Dwight Eisenhower 74% (March 1953)

March 25, 2009 8:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good show, Bea, and Anon.
One idiot takes a pot shot at 'the right' for a lack of reading comprehension skills while another idiot lauds her for a 'civil response' to a respondent who did not mention their politics in their post, at all.
But, Bea, just to set the record straight, there is BOTH male and female law AND illegal discrimination under the law.
In MD, if a woman calls the police for a domestic violence beef, they are required to take the husband/boyfriend/live-in into custody. Their is no equivalent law for battered males, straight, cross, or sideways.
I wonder if you are capable of non-snarky, non-political responses to non-snarky, non-political posts.

March 25, 2009 8:48 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

I wonder if you are capable of non-snarky, non-political responses to non-snarky, non-political posts.

If I ever see and non-snarky, non-political posts here, you might find out.

March 25, 2009 2:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aww, Bea. You disappoint me.
Best response woiuld have been:
"Yes, I can."

March 25, 2009 3:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like the B.O. man has a lot in common with another presidential winner, Jimmy Carter.

Thanks for setting the record straight, Aunt Bea.

Another crazy old bat with internet access at the facility.

March 25, 2009 7:47 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Well, that's just perfect. Thanks for demonstrating once again that when all else fails, you are only too happy to stoop to the personal attack.

March 26, 2009 7:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bea..Bea..crazy old Aunt Bea

nothing else failed

now, take your meds and a nice nap

March 26, 2009 7:58 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

nothing else failed

Right! "It's all strategic." (wink)

MICHAEL STEELE, RNC CHAIRMAN: I'm very introspective about things. I don't do -- I'm a cause-and-effect kind of guy. So if I do something, there's a reason for it, even -- it may look like a mistake, a gaffe. There is a rationale, there's a logic behind it.

LEMON: Even with the current events and news?

STEELE: Yes.

LEMON: A rationale behind Rush and all of that stuff. You want to share with us?

STEELE: Sure. I want to see what the landscape looks like. I want to see who yells the loudest. I want to know who says they're with me but really isn't.

LEMON: How does that help you?

STEELE: It helps me understand my position on the chess board. It helps me understand, you know, where the enemy camp is and where those who are inside the tent are.

LEMON: It's all strategic.

STEELE: It's all strategic.

March 26, 2009 11:53 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home