Overdogs #4 Deadbeat Moms

“It’s so hard to know what to do when one wishes earnestly to do right.” - George Bernard Shaw

Once, there was a young couple whose marriage was seriously on the rocks. They argued and did hurtful things to each other. Wielding power over the other was becoming more important to each than nurturing those qualities of the relationship that led them to exchange vows in the first place.

Each came from a stable, two-parent home. They were college graduates with promising careers. Their young son and daughter, whom they both loved dearly, were showing signs of being stressed by the constant discord. If the young couple could resolve their differences, they had all the tools to become pretty decent parents. But coming together wasn’t happening, wasn’t apt to happen anytime soon.

What to do? Decisions had to be made, pronto. The wife was ready to end the union, but what about the kids? Should she rear the children in a home wracked by tension, dissension and anger? That was abhorrent to every maternal instinct in her body. She had long envisioned the perfect home for her perfect family. She simply could not justify exposing her children to this level of conflict.

Divorce. That was an action she had never considered to be a possibility in her life. She would never divorce - she’d known that since she was a little girl. Now, sadly, it was a viable option. Should she get a divorce and raise the kids as a single mother? She had successfully mapped her career and had attained all her professional goals so far. Being a single mother would seriously slow her fast-track rise in her company. Could she accept that and not resent her children? In her heart of hearts, she knew she could not.

So what about letting him have primary custody? He was a thoughtful, caring father. She knew he’d be the better parent, the more patient and less resentful. But vengeance colored her decision, her motives. She knew she could get custody if she chose. Her desire to punish him overcame her desire to do what she knew to be best for her kids. She decided to fight for guardianship.

Here’s where biology and the mother’s home-field advantage crash head-on into men’s rights and our inability to make public policy conform to current reality. As overdogs, men are on a playing field that is nowhere near level. That women in general are better nurturers and caregivers than are men is obvious, but what if the man is the better parent? What if the woman is not as good a person, an uncaring or unwilling mother?

In 2001 89.7% of single custodial parents were female and 10.3% were male. Do the math. In 89.7% of custodial situations, is the mother the better parent, the healthier influence on the child? No way, no how. Not in Betty Friedan’s most feminist dreams. So we’re damaging our kids because we’re too lazy to enact laws and create innovative policy that counteracts centuries of history, where maternal influence was on-going, nearly absolute and a given.

Well, it’s a new century, sports fans. It’s time for men, concerned women, lawmakers and judges to embrace fatherhood, embrace custodial rights for dads and to protect the rights of the children to be with the most capable parent, gender be damned. I know dozens of men who love and adore their kids, and show it, in ways that our fathers and grandfathers simply couldn’t.

Let’s let the 21^st century be the one where fathers finally give and get on an equal basis with mothers. Divorced men, fight for custody if you want it, and spend more time with your kids even if you don’t have primary custody. Judges, lawmakers and social workers, burn that 89.7% figure into your mind and resolve to help lower it. Mothers, if you know he deserves custody, let it be.

But as paternal custody increases, let’s keep a close eye on the under-publicized problem of deadbeat moms. Recent statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau show custodial fathers received only 55.1% of child support payments due. Mothers received 63.8% from the fathers. This, even though fathers’ payments due were 19% higher. Overall, custodial moms received 37% more child support than custodial dads, $2631 to $1910 annually.

So let’s give dads a hand. All kids deserve and need strong father figures. How else can we counteract all that estrogen they were exposed to in the womb?

"Nothing can be more absurd than the practice that prevails in our country of men and women not following the same pursuits with all their strengths and with one mind, for thus, the state instead of being whole is reduced to half." - Plato

It’s all about the kids, folks.

Overdogs #2 When Grandma Becomes “Dirty Harry”

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” - Robert Heinlein

I have a dream. It may not be a dream as grand as Dr. King’s, but it’s my dream and I believe in it nonetheless. I dream of the day when gun possession is mandatory. In my dream, Congress passes a law requiring every adult to carry a loaded gun in public at all times. Unconcealed, holstered for all the world to see. A bullet in the chamber. Bullets in the magazine. Big fines and jail sentences if you ain’t packin’ heat. Everyone’s grandma becomes “Dirty Harry”.

What a different day we would experience. Just think of the possibilities. Start with your morning commute. You get cut off on the freeway. You’re mad. Your middle finger limbers up as you race to catch the offender. Your hand is poised over the horn to give him the rude blast he so richly deserves. After all, what’s he gonna do? You’re packin’. So he meekly accepts the display of your middle digit, and you both go on your way. Another case of road rage averted.

You park your car in a seedy area of downtown and walk to work past the homeless, the helpless, and the shameless. They start to approach you for spare change, but think twice when they compare their rod to yours. They have no money, and can afford only the most meager .22 handguns, no match for your .44 magnum. Thinking better of it, they let you pass and target the next poor sucker who is as challenged ammunitionally as they are.

You arrive at work. You put your personal gun into your briefcase. Your work piece goes into the holster in its place. You’re proud. Your new promotion qualified you for a semi-automatic that is the envy of your former peers. They’re still stuck with small caliber revolvers. Your workday reflects our lawmakers’ wisdom. When a subordinate fails to deliver a needed report on time, you kick start him into gear by threatening to revoke his company gun. The thought of having to shell out a week’s pay to purchase his own gun gets quick action. The report is on your desk before lunch.

Going home, you stop at the mall to return a gift. At the returns counter, an elderly lady is taking entirely too long to complete a return. She’s rummaging through her purse for a receipt or something, and this promises to be an agonizingly long wait. You catch her eye and pat your holster knowingly. “I’m a lot quicker on the draw than you are grandma, so get a move on.” Miraculously, she decides the article to be returned is satisfactory after all. She quickly shoves it back into her shopping bag and scurries on.

Life is good. Your manhood is confirmed every time you fill your holster. The neighborhood punks can’t bug you anymore - they’re too young to pack. Even better, your new piece totally outclasses the rusty hunk of scrap your jerk neighbor calls a gun. Careful, though. Any felony conviction relegates you to rubber bullets for the rest of your life. What’s up with that?

Damn! I just woke up, and it was all only a dream. None of it was real. I’m bummed. I amble out to the kitchen for some coffee and the morning paper. The headlines speak again of teens killing one another in schools, of toddlers finding their parents’ guns, with disastrous results, and of misguided gang members slaying one another because, “I didn’t like the way he looked at me.” But this isn’t a dream, it’s a nightmare. A REAL one. And it’s lasted 200 years too long.

Guns killed 804,676 people in this country from 1979 to 2002. The numbers numb: 33,528 per year, almost 92 per day, essentially one person every 15.7 minutes for 24 years. Does anybody truly believe this is what our founders conceived when they wrote the 2^nd amendment? I guess Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, et al, foresaw Uzis, AK-47s and hollow-point bullets and said, “Hey boys, we’ve got to make these things legal. Someday, there’ll be a group called the NRA. They’re going to want the right to spray hundreds of bullets into a crowd in seconds.” Our founding fathers were indeed visionaries.

Scott Adams, creator of the “Dilbert” comic strip, said it best: "I believe everybody in the world should have guns. Citizens should have bazookas and rocket launchers too. I believe that all citizens should have their weapons of choice. However, I also believe that only I should have the ammunition. Because frankly, I wouldn't trust the rest of the goobers with anything more dangerous than string."

Overdogs #8 Hey Genius, This Crap Is Hot!

“Hey genius, this crap is hot!” - David Letterman, trying to save McDonald’s big legal fees by authoring a warning label to be posted on their coffee, after Stella Liebeck sued McDonalds in the famous “hot coffee” incident.

Not only is some crap hot, much of it is irrelevant. Comics such as Letterman have a way of cutting the crap on issues of the day. The simplistic nature of comedy requires them to get right to the point. Lawyers, judges, plaintiffs and defendants in our litigious society could learn from them. There’s a lot of crap in our courts today.

Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA) has compiled some disturbing statistics about the cost of this crap. Americans file millions of lawsuits annually, costing over $150 billion per year. According to The Economist, tort costs run 0.5% of GNP in Germany, and only 0.4% of GNP in Japan. In the U.S. we spend 2.3% of GNP, more than five times Japan’s rate, and have 30 times more lawsuits per person.

We in the United States spend more on litigation than businesses spend on research and development. How about responsible courts freeing business to spend less on lawyers? The free cash could be spent on more research and development which might – HELLO! – provide better products containing less litigable flaws.

There are 40,000 product liability lawsuits in the United States annually and only 200 in the United Kingdom. The resulting higher prices for products and services are estimated by CALA to total $10 billion per year in California alone. Stepladders cost as much as 25% more, it doubles the cost of a football helmet, certain vaccines cost 66% more, and tonsillectomies about 50% more. A Rand Corporation study estimates wrongful termination lawsuits have cost the state of California as much as 650,000 jobs.

The Detroit Free Press estimates Girl Scouts in greater Detroit must sell 36,000 boxes of cookies each year just to pay liability insurance. Relatives of German victims of the Air France Concorde crash near Paris are suing in the United States because we are where the largest tort awards exist.

When the state of Florida filed suit in September 1999 against Publisher’s Clearing House, Attorney General Bob Butterworth said a settlement with customers didn't provide adequate restitution for Floridians and the company wasn't going far enough to change its ways. Company mailings prey on isolated seniors with frequent, personalized mailings and take advantage of people with failing vision by including disclaimers that are too small to read, he said. A prequel to the recent Florida election debacle, no doubt.

Well, my glasses get thicker annually, and my bifocals arrived recently, but I’m damned if I’ll ever use deteriorating vision as an excuse for being scammed in that manner. But let’s cut to the chase on sweepstakes, so there can be no misunderstanding: Federal Law prohibits requiring purchase of any product or service as a condition of entry to any sweepstakes. Hey, genius, you don’t have to buy anything. Nothing. Nada. El zippo. Your entry is and will be a free ride. Return the entry, but buy nothing!

But it’s not just the cost to society of the frivolous lawsuits that concerns me. I’m dismayed by the lawsuits against Publisher’s Clearing House, American Family Publishing, and other sweepstakes marketers for entirely different reasons. Not because they’re not guilty of egregious deception, because they certainly are. I’m saddened that they’re necessary, that we have such a large segment of people who fall prey to these sharks.

Alzheimer’s and senility notwithstanding, anyone chronologically eligible for Social Security who is duped by these pimps is a reflection of our failure as a society. But why are so many seniors so easy to prey on? When 88 year-old Richard Lusk flew cross-country at his own expense twice within a four-month period to claim non-existent prizes, he made not so much as a phone call to verify anything. Twice! Deception or not, vision problems or not, have they no clue? What practical lessons have they learned in their life? It appears society doesn’t teach Personal Responsibility 101.

I’m not against lawsuits to rein in these parasites. Litigation serves a great purpose, as the $33 million dollar settlement and Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing involving American Family Publishers attests. Prosecuting predators is always good.

It’s time for judges to slam attorneys who file baseless lawsuits, to redefine who has legal standing in tort issues. It’s time to exact court costs and harsh penalties on those who file baseless lawsuits. It’s time for legislators and courts to clearly determine when a nit-picky issue warrants litigation. It’s time to teach Personal Responsibility 101, 102 and 103.

It’s time.

"Caution: Cape does not enable user to fly." - Batman Costume warning label.

Overdogs #7 Butt-Naked Golf – Why Not?

"There are many ways of going forward, but only one way of standing still." – Franklin Roosevelt

I love it. Our only wheelchair-bound president knew more 60 years ago about moving forward than the Professional Golfer’s Association (PGA) does today. They’re still standing still.

Golfer Casey Martin was born with the congenital defect Klippel-Trenaunay-Webber Syndrome, a disorder of blood vessels causing varicose veins and excessive growth of the soft tissue and bone. To walk, he must wear a strong support stocking to minimize swelling in his right leg. The degenerative weakness, painfully attacking his calf and tibia, has left him unable to walk unaided the 4 to 5 miles a round of golf requires. The longer the holes, the longer the course, the more his leg screams at him, impairing the physical execution needed to fulfill his job description.

A golfer who can’t walk can’t compete. The PGA says so. Martin sued the PGA in 1997 for the right to ride a golf cart between shots, rather than walk like the rest of the golfers. He cites the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires accommodations in the workplace for the physically disabled.

Tough luck, the PGA argues. They say the ADA requires accommodations for the disabled, but doesn’t require measures that would change the fundamental nature of goods or services, and allowing Martin to ride does exactly that. PGA Commissioner Tim Finchem says, “… the general question of fairness in competition and what happens when any individual is afforded special assistance is going to trigger some reaction at some point.” “Pro sports,” the PGA's lawyer, Bartow Farr III, says, “are nothing more or less than a competition that tests excellence in performing what [the] rules require. Any attempt to adjust the rules to compensate for an individual player's physical condition fundamentally alters the nature of that competition."

Finchem’s “special assistance” and Barr’s “compensation for physical condition” occur today on the PGA. Look at one PGA success story for proof.

There’s another golfer with a similar physical imperfection. It’s in another part of his body, but uncanny parallels exist. Like Martin, he was born with a significant physical problem. Each chose to join the PGA, to vie in a highly competitive sport. Their professional and financial success is determined largely by attributes indelibly programmed into their DNA. This golfer, too, is strongly disadvantaged on the longer holes, the longer courses, where his disability is most apparent. At least, he would be, but unlike Martin, he has been allowed use of the technology needed to lessen the impact, without which his capacity to compete at his current astounding level of excellence would simply not be.

You say you don’t remember the case, the prolonged court battle he fought to win the right to use the performance enhancer? You’ve no recollection of the PGA’s righteous outrage over this blasphemy? That’s because there was none. No clucking from Finchem or Jack Nicklaus. No litigation. No mention of this “special assistance”, so repugnant to Finchem.

That’s right. No one seems to mind Tiger Woods having had laser eye surgery in 1999. Alleviating eye problems with laser beams so Woods could see long distances was somehow different than mitigating leg problems so Martin can still stand when he reaches the 18^th tee. Finchem’s silence on the issue screams this fact.

I can hear y’all laughing at the comparison, but how indeed are they different? Reading the breaks on greens and accurately judging the distances on fairway shots is integral to Woods’ success. Is laser surgery not special assistance?

The issue is, at what point on the disability spectrum, from a simple hangnail to total quadriplegia, do we allow the PGA to draw the line? It does have to be somewhere, but where? The definitions of “special assistance” and “changing the fundamental nature of goods and services”, to be rendered in this case will have impacts beyond golf.

The Martin case will be heard by the Supreme Court, which must allow exceptions to the ADA sparingly. Handcuffing it opens the door to numerous questionable challenges, when such challenges suit an employer’s narrow, selfish interests.

For athletes, hundreds of physical issues exist which routinely are rectified by technology. A bandage on a cut thumb or a brace on a gimpy knee both provide special assistance. So does a golf glove, for God’s sake. Should barefoot golf be mandated so tenderfoots gain no edge? Hell, make ‘em play butt-naked. Let’s make the playing field obscenely level.

"Now that I'm normal, one of the things that appears to me is the slopes are bigger. Objects are bigger. The hole is bigger, ball is bigger, clubs are bigger." - Tiger Woods in 1999, right after the eye surgery.

He won his next three tournaments.

The PGA just doesn’t get it.

Overdogs #6 Doesn’t God Like Bacon Cheeseburgers?

“The beauty of religious mania is that it has the power to explain everything. Once God (or Satan) is accepted as the first cause of everything which happens in the mortal world, nothing is left to chance...logic can be happily tossed out the window.” - Stephen King

Random thoughts on atheism:

I knew there was no God the moment I learned that bacon cheeseburgers are NOT nature’s perfect food. Would a loving creator design me so imperfectly as to make me desire sustenance lethal to my arteries? Is my blueprint so confused that my cells crave that which will kill them? So my nutritional preferences and needs are directly at odds with each other. Yours probably are, too.

What do we make of this fact? H. L. Mencken advised us, "Imagine the Creator as a stand up comedian and at once the world becomes explicable." Well, the Creator would have to be a cruel and sadistic comedian for my dietary choices to be understandable. So it’s obvious-no loving God equals no God. Doesn’t God like bacon cheeseburgers? Why not?

That fact, cruel as it is, liberated me. An atheist has a freedom that no deist will ever know. We are free to do what we know to be right. We’re not slaves to a centuries-old bible that has been imperfectly translated and misinterpreted until the term “word of God” is meaningless. The bible today is a work of humans, not God. The millennia of contamination by humankind cannot make it anything else. The Internet, satellite dishes, e-mail, CNN and cell phones have not eliminated grand miscommunication on a global or individual level. Should we believe that a largely illiterate population of 100 generations ago, facing language and dialect differences in their travels, has rendered verbatim transcripts from The Master of the Universe? And that these transcripts have retained their integrity for 2,000 years? Holy Guttenberg, Batman, that’s faith!

But with freedom comes responsibility. As Stephen King implies, a supernatural explanation for the events of our lives relieves the holder of personal accountability. After all, it’s the “will of God.” An atheist, who can be every bit as moral as a pious bible-thumper, by the way, has no such crutch. For a country founded on separation of church and state, the prevailing assumption that Christians and other believers in a supreme deity have somehow cornered the market on morality is discrimination as blatant as separate drinking fountains.

Larry Flynt, the sleazy founder of the sleazy Hustler magazine, echoes my beliefs to a ‘T’. He has said, "Religion has caused more harm than any other idea since the beginning of time. There's nothing good I can say about it. People use it as a crutch.” I hope to God Mr. Flynt and I share no other views, but he is absolutely right on this one. I’ve had that exact thought thousands of times. Tens of millions of people have been killed in the name of various gods over the last five millennia. Religion has probably been responsible for more deaths than anything except mosquitoes and old age. The carnage totals are awesome, sickening and require lots of commas.

“Thou Shalt Not Kill.” Yeah, right. John 3:16, but with time off for good behavior.

America’s premier advisor on all things, Ann Landers, chastised us that, “No one has the right to destroy another person’s belief by demanding empirical evidence.” Hey Ann, sorry I rely so much on the five senses your God chose to bless me with. I do demand empirical evidence, but only to question, not destroy.

We can’t deny the human contamination of the bible. We know deists have no lock on morality or ethics. Evidence for evolution is everywhere, from fossil records to modern breeding of dogs and cats, to genome mapping. Separation of church and state is a myth - we’re taxed to pay for federal workers to observe the supposed birth of the supposed Son of God every December 25^th. That tax subjects non-Christians to the same type of discrimination as that which led to our founding 225 years ago.

I’d be ecstatic if even one reader moved a bit closer to my thinking after reading this. Atheism needs all the help it can get. Atheists are certainly not overdogs, but the discrimination and twisted logic applied to them is a perfect fit for the theme of this column.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.” - Thomas Jefferson

Overdogs #5 Can Black Men Jump?

“In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king” – Desiderius Erasmus

A white male is an overdog, fair game for the barbs of pundits and bigots alike. Stereotypes abhorrent when applied to an underdog are acceptable and even popular when applied to an overdog. The movie, “White Men Can’t Jump,” sparked no major outrage. Would a sequel titled, “Black Men Can’t Read,” ever make it out of the studio? Are demeaning stereotypes okay so long as they’re directed at a white male, an overdog? How many sitcom jokes involve “the slow white guy?”

The debate whether blacks are better athletes than whites has been especially heated since televised pro sports blossomed in the sixties. Statistically, blacks have had greater success in the sports we choose to watch most. Basketball, football and track are exciting. The running, jumping and quick reactions make great TV. The cameras love those sports, as do we. Showing a world-class athlete boggle the mind with an explosion we can only dream about grabs Nielsen numbers.

But many sports exist where non-blacks excel. These sports, the focus of fewer TV cameras, require different abilities. If the American viewing public had decided that skiing, skating, pitching, bowling, horseshoes, golf, darts, lawn bowling, hockey, ping-pong, tennis, lacrosse, polo, curling, etc., were the definitive athletic endeavors, our discourse on racial athletic talents might well be reversed.

The races obviously have different physical capabilities. A 1997 Stanford University report by Chris Thu states, “white fast-twitch fibers are found in many of the muscles of the legs and arms of an animal. For instance, in humans, the calf muscle is involved in jumping. Such an explosive and short contraction requires white-fast-twitch fibers in the muscle. Another example of the effects of muscle fiber type on performance can be seen looking at a marathon runner and a sprint runner. Marathon runners have a high percentage of slow-twitch fibers, (80%) which suits their activities much better. The running that marathon runners do is long distance where the muscles have to repeatedly contract for hours at a time. Slow-twitch muscles are perfect for this. Sprinters, however, have a higher percentage of fast-twitch fibers (60%). The kind of running that they do is short and explosive, which makes having fast-twitch fibers an advantage.”

Blacks usually have a higher percentage of white, fast-twitch fibers than do whites, so they tend to be better at the explosive types of activities. Sports requiring a more sustained, measured endurance utilize the red, slow-twitch fibers hat have more staying power. Whites usually have higher percentages of these fibers, so they may have an advantage in the many less-explosive sports.

Professor Kenneth Kidd of Yale University, a gene-mapping expert, dismisses concepts of inferiority and superiority. He focuses on the idea of variability.

Kidd says, "Without a doubt, in almost any single African population… there is more genetic variation than in all the rest of the world put together." In one sample of 50 Pygmies, he found nine variants in one stretch of DNA. But in samples from hundreds of people from around the rest of the world, he found only six variants in that same stretch of DNA. Each of those six variants was also found in the Pygmies.

Kidd concludes: "If everyone in the world was wiped out except Africans, almost all human genetic variability would be preserved."

Africans have the broadest spectrum of genetic variability. The tallest and the shortest people in the world come from Africa. If racists believe that blacks are less clever than whites, the law of variability forces him to admit that many blacks are more intelligent than whites.

If we deem blacks superior physically due to success in a narrow range of sports, consistency demands we concede mental superiority to the Russians for their dominance in chess. And where are the Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans in these discussions? Omitting them is rude and chauvinistic as hell. They may not give a rip whether blacks or whites are the better athletes. They might claim it’s simply a race for third, fourth or fifth place.

Sentiment in the 1930’s was that Jewish dominance in basketball was inevitable. Lively debates centered on physical reasons for their dominance. Tiger Woods, the world’s best golfer, is more Asian than either black or white. The eleven world record holders in the high jump over the last 44 years include two Caucasian-Americans, a Cuban, a Swede, a German, a Pole, a Chinese and four Soviets.

It’s not about athletic ability or superiority. It’s about choices we make for sports requiring white, fast-twitch fibers. So I ask, “Can black men jump?” If they have such great hops, where are they in the high jump record books?

The better question, posed by Rodney King is, “Can’t we all just get along?”

Overdogs #3 She Left the Toilet Seat Down Again

"Solitude vivifies; isolation kills." - Joseph Roux, Meditations of a Parish Priest, 1886

I awoke to a rude surprise this morning. My wife had already gone to work. I shuffled into the bathroom for my morning recycling activities, and what do I find? That’s right! My best friend, the woman with whom I had shared those sacred vows, my soul mate who had sworn to love, honor, etc., had left the toilet seat down!

Thomas Crapper, who many say invented the flush toilet, would not have been amused. He didn’t receive nine patents for plumbing products so they could be abused in such cavalier fashion. Imagine! A perfectly good toilet seat left in the down position, where it’s of little benefit to those who stand while tinkling. Maybe she thinks my aim is so good she can safely leave it down without fear. Will she never learn? I occasionally miss the target even when I sit down!

No, this is about power - naked, greedy abuse of power. I always thought the purpose of a marriage partnership was to make life easier for each other in many little ways. What could be easier and more thoughtful than preparing the plumbing for your partner’s next visit? She insists I do it for her. Where’s the reciprocity?

It’s apparent she wants to play dirty, so I need revenge. Not something so obvious as leaving the seat up. I’m no amateur. I need subtlety, guile and cunning. What to do? I could flip the toilet paper over so it rolls against the wall rather than away from it. Yeah, that’s the ticket! I’ll invite a friend to dinner and not tell her. In your face! And next time we watch TV together, I’ll teach her what all men instinctively know - that the purpose of the remote is not to find out what’s on TV, but to find out what ELSE is on.

More seriously, I’m not certain any two people can peacefully share a roof 24 hours a day. No earthling I’ve met qualifies, and to date few have endured my weirdness for any length of time either. But when one has a “Y” chromosome and one doesn’t, the challenge is greater. Thousands of years of natural selection have given the genders decidedly different imperatives. That we now face scores more choices daily than did our ancestors makes peaceful coexistence even tougher.

It’s disturbing so many middle-aged women are so bitter toward men. The stereotype of the fiftyish divorcee not needing or wanting a man in her life, and bragging about it, is sad. It’s certainly based in fact, as divorce statistics and the growing numbers of singles prove. Don’t get me wrong. Women, and men too for that matter, absolutely have the right to a partner-less lifestyle, and for some, it’s clearly the right choice. But we get constant messages and feedback that promote it as an either/or situation, as if personal fulfillment and autonomy are somehow incompatible with a shared existence.

That’s the big tragedy. I realized years ago that bitterness, anger and resentment would be an indication of my own poor choices and decision-making. I resolved never to be bitter, and I won’t be. I’ll always love and need women. Anyone who can’t express and satisfy both the male and female sides of their personality that we all have is missing out.

Clearly, the 20^th century was the greatest in human history, using almost any economic or social measure. But check this out:

• In 1900, there were 12.72 marriages for every divorce in the U.S.
• In 1950, the ratio was 4.33 to 1. In 1998 it was 2:36 to 1.

It’s not a great trend for the majority of us who are social creatures. I’d love to see less emphasis on toilet seats and remotes, and more value placed on the human need to partner and to belong to a group. I’d love to see people be aware that bitterness is partly a reflection of bad decisions, and to resolve to change their decisions rather than choose solitude. Most of our kids would love that, too. Little people usually lose big when big people split up.

Meanwhile, tomorrow morning, I’ll get even. I’ll put the cap back on the toothpaste tube. Let her unscrew her own cap. Of course, so doing might bring to me the isolation referred to in my opening quote. And that’s because this is also true: "How much more grievous are the consequences of anger than the causes of it." - Marcus Aurelius