Golden State Lockdown: Bay Area Extends Its Shelter-In-Place Order

On Wednesday, Bay Area health officials extended shelter-in-place orders through May, bringing their duration to 11 weeks. The new orders very minimally loosen restrictions to allow construction and some outdoor shops and activities, but most businesses remain closed. The announcement comes as California’s Covid-19 situation is looking better, in terms of infections, while the economic, social, and even health repercussions of its stay-at-home orders mounts. A rational cost-benefit analysis of the public-health response should encourage California and the Bay Area to begin a phased reopening.

The health situation in the Bay Area, and California as a whole, appears far from dire. Data on new Covid-19 cases show a clear flattening of the curve. The number of patients hospitalized for Covid-19 in the Bay Area has dropped almost every day for a week. According to the website rt.live, the effective reproduction number (known as Rt or Re) in California, and in almost every other state, is below 1, indicating a decline in infections. The seven-day average for new infections in the Bay Area is the lowest in a month. California’s 16 northernmost counties, with a population of more than 1 million, have seen only 181 confirmed cases — a lower known infection rate than South Korea’s.

Meantime, some 26 million people have filed for unemployment nationally over the past month, including 3.2 million in California, a crushing tide of layoffs that dwarfs prior job-loss records. Almost one-third of Americans did not pay their rent this month. Businesses everywhere are struggling, with small businesses faring the worst and museums and nonprofits in jeopardy, too. Transit agencies face enormous financial losses because of lost riders. Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell has said that the economy is deteriorating “with alarming speed.” In a tragic irony, hospitals that worried about an overflow of Covid-19 patients are now laying off workers due to cancellation of elective surgeries and also, perhaps, sick people avoiding treatment for fear of infection. Lines at food banks are staggering. People talk openly not just of recession but depression.

Luckily, recovery should be easier than from a typical recession, since this one is a forced abnormality. Millions of people could have their jobs back tomorrow if shelter-in-place orders were eased — and as the impact of the virus wanes, it makes sense to begin lifting them, as European nations such as Norway and Austria are doing, and as Texas has begun to do. Even New York, far harder hit than California, has tentatively scheduled an end to its statewide “pause” on May 15.

Yet California shows no inclination to ease up. The statewide order has no end date. Governor Gavin Newsom refuses to set one, saying only that the end is “weeks away.” Newsom has outlined criteria to lift the order, but some of his requirements—such as sufficient hospital capacity and progress toward a treatment—are unnecessary or unrealistic. The state’s 5,000 Covid-19 hospitalizations represent a small fraction of its approximately 75,000 staffed beds. A vaccine could be more than a year away and like the swine flu virus, Covid-19 may never even get a silver-bullet cure. Neither the Bay Area nor California have put together a clear plan for reopening.

Newsom is not the only one taking a hard line. Governor Phil Murphy of New Jersey has stated that there “is no cost that is too high to save any one precious life.” Some infectious-disease specialists argue that restrictions should remain in place until the infection rate is nearly zero. These are impossible standards to meet, and not applied to any other danger or disease. Governor Murphy has never ordered streets and highways closed despite more than one life lost each day in New Jersey car crashes. According to the CDC, swine flu has continued to kill about 7,500 Americans each year since the outbreak in 2009. We must accept that Covid-19 will probably never go away entirely.

For some observers, the idea of quantifying human life in economic terms sounds heartless. Yet we perform such cost-benefit analyses all the time, both as individuals—when we choose between riding a motorcycle or a station wagon—and as societies—when we choose whether to put more money into cancer research or into studies of rarer diseases. Every developed nation maintains value of statistical life (VSL) measures, for use in planning, transportation, and health policies.

There are social as well as economic costs. The effects of job losses and recession fall hardest on the poor and working class. People living paycheck-to-paycheck, or without savings, are suffering most. As the economy sinks, it takes with it the livelihoods and aspirations of tens of millions of Californians. It is reasonable to argue that we cannot destroy the economy trying to stop every possible Covid-19 death. When people can’t eat, that’s a health problem, too.

There are even direct health reasons to reopen. After six weeks of shelter-in-place, cracks are appearing in California. San Francisco police broke up an illegal nightclub, surely not the only infraction. More people are circulating outside, and the size of the groups suggests that it’s no longer just roommates walking together. People are more likely to take risks the longer their confinement lasts. Far better to begin a gradual reopening, with a highly publicized campaign to encourage mitigation measures, such as wearing masks.

Another public health reason to begin to lift restrictions is that if stay-at-home orders ruin the lives of millions, they will be much harder to implement in the future. A future disease could be worse than Covid-19—the fatality rate of SARS, in 2003, was 11 percent—but resentment over a “Covid recession” might make it much harder to get people to cooperate next time.

California led the nation in shutting down, but the state is lagging the country, and the world, in opening back up. New Zealand planned its successful lockdown on the scientific basis of two incubation cycles, or 28 days. The sequence lasted slightly longer, but after 33 days, the country began a phased reopening this week. Operating on the same parameters, California could have started lifting restrictions last week. Instead of waiting four more weeks, it should start a phased reopening now.

The stay-at-home orders have been very successful and given California a relatively low infection rate despite one of the earliest exposures. Most people have complied, and local officials should trust them to behave responsibly as restrictions lift, rather than trying to micromanage their activity. And all phases of reopening would include continuing effective mitigation measures—washing hands, wearing masks, social distancing, self-isolation of at-risk people, and tracking and quarantining of those testing positive for Covid-19.

Each region of the United States has experienced the pandemic differently; a phased reopening would work differently in each place. The current approach—where largely healthy Northern California lives under the same restrictions as harder-hit Los Angeles—is not tenable. It’s time to begin the gradual lifting of shelter-in-place orders before these orders do more damage than the illness they were issued to fight.

Phillip Sprincin is a veteran of the United States Marine Corps who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area.

This article was originally published by City Journal Online.

Now Democrats Want to Give Coronavirus Money to Illegal Aliens

Now Democrats Want to Give Coronavirus Money to Illegal Aliens

Illegal Immigration: Many Selfish Actors Benefit | National Review

Unsurprisingly, Democrats are again prioritizing non-Americans over the welfare of our citizens.

The latest outrage was introduced by California (where else?) Rep. Lou Correa who led two fellow Democrats by introducing the so-called “Leave No Taxpayer Behind Act.”

Latest: Democrats ‘Want The Federal Government To Take Over Elections’

The bill would allow people in this country illegally to apply for coronavirus relief funding.

However, these funds only go to taxpayers who have filed tax returns with the IRS and have a valid Social Security number (or any of the other legal identification numbers). That naturally leaves illegals out of the equation.

These provisions are now being called “racist” by Democrats looking to further pander to illegals.

Indeed, California Democratic Rep. Judy Chu insisted that the virus does not care about tax status.

“I was appalled to learn hardworking, taxpaying immigrants were left out of the $2 trillion CARES Act,” the hard-core leftist said in his Friday press release.

“By casting out immigrants, we are placing some of our most vulnerable residents in grave danger. Every individual taxpayer, irrespective of citizenship status, needs government assistance now,” he added.

Correa was referring to the $2.2 trillion coronavirus relief package that Trump signed last week. The bill, of course, contains a $1,200 payment to individual citizens with a maximum of $2,400 per couple. The payments will also include $500 per child.

“This virus does not care about immigration status. It does not discriminate, and neither should we. Immigrants own businesses and homes, support families, and pay rent, and contribute to their communities,” Chu said last week.

“Making it impossible for them to receive the same benefit we are sending to everyone else just means those immigrants will have a harder time affording food or rent, and that leaves us all worse off. I hope to see this corrected in the next relief package,” she said. https://godfatherpolitics.com/now-democrats-want-to-give-coronavirus-money-to-illegal-aliens/

CALEPA STUDYING WAYS TO SUNSET THE CALIFORNIA ECONOMY

Image result for sgt schultz

California is about to take one giant step toward following Germany’s failed climate goals which should be a wake-up all for governments everywhere.

California is about to take one giant step toward following Germany’s failed climate goals which should be a wake-up all for governments everywhere. Yes, you guessed it, our legislatures have authorized CalEPA in the 2019 – 2020 California State budget and Assembly Bill AB 74 to conduct studies and identify strategies to manage the decline of in-state crude oil production and decrease demand and supply of fossil fuel.

Germany tried to step up as a leader on climate change, by phasing out nuclear, and pioneered a system of subsidies for industrial wind and solar that sparked a global boom in manufacturing those technologies. Today, Germany has the highest cost of electricity in the world. 

From Alberta to Australia, from Finland to France and beyond, infuriated voters are increasingly showing their displeasure with expensive energy policies imposed by politicians in an inane effort to fight purported human-caused climate change. Now you can add Chile to the growing list of countries whose governments are suffering a backlash as average people, tired of elites forcing costly climate policies down their throats with continuous proposals to raise public transport fares and energy bills.

Like Germany and a slew of other countries, California continues to make decisions based on their believe that intermittent electricity from renewable wind and solar will be the replacement to fossil fuels to run the 5th largest economy in the world. Like Germany, this has come at a HIGH COST to Californians. 

With its green dreams of an emission free state, California has not even been unable to generate enough of its own electricity in-state and imported 29% of its needs in 2018. The bad news is that imported electricity comes at higher costs and those costs are being borne by residents and businesses alike. California households are already paying 50% more, and industrial users are paying more than double the national average for electricity. 

The future of electricity in California does not bode well as the State has chosen to not challenge the closure of the States’ last nuclear zero emission generating plant at Diablo Canyon, and 3 natural gas generating plants in Southern California. 

The four upcoming losses of continuous generating electricity are:

  • 1. PG&E’s Nuclear 2,160 megawatt Generating Plant at Diablo Canyon’s to be shuttered in 2024.
  • 2. The 823 mw Natural Gas Power Plant at Scattergood in Playa Del Rey, to be shuttered in 2024.
  • 3. The 575 mw Natural Gas Power Plant at Haynes in Long Beach, to be shuttered in 2029. 
  • 4. The 472 mw Natural Gas Power Plant at Wilmington, to be shuttered in 2029.  

With NO plans for industrial wind or solar renewable intermittent electricity projects to generate “replacement” electricity in-state, especially with the huge land requirements for those renewables, there will be a need to import from other states greater percentages of California’s electricity needs in the years ahead. And as you guessed it, more costs to the consumers and businesses who are already infuriated with high costs. 

Could it be that our legislatures are also unaware that those unstoppable costs of more regulations, taxes and increased minimum wages targeted toward businesses are just passed through to the consumers of the services and products from those businesses?  Those higher costs roll directly into housing, utilities, food, and entertainment if there’s any money left, and may be very contributory to California’s growing homelessness and poverty populations.

I know our legislatures want to sunset the oil industry, BUT imagine how life was without those fossil fuels before 1900 when we had NO militaries, NO vehicles, NO airlines that now move 4 billion people around the world, NO  cruise ships that now move 25 million passengers around the world, NO merchant ships that are now moving $50 Billion dollars of products monthly through California ports, NO space program, NO medications and medical equipment, NO vaccines, NO fertilizers to help feed billions, NO tires for vehicles, and NO asphalt for roads.

Most importantly, before the 1900’s we had NONE of the 6,000 products that are manufactured from the chemicals and by-products from fossil fuels.  Interestingly from each 42-gallon barrel of crude oil, half is for those thousands of products and the other half for the fuels to run commerce. 

We’ve had more than 100 years to find alternative or generic methods to manufacture the thousands of products we get from those deep earth minerals, and to manufacture the fuels for commerce and the military. By nearly every quantifiable measure, we are better off than our pioneer predecessors because of fossil fuels. In more than a century we’ve only come up with electricity that can be generated intermittently from sunshine and wind.

When we look at what intermittent electricity from wind turbines or solar panels CANNOT do, we see they are blatant failures to qualify as replacements for the fossil fuels that produce those 6,000 products that are the basis of our lifestyles and of our numerous infrastructures, and manufacture more than 60 million gallons of fuels every day to meet the demands of the states’ commerce and nearly 40 million residents.

I believe it’s easy to understand that wind and solar alone are obviously incapable of supporting the military, airlines, cruise ship, and merchant ships. As a reminder just in case you’re still living in the pre-1900’s, without transportation and the leisure and entertainment industries, we have no commerce. 

Imagine if politicians would tell voters that their utopian vision of a world run on solar panels and windmills is a fairy tell? But instead, they have doubled down to sunset the economy with legislature verbiage that pre-determines the outcome of the CalEPA efforts to study ways to decrease the size of the in-state oil industry that’s driving (no pun intended) the California economy.

[Originally Published at Fox & Hounds] https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/calepa-studying-ways-to-sunset-the-california-economy

Al Gore TOP 10 GLOBAL WARMING LIE:

Image result for environmental defense fund

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) raises money by scaring Americans about global warming., including in its latest fundraising letter.  Read the article disputing the EDF letter in the Heartland Institute’s Environment & Climate News, Vol. 18 No. 8, September 2015 and is written by James M. Taylor, vice president for external relations and Senior Fellow for environment and energy policy at The Heartland Institute.

It’s not unusual for the environmental Left to make false assertions to attract media attention and raise money. But the recent mailer from EDF “may have set a new low,” writes Taylor in a 12-page response to EDF.

“The only good thing about EDF’s preposterous mailer is that it can be used to show open-minded people the difference between global warming alarmists and global warming truth-tellers,” he writes.

Taylor’s extensively footnoted response addresses 10 “alarmist assertions” made by EDF:

1) Bats Drop from the Sky – In  2014, a scorching summer heat wave caused more than 100,000 bats to literally drop dead and fall from the sky in Queensland, Australia.

2) Lyme Disease Spreads – Warmer temperatures are contributing to the range expansion and severity of tick-borne Lyme disease.

3) National Security Threatened – The impacts of climate change are expected to act as a “threat multiplier” in many of the world’s most unstable regions, exacerbating droughts and other natural disasters as well as leading to food, water and other resource shortages that may spur mass migrations.

4) Sea Levels Rising – Warmer temperatures are causing glaciers and polar ice sheets to melt, increasing the amount of water in the world’s seas and oceans.

5) Allergies Worsen – Allergy sufferers beware: Climate change could cause pollen counts to double in the next 30 years. The warming temperatures cause advancing weed growth, a bane for allergy sufferers.

6) Beetles Destroy Iconic Western Forests – Climate change has sent tree-killing beetles called mountain pine beetles into overdrive. Under normal conditions those beetles reproduce just once annually, but the warming climate has allowed them to churn out an extra generation of new bugs each year.

7) Canada: The New America – “lusher” vegetation growth typically associated with the United States is now becoming more common in Canada, scientists reported in a 2012 Nature Climate Change study.

8) Economic Consequences – the costs associated with climate change rise along with the temperatures. Severe storms and floods combined with agricultural losses cause billions of dollars in damages, and money is needed to treat and control the spread of disease.

9) Infectious Diseases Thrive – The World Health Organization reports that outbreaks of new or resurgent diseases are on the rise and in more disparate countries than ever before, including tropical illnesses in once cold climates.

10) Shrinking Glaciers –  In 2013, an iceberg larger than the city of Chicago broke off the Pine Island Glacier, the most important glacier of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. And at Montana’s Glacier National Park glaciers have gone from 150 to just 35 over the past century.

Taylor concludes:

There you have it. These are the 10 best arguments global warming activists like EDF can make, along with the objective scientific facts that prove them wrong. No wonder global warming alarmists are so terrified of people having access to both sides of the debate.

Here’s the link to Taylor’s rebuttal: www.heartland.org/sites/default/files/edf_rebuttal_final.pdf.

The Rabid Left Turns On Obama

Obama: “Fundamentally Transforming the United States of America” Long Version

A Sistah Soulja moment this was not.

Obviously seeing a train wreck in the Democrats’ future, as well as stuck endorsing it whatever it might be, President Obama cautioned Democrats to not try to tear down society in revolutionary fervor, because America’s just not ready for it.

Here Obama goes in this RealClearPolitics video here. And according to the transcript from RealClearPolitics:

FORMER PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: My point is that even as we push the envelope and we are bold in our vision, we also have to be rooted in reality and the fact that voters, including Democratic voters and certainly persuadable independents or even moderate Republicans, are not driven by the same views that are reflected on certain, you know, left-leaning Twitter feeds or the activist wing of our party.

This is still a country that is less revolutionary than it is interested in improvement. They like seeing things improved. But the average American doesn’t think that we have to completely tear down the system and remake it. And I think it’s important for us not to lose sight of that.

Didn’t matter, the rabid left treated it as a Sistah Souljah repudiation and decided to bite back.

It was a rather unexpected response to The Won, who, up until now has been untouchable, But now he is and they mercilessly mocked him as if he were a right-winger.

Yet it’s not as if Obama were actually blasting these radicals.

Based on his speech, notice that he never says that the far-left ideas in question themselves stink to high heaven. It’s not that socialism fails every time you try it. The only people he blames for this state of affairs is American voters. Americans just aren’t quite progressive enough. They’re not up for being “transformed,” as Obama used to say.

He must know.

Obama counseled the leftists in his room that since Americans fall short, they need to start couching their radical plans as “improvements” in their “narratives.” 

In the interest of winning (and making that coveted Obama presidential endorsement actually worth something) Obama has now “transformed” himself into Mister Moderate. It’s not just laughable in itself, it’s also too little, too late. Toothpaste’s out of the tube. The Dems are now welded to their radical far left plans and it would be very hard for any of them to do U-turns now. For Bernie Sanders, of course, that’s congenitally impossible.

Gag.

It didn’t go over well.

And better still, the rabid left is now mocking Obama to high heaven.

Here’s what far-left Common Dreams had to say, first explaining out how it looks to leftists, and then curating its favorite tweets on Twitter:

After it was reported Friday that former U.S. President Barack Obama told a room full of “wealthy liberal” Democratic Party donors that voters ultimately won’t go for candidates offering political visions he suggested were too ambitious and radical, progressives online reacted critically to Obama advising the party to sideline “certain left-leaning twitter feeds” and what he termed the “the activist wing of our party.” 

…and…

 On Saturday, the hashtag #TooFarLeft was trending on Twitter.

Political operative Peter Daou, who took credit for launching the hashtag, said: “I launched the #TooFarLeft tag because I’ve had it with Republicans, media elites, and corporate Dems enabling fascists while denigrating those who seek economic and social justice as ‘too far left.’  I’d like to ONCE hear them complain America is too far right.”

And so, a brief sample of reactions:

Such as:

TOO. FAR. LEFT.

I launched the #TooFarLeft tag because I’ve had it with Republicans, media elites, and corporate Dems enabling fascists while denigrating those who seek economic and social justice as “too far left.”

I’d like to ONCE hear them complain America is too far right.

Peter Daou@peterdaou

TOO. FAR. LEFT.

I launched the #TooFarLeft tag because I’ve had it with Republicans, media elites, and corporate Dems enabling fascists while denigrating those who seek economic and social justice as “too far left.”

I’d like to ONCE hear them complain America is too far right.7,2329:54 AM – Nov 16, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy2,005 people are talking about this

A bitter, touchy, sensitive bunch, aren’t they? Winning elections isn’t a thing for them, just proving one’s far-left bonafides to the other lefties is what matters.

Daily Caller picked out another passel of choice tweets from the radicals angry at Obama, such as this:

Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, for instance, told her Twitter followers Saturday that “if being #TooFarLeft means” believing “healthcare is a human right”and “all student debt should be canceled,” then “count me in.” Climate change activists also weighed in.

Oh goody. Now she’ll have to reassure her voters once again that she “loves” Obama. It happened once before. Something says that’s not happening, not now with this pile-on.

What it shows is that any bid to even delicately steer the left in a winnable direction gets met with brickbats from the fanatics. They’ll actually go against Obama himself, which up until now has been unheard of. No wonder Obama has always been afraid of them, afraid to go Sistah Souljah, except in the face of a certain train wreck. Yet if he wants results, the only way to get their attention is to launch a full-on attack of them, which he won’t do. Any tiptoe delicate criticism blaming American voters is as good as it gets. Now even that has led to this reviling. It’s pathetic, given that Obama has no other fans to look to. https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/11/the_rabid_left_turns_on_obama.html

Debunking Gender Identity,Once Again, Still Proving A Man Will Ever Be A Women: Are Professional Women in Their Mid-30s Too Independent To Settle Down?

(This was the main reason for Lori Gottlieb’s famous controversial “settling” article — soon to be a book in February, 2010.)

The other question had to do with what independent, professional women in their mid-30’s REALLY want. To recap, let’s go back to our original poster, Adam.

I am a 42 year old single male who recently left a 5 year relationship for various reasons, but mainly because I wanted kids and she did not. I thought that since I was an attractive, fit, well-educated, financially and emotionally secure guy that I would have no problem finding a woman in her mid 30s to settle down with and start a family. I have tried a combination of online dating, speed dating, professional singles events, volunteering, happy hours etc. and have had very few dates over the past year. I thought that online dating would be great since you are essentially pre-screening people for dates. I have found that I get no responses from any women online and the only women who respond to my ad are usually much older and don’t meet any of my criteria outlined in my profile.

I am told that women want to settle down and have kids, etc., but their actions seem to be to the contrary. At singles events, women come in groups and are reluctant to talk to men. In online situations, women say they want desperately to meet a nice guy like me, but never answer my response to their profile. I am trying to remain positive, but two things are really bothering me. One, that younger women are no longer interested in dating men who are even just slightly (3-5 years) older than them and sometimes want to date men 5-10 years younger then them. Two, women seem to be content in the fact that they are independent and self-sufficient and have a career, family and friends that fulfills them and don’t seem to be interested in truly finding a relationship. I find the latter hard to believe, but find this mantra in every profile of every professional woman online.

There’s a cuter 35-year-old guy, and a funnier 38-year-old guy, and a richer 40-year-old-guy who are getting your women.

Any advice on how to navigate these new paradigms in the dating world?

Now, I must point out something that is uncomfortable, Adam, which is that you may be entirely overrating yourself. If this is the case (because we all like to think we’re attractive, smart, and secure), that might explain why you’re not getting results. It’s not that you’re not a good guy — but if you’re 5’7” or your profile is kind of bland, then guess what? There’s a cuter 35-year-old guy, and a funnier 38-year-old guy, and a richer 40-year-old-guy who are getting your women. In other words, in order for your perfect woman to fall for you, she has to “compromise” on age, since you’re not her ideal. The same way that you might have to compromise by writing to women 37-41. As always, you’re as valuable as your options and if all the people you desire aren’t responding, you either have to rebrand yourself or rethink your strategy. Blaming women for being unfair to you isn’t going to get you very far.

That said, you have touched on something important, and that is your perception — real or otherwise — that women are content being alone, with their fulfilling careers, friends and families, and are not all that interested in finding a relationship. Moreover, you intimate that this comes across in both their profiles and in their actions.

There’s been a lot of talk about this phenomenon here on my blog. And at risk of inciting the same women over the same issue for the umpteenth time, I’m just going to ask my women readers to put yourselves in Adam’s shoes.

Believe me, I know what it’s like for women — putting up with the players, losers, liars, weaklings, flakes, pervs and commitmentphobes that make up a good portion of the male population. I hear it every single day from my clients. That’s your reality.

But, for one second, I’d like you to consider Adam’s reality.

Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he’s a solid, decent-looking, successful 42-year-old who has lots to offer. Let’s accept that he’s experiencing women who are busy, aloof, and uninterested in making an effort and commitment.

Is Adam wrong? Probably not. No more than you’re wrong that dating disinterested men can be a drag, as well. In fact, I think it’s highly probable that, yes, there is a certain group of women who are truly conflicted about what they want.

If your best friend met her husband in line at the grocery store, shouldn’t you get to meet yours in the same way?

In theory, they want to find love and have a family, but in practice, you’d never know it. They prioritize work over love, friends over love, travel over love, freedom over love, downtime over love — and still complain that they can’t find someone to love.

When it gets right down to it, the process of finding love — with all of its ups and downs, its failures and frustrations — is just too much to bear. Why put energy into something when it’s much easier to just wait for it? Shouldn’t love happen when you least expect it? Doesn’t it happen when you’re just happy living your own life — working out, going to yoga class, taking salsa lessons, working 50 hours a week? If your best friend met her husband in line at the grocery store, shouldn’t you get to meet yours in the same way?

Yeah, that would be nice, wouldn’t it?

I just got off the phone with a new client. She’s 38. She has a great career, she owns her own home, she has a personal trainer at the gym, maintains good friends and family. She’s very dateable and very likeable. As far as I know, my new client is FLAWLESS.

If you’re a woman who is reading this and is getting a bit angry, I will repeat myself: you may be FLAWLESS.

However, if you want to fall in love, get married and have kids, but have done everything in your power to avoid searching for a man, then guess what? You’re gonna stay single.

My new client joined Great Expectations…and didn’t go on the dates they offered. She’s a member of eHarmony…and never logs in to sort through the 300 men they’ve sent her.   So if a man like Adam has been paired with her in either of these places, is he to believe that he’s a bad guy? Or is it just that my new client has been ambivalent about putting herself through the topsy-turvy, insecure dating process?

All I’m telling you is that every time I hear some woman tell me “there are no good guys out there,” I am reminded that there are millions of men like Adam.

This isn’t a judgment. It’s an observation. If every waking hour of your life is filled with work, friends, travel and hobbies, when exactly do you expect to fit in a husband? Fact is: it’s nearly impossible to fall in love if you never meet single men, nearly impossible to fall in love if you don’t go on first dates, nearly impossible to fall in love if you don’t make an effort to be available for a relationship. You can have a great, fulfilling life, but you will not find a partner unless you get really, really, really, lucky.

To recap: there’s nothing wrong with you. There’s nothing wrong with being single. There’s nothing wrong with being alone. There’s nothing wrong with leading a rich, fulfilling solo life. There’s nothing wrong with staying in on Friday nights. And, no one is telling you to be desperate, to settle, to give up your dreams, or any such hooey. So please, don’t even go there.

All I’m telling you is that every time I hear some woman tell me “there are no good guys out there,” I am reminded that there are millions of men like Adam.

But if you don’t take the time to let him in — because it’s simply easier to NOT let him in — both you (and Adam) are going to have a hard time finding each other.https://www.evanmarckatz.com/blog/dating-tips-advice/are-professional-women-in-their-mid-30s-too-independent-too-settle-down

Debunking Gender Identity, Once Again: Sex Differences In Sex Drive, Sociosexuality, And Height Across 53 Nations: Testing Evolutionary And Social Structural Theories.

Author information

1Department of Psychology, California State University, Fullerton, Fullerton, CA 92834, USA. rlippa@fullerton.edu

Abstract

By analyzing cross-cultural patterns in five parameters–sex differences, male and female trait means, male and female trait standard deviations–researchers can better test evolutionary and social structural models of sex differences. Five models of biological and social structural influence are presented that illustrate this proposal. Using data from 53 nations and from over 200,000 participants surveyed in a recent BBC Internet survey, I examined cross-cultural patterns in these five parameters for two sexual traits–sex drive and sociosexuality–and for height, a physical trait with a biologically based sex difference. Sex drive, sociosexuality, and height all showed consistent sex differences across nations (mean ds = .62, .74, and 1.63). Women were consistently more variable than men in sex drive (mean female to male variance ratio = 1.64). Gender equality and economic development tended to predict, across nations, sex differences in sociosexuality, but not sex differences in sex drive or height. Parameters for sociosexuality tended to vary across nations more than parameters for sex drive and height did. The results for sociosexuality were most consistent with a hybrid model–that both biological and social structural influences contribute to sex differences, whereas the results for sex drive and height were most consistent with a biological model–that evolved biological factors are the primary cause of sex differences. The model testing proposed here encourages evolutionary and social structural theorists to make more precise and nuanced predictions about the patterning of sex differences across cultures.PMID: 17975724 DOI: 10.1007/s10508-007-9242-8[Indexed for MEDLINE]

  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Google+

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17975724

Debunking Once Again Gender Identity: A Cross-Cultural Analysis Of The behavior Of Women And Men: Implications For The Origins Of Sex Differences.

Image result for Sex Differences men and women

Wood W1Eagly AH.

Author information

1Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University, College Station 77843, USA. w-wood@tamu.edu

Abstract

This article evaluates theories of the origins of sex differences in human behavior. It reviews the cross-cultural evidence on the behavior of women and men in nonindustrial societies, especially the activities that contribute to the sex-typed division of labor and patriarchy. To explain the cross-cultural findings, the authors consider social constructionism, evolutionary psychology, and their own biosocial theory. Supporting the biosocial analysis, sex differences derive from the interaction between the physical specialization of the sexes, especially female reproductive capacity, and the economic and social structural aspects of societies. This biosocial approach treats the psychological attributes of women and men as emergent given the evolved characteristics of the sexes, their developmental experiences, and their situated activity in society.PMID: 12206191 DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.699[Indexed for MEDLINE]

  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Google+

Publication types, MeSH terms, Grant support

LinkOut – more resources https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12206191/

Decode Female Psychology – How To Guess What’s On Her Mind, Proving Again A Man Can Ever Be A Women!

Image result for Decode Female Psychology

Is female psychology a mystery to you? Are you interested in understanding the games they play and why? Do you wish you knew how the female mind worked? If you just want to decode female psychology so you can better interpret her meanings, I’m here to help.

It is often said that men and women come from two different places, Mars and Venus, the land and the sea, the earth and the moon, whichever you prefer, most agree that the two sexes are very different in just about every way. Some of the major differences, aside from the obvious physical ones, include actions, words, and reasoning. Women tend to be more emotional and can take even small things very personal.

Style, flirtation, and games

When she wears sexy clothes she really wants you to check her out and make comments but has to pretend she doesn’t. I like to call this a ‘no win situation.’ If you don’t look or say anything she will be genuinely upset and if you do she gets upset too.

The comments make her feel good about herself and let her know you think she’s hot but she can’t let on that she appreciates it or she will seem conceited. The way to handle this situation is to definitely take notice, at least the anger she displays is only for show. The latter has far longer lasting repercussions.

Flirting can have the same affect. Go ahead and flirt with her whether she reciprocates or not, I promise she really does appreciate it. One of the oldest and best tricks in a woman’s arsenal is playing hard to get.

And most men will admit a little chase is always fun. She needs to feel like she’s in control so men are typically always the ones to approach women.

Keeping you at arm’s length

Another move women tend to make to show they’re in charge is dictating when and what you do. No in a straight-forward way but in a more subtle and cunning way. Things like breaking dates at the last minute and taking an extra hour to get ready just so you have to wait are all things women do to keep in control of the relationship.

Flirting with other men is another way women feel like they are making sure you know exactly what you’ve got. Just play along and show some appreciation and even a little jealousy from time to time, it will go a long way to keeping her happy.

I know this may all seem a little silly to you but, again, I reiterate, men and women are VERY different. What makes her happy may not even seem sane to you but it’s just the way it is.

If you want, or need, to learn more about how to approach women and decipher what they are actually saying, I have just the thing.

If you are looking for a proven system to get the attention of a HOT woman fast, click Seducing Her Mind. If you’re ready for a highly effective method that’s different from what everyone else is teaching, click Get Hot Girlfriend Now. You don’t want to miss this!

Alyssa Curtis is a top expert on dating, seduction, and female psychology. She has written numerous articles on what makes women tick.

Article Source: https://EzineArticles.com/expert/Alyssa_Curtis/1361742

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/7119482

10 Psychological Differences Between Men and Women, That’ll Surely Take You By Surprise

Related image


Arushi Lohia
31 shares | 3K views

Basically, men and women are born a certain way but with age and experience, evolve as human beings.

Now, before I get bashed for stating these differences, let me tell you that these differences are just initial programming that both men and women are created with before external influences change everything.

Here are 10 basic psychological differences between men and women:

1.

Source: psychologytoday

2.

Source: 2knowmyself

3.

Source: 2knowmyself

ADVERTISEMENT

4.

Source: 2knowmyself

5.

Source: psychologytoday

6.

Source: 2knowmyself

7.

Source: 2knowmyself

8.

Source: psychologytoday

9.

Source: psychologytoday

10.

Source: 2knowmyself

https://www.scoopwhoop.com/psychological-differences-between-men-and-women/