Teaching Post S Applied For: Fill & Download for Free

As a career transition specialist working with professionals over 50, I have gained an appreciation for the challenges facing someone wishing, or forced, to make a career pivot at that age.Clearly, ageism is alive and well and active in the workplace.Ashton Applewhite, writer, activist, and the author of a seminal book on this issue entitled “This Chair Rocks: A Manifesto Against Ageism” states that :“Ageism is the last socially sanctioned prejudice.”As a spokesperson for a movement to mobilize against discrimination on the basis of age, Applewhite makes the point that “all ‘isms’ – sexism, racism, feminism, ableism, nationalism, et.al – are socially constructed ideas.”All the above listed “isms” have gotten, are getting, or likely will get national/governmental/legislative/public protest attention.But not ageism. It silently exists contested only with lip service.Over 50? Accept the reality - ageism ain’t going away!Candidly, I have found it convenient for over-50 job seekers or career pivoters to hide behind ageism as the reason they aren’t successful in their transition. While it is alive, real, and a problem, it can be overcome.Many folks in transition are suffering from self-inflicted ageism, starting with an attitude that fears it from the start with the assumption it will exist in every opportunity they are pursuing. I’ve seen that create a front-end erosion of self-confidence and a “tail-between-the-legs” approach to interviewing.Combine this pre-conceived notion about ageism with poor “anti-ageism preparation” and you guarantee yourself a protracted and frustrating transition.Anti-ageism preparation??????Let me give you an example of what I mean with that statement.I recently got a call from a software engineer in his late 50s (I’ll call him Floyd - not his real name) who was referred to me by a “sympathetic” friend who knew about my coaching and was aware of the frustration this engineer was experiencing in landing another job in his industry.In a very few minutes into the call, I detected Floyd’s resentment toward the “youngsters” (meaning software engineers ten years or more his junior) that he had interviewed with. He felt he was being discriminated against purely because of his age despite what he considered exceptional experience and career successes.My sympathy toward his “rant” faded as I probed to find out what was transpiring in the interviews. As part of the interviews, he was asked to do an impromptu presentation of how he would address a particular software problem using one of the newer, software technologies.He was stumped and failed each time, for two reasons: (1) he had made no attempt to get up to speed on this new software and (2) his confidence level presenting in front of a group of potential employers was zero - he essentially mumbled and humbled his way through, one small step short of actually freezing up.Further discussion with this talented and experienced engineer revealed that he had made a series of fundamental career mistakes that played right into the face of ageism:1. He had chosen to pursue temporary contract positions for over five years since his last full-time role as a software engineer and developer, perhaps not realizing that this is a red-flag for most prospective employers (e.g. Is he going to stick around? Why has no one hired him on permanently?)2. He had made no attempt to expand his skill set in his chosen profession and wasn’t current on the latest and evolving software development, thus demonstrating lack of initiative and foresight.3. He had done little to build and maintain a robust professional network within his industry. This left him with little choice but to go the route that most folks still feel is the best path to a new job - applying to posted jobs. He got only a few interviews after applying for hundreds of jobs, blamed it on his professionally-developed resume (Cost: $375), and rewrote it making it even less effective. And continued to place himself in the “black hole”, “spray and pray” application process.In our final conversation, Floyd revealed that he had exhausted all of his retirement savings, was living on a trust his wife had, and was without any pending interviews despite all his applications.Ouch! Unfortunately, Floyd is not alone in this boat.Irrelevance = dinosaurFloyd was perceived as irrelevant. A self-inflicted irrelevance. In many ways, he was moving himself to the “dinosaur floor of life.”Moving into the second half of life increases the chances of ending up a dinosaur.Think about how people put themselves there:Intellectual lazinessResistance to changeEntitlement attitude20th-century thinkingLack of career ownershipVisions of early retirementIf your only resume is on a floppy disk and the most complicated thing you’ve read in the last 10 years is Sports Illustrated – well, I think you get my point.New vs used.New grads are perceived as:Less expensive (hire two for the price of one of you).More trainable (fewer entrenched habits and attitudes to overcome).Lower heath risk (fewer sick days and health issues, less burden on health benefits).Faster learners.More tech-savvy.Older job-seekers are viewed as:More expensive.Slow to learn.Not highly trainable (see #2) and resistant to change.Not tech-savvy.Not willing to work with younger workers.Riskier because of possible age-related and perhaps chronic health issues.Less reliable, higher absenteeism (see #6).Unfortunately, it’s a perception reinforced by many middle-aged job seekers.It’s unfortunate because the tide is beginning to turn. More and more corporations are awakening to the fact that they need to retain or bring older workers back into the fold and not lose the talents, skills, and experience that many middle-age workers offer. Many industries are facing a shrinking talent pool.In reality, none of these perceptions of older workers are legitimate. But any 50+ job seeker must go into any interview expecting one or more to be present and be prepared to address any of them.Career ownershipHave you really owned your career - or just been renting yourself out? The choice you have made in this regard will manifest itself if you find yourself making a mid-life career change.Master Certified Career Coach, Janine Moon, in her excellent 100-page book “Career Ownership” cleverly contrasts homeownership with career ownership, asking the poignant question “why do so many of us own our homes but rent our careers?”She points out that we will go to pretty extraordinary lengths to make sure our home purchase is the right one and done optimally but ignore the very engine that enables us to own it in the first place. It’s as if we are asleep to the fact that we are giving up our main source of security to someone else.With both the magnitude and pace of change accelerating, career ownership becomes paramount. But what does that mean?Here are a few suggestions from Coach Moon:When did you last do serious research to educate yourself about the future of your industry and the skills needed to succeed in this changing marketplace?When did you last assess your skills, abilities, and goals to determine how you could get the most satisfaction out of the workspace in which you spend many of your waking hours.?When did you last write out your 3-year career plan (on your own) along with your 12-month learning plan?When did you last devote personal time and funds to upgrade your own skills? (My note: I recommend any professional spend at least 3% of annual salary on continuing education to upgrade skills.)When did you last consider requesting a job rotation that would help you build a relationship and impact your marketability inside or outside of your organization?When did you last review and align yourself with your organization’s top two strategic growth areas?When did you last identify a weak area in your skills or performance and take personal responsibility to address the problem?But they think I’m over the hill!There’s no denying that ageism is alive and well within corporations. But we can bring it on ourselves.If you are in your late 40’s or into your 50’s, you’ve stepped into ageism territory so it’s best to not give it a foothold. And that ageism foothold happens when one fails to stay relevant and current with upgraded skills and deep engagement with corporate initiatives.Oh, and don’t forget politics. You should know by now how the political game is played and can leverage that to your advantage.If you are 55, there is a 70% chance you will have a younger boss. The choice is to resent them or learn from them. Get to their level technologically and adapt to their communications style. Offer to learn from them. Don’t offer to teach them even though they will benefit from your wisdom and experience. Your time will come. Be humble and eager to learn on the front end.Also, don’t overlook physical appearance. Mid-life tends to not treat us well as we allow bad health habits to take away our youthful looks. Much of that you can get back and it will help to have an energetic, “in-shape” appearance during this process.And, for sure, upgrade the wardrobe.Taking career ownership, staying current, showing initiative, demonstrating uncommon energy and vitality for your age - all can overcome ageism and position you for the next level of our career and make you a worthy competitor against the fresh grad.

Frank B. Salisbury - FairMormon“Biologists will tell you that the heart of life science is evolutionary theory: that it happened and how it happened. I’ve been deeply involved in thoughts about those matters at least since high school (reading Luther Burbank!) and a special course in evolution during a summer at the University of Utah. A visiting lady professor took us through the two most recent and important books on evolution, one by Theodosius Dobzhansky and the other by Ernst Mayr.I hate to call evolutionary theory one of Satan’s traps, especially because it contains such a huge volume of truth! But there can be many kinds of traps, and this one seems to have been such a trap for many modern biologists who have used the doctrine (and the speculations about it) to reject God. Of course this is nothing new. I can think of scholars in the mid-1700s who took this road, and poor Charles Darwin struggled along that road all his life. His friend T. H. Huxley coined the term agnostic to express how he himself felt.So I was becoming deeply immersed in biology and at the same time the LDS concepts of the Godhead, and pre-, present-, and post-mortal existence with its wonderful doctrine of eternal progression—based on how we use our God-given agency, all possible because of the atonement! If one is unaware of the depths of biology and/or our theology, it is easy to say that truth is truth so there should be no conflict. Well, there should be no conflict, but at the present state of our knowledge, there is plenty of conflict. Otherwise there would not be so many atheistic or at least agnostic biologists—and so many fundamentalist creationists who reject any version of evolution!How to deal with the conflict and remain an active Latter-day Saint and an active biologist? I found it impossible to reject either evolution or LDS theology, so it was essential to seek some way to reconcile the two views. (Putting each one in its own separate pocket never worked for me.) I think this is where the blessing of faith pulled me through those early years while I was learning about what was known in both fields. Back then, I always seemed to know that there had to be an answer. I searched for it, and while I still haven’t exactly found that answer, my faith allows me to continue the search. And looking back, it seems like searching with faith is what it is all about.Is there God in his heaven? Science has no way to really know, but “science” can make snide remarks about the question—like the cosmonaut who said that he had circled the Earth but never saw heaven. (Modern physicists may be coming around as they talk about parallel universes—where heaven might be located!)Many biologists say there is no need for an intelligent Creator because they are convinced that the complexity of organisms can be accounted for by the operation of natural selection in populations that are struggling for existence, where those individuals most able to reproduce pass their sometimes-mutated genes on to the next generation. Natural selection can do it all, they say!Before Darwin and Wallace proposed the natural-selection mechanism in 1858, there was already the counterargument from design. William Paley had talked about the watch and the watchmaker in his 1802 book. Many modern biologists proclaim that natural selection answers Paley’s argument (and, for that matter, Darwin made that claim), but some of us still see so much complexity in life structure and function that we are skeptical about the ultimate power of natural selection to accomplish such marvels. There were eyes and wings for Paley to contemplate, but by now there are mitochondria, chloroplasts, and even the molecular rotary motor called the ATP synthase machine, of which thousands in every living cell keep the cell alive. If there were hundreds of living complexities for Paley to cogitate about, by now there are tens of thousands for us to marvel at. (Yes, this is the intelligent-design movement, but I don’t use the term much because it implies a specific group of people whose philosophy is a little foreign to mine.)Does biological complexity prove there is a Creator God? Well, not quite, because we simply do not know enough. Arguments on either side of the question can still be highly persuasive. And that’s where faith plays a role again. For a long time I argued that my faith was not based on biology, but that there were many other things that convinced me that there is a God and that the restored gospel is the closest we can come to learning about him and his purposes. A few powerful spiritual experiences fortified my view that testimony depended only on confirmation by the Spirit. Biology was only secondary to testimony. I wrote that idea, and I preached it in BYU Education Weeks.When my sixteen-year-old son was killed in an automobile accident, however, that thinking was called into question. Contrary to the agonies of many others in that situation, I never wondered how a loving God could take my son. It was an accident, and that was that. But the pain was almost unbearable. And how disappointed Phillip must be to have been cut so short in his life! Suddenly, I had a comforting thought that may well be surprising to many: What if the atheists and materialists were right!? What if there were no God and no life after death? Then at death there could be no regrets. A “nothing” can have no regrets or anything else. I need not regret that I couldn’t see my son again. I would not regret anything because after death I would not be!I remember where I was when that thought hit me, driving home alone. But the thought didn’t last for long. Down the road a ways I realized that I simply could not accept that view of the universe, comforting though it was at that moment. And it was not my religious teachings that pulled me through; it was biology! Not to mention astronomy and many other things about this complex and astounding universe. Life and the cosmos are simply too organized and complex to be without purpose. The human mind, situated in that incredible organ, the brain, which is in some way built by the divisions and specializations of a single fertilized egg, a zygote—that mind has to be part of some eternal plan. I knew it, and I know it. Thanks Father, for that patriarchal blessing of faith! And for the biological, spiritual experience or insight!”Frank Boyer Salisbury grew up in Springville and Salt Lake City, Utah. .S. and M.A. degrees in botany and biochemistry at the University of Utah were followed by a doctoral degree in plant physiology and geochemistry at the California Institute of Technology (1955).Mormon Scholars Testify - FairMormonScience, Mathematics, and EngineeringJonathan Adjimani – Biochemistry, University of GhanaAlan C. Ashton – Computer Science, Private IndustryDavid H. Bailey – Mathematics, Lawrence Berkeley LaboratoryEmily Bates – Genetics, Brigham Young UniversityJeffrey M. Bradshaw – Cognitive Science, Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, FloridaLaura Clarke Bridgewater – Molecular Biology, Brigham Young UniversityBarry Brocas – Mathematics Education, Massey University, New ZealandJohn M. Butler – Forensic DNA, U.S. National Institute for Standards and TechnologyJames W. Cannon – Mathematics, Brigham Young UniversityDouglas M. Chabries – Electrical Engineering, Brigham Young UniversityDavid L. Clark – Geology, University of Wisconsin, MadisonJames Joshua Claus – Applied Research, Park City, UtahCarol Anne Clayson – Meteorology, Florida State UniversityMark Clayson – Astronomy and Engineering, Private IndustryPaul Alan Cox – Ethnobotany, Institute for EthnomedicineR. Kent Crookston – Plant Physiology and Agronomy, Brigham Young UniversityBanyan Acquaye Dadson – Organic Chemistry, University of Cape Coast, GhanaBruce E. Dale – Chemical Engineering, Michigan State UniversityJames Dunlop – Plant Physiology, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, New ZealandHenry Eyring – Chemistry, University of UtahBruce K. Gale – Bioengineering, University of UtahBruce K. Gale (Japanese) – Bioengineering, University of UtahRichard D. Gardner – Molecular and Cellular Biology, Southern Virginia UniversityB. Kent Harrison – Mathematical Physics, Brigham Young UniversityMichael “Larkin” Hastriter – Electrical and Computer Engineering, United States Air ForceRon Hellings – Theoretical Physics, Montana State UniversityDouglas J. Henderson – Chemistry and Physics, Academia and Private IndustryA. Scott Howe – Systems Engineering, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (California Institute of Technology and NASA)John Howell – Physics, University of RochesterTodd E. Humphreys – Aerospace Engineering, University of Texas at AustinM. Lynn James – Chemistry, University of Northern ColoradoHollis R. Johnson – Astronomy, Indiana UniversityBenjamin R. Jordan – Geology, Brigham Young University-IdahoBart J. Kowallis – Geology, Brigham Young UniversityPhilip D. LaFleur – Chemistry, Government and Industry and AcademiaMilton L. Lee – Chemistry, Brigham Young UniversityJohn S. Lewis – Planetary Sciences, University of Arizona and Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyDon L. Lind – Nuclear Physics and Astronautics, NASA and Utah State UniversityJeff Lindsay – Chemical Engineering, Private IndustryPhilip S. Low – Chemistry, Purdue UniversityJoseph Lynn Lyon – Epidemiology, University of UtahTony Martinez – Computer Science, Brigham Young UniversityJames Matis – Statistics, Texas A&M UniversityMichael Matthews – Mathematics Education, University of Nebraska at OmahaMatthew Memmott – Nuclear Science and Engineering, Private IndustryWade E. Miller – Geology and Paleontology, Brigham Young UniversityJ. Ward Moody – Astronomy and Astrophysics, Brigham Young UniversityJ. Ward Moody (Japanese) – Astronomy and Astrophysics, Brigham Young UniversityTodd K. Moon – Electrical and Computer Engineering, Utah State UniversityAlexander B. Morrison – Nutrition and Pharmacology, University of Guelph (Ontario) and Public ServiceC. Riley Nelson – Biology, Brigham Young UniversityT. Heath Ogden – Biology, Utah Valley UniversityNoel L. Owen – Chemistry, Brigham Young UniversityDula Parkinson – Chemistry, Lawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryRyan L. Parr – Human Genetics, Thunder Bay, Ontario, CanadaUgo A. Perego – Population Genetics, Sorenson Molecular Genealogy FoundationLawrence L. Poulsen – Biochemistry, University of Texas at AustinDarin Ragozzine – Astrophysics, University of FloridaThorsten Ritz – Biophysics, University of California, IrvineThorsten Ritz (Japanese) – Biophysics, University of California, IrvineAngela M. Berg Robertson – Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, University of Houston Center for Neuromotor and Biomechanics ResearchCharles W. Rogers – Physics, Southwestern Oklahoma State UniversityFrank B. Salisbury – Plant Physiology, Utah State UniversityLynn H. Slaugh – Chemistry, Private IndustryL. Douglas Smoot – Chemical Engineering, Brigham Young UniversityLarry St. Clair – Biology, Brigham Young UniversityTrent D. Stephens – Anatomy and Embryology, Idaho State UniversityPeter Stopher – Transport Planning and Engineering, University of Sydney, AustraliaJoseph William Stucki – Soil and Clay Chemistry, University of IllinoisDouglass F. Taber – Organic Chemistry, University of DelawareJames E. Talmage – Geology, University of UtahJason A. Tullis – Geosciences, University of ArkansasJamie Turner – Metallurgical and Materials Engineering / Engineering Systems, Houston, TexasDan Vassilaros – Chemistry, Private IndustryMatt Walters – Structural Engineering, Private IndustryBarry M. Willardson – Biochemistry, Brigham Young UniversityAmy Williams – Harvard University, Computer Science and GeneticsPeter Wöllauer – Chemistry, Bavaria, GermanyJeffrey C. (“Jeff”) Wynn – Geophysics, U.S. Geological SurveyLei Yang – Environmental Engineering, National Sun Yat-sen University, TaiwanCraig M. Young – Marine Biology, University of Oregon and Oregon Institute of Marine BiologyTom Yuill – Biology, University of Wisconsin

I am in a committed relationship for several years now with a wonderful woman, and we met online. Before we met, like millions of other people, I dated online. Let's be honest - online dating is like what Churchill said about democracy, the worst form of government there is, except for all the others that have ever been tried. If you don't drink alcohol, and if your taste in music is more like a human's than Michael Jackson's, bars are not especially attractive places to meet the opposite sex. (Or same sex, if that floats your boat.) Every single person has heard the advice - churches and temples, libraries, volunteering, hiking paths, dog parks, etc. Every suggestion has its merits; some may have drawbacks, but probably easily avoided. But let's face it: you could spend every spare waking moment going to such places in the hopes of meeting someone, and the simple fact of the matter is that a single online profile or Craigslist ad will reach many, many times more potential partners than you could meet face-to-face at traditional venues in a lifetime, and who has the time or money to waste? Online dating is wholesale, f2f is retail. It sucks, but it's the best of all the bad alternatives.But online dating, whether it's Craigslist or Match or Yahoo Personals or OK Cupid or whatever, has developed a vernacular and a set of assumptions that are truly obnoxious. You read the same lies, the same BS, the same weasel language, the same assumptions, the same unknowing insults, over and over again. I'm sure everyone has been frustrated, and of course. everyone, especially women who have dated online, has online dating horror stories to tell, and, if you're lucky, a few amusing ones, too. But did you fall prey to the temptation to shout your frustrations to the world? I didn't have many unuttered thoughts in 30-40 years I lived BEFORE the Internet; you could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of unspoken tidbits since that time. (I am, of course, one of the happily retired former online daters now, but I was on OK Cupid for a long time. I posted answers to over 1,000 of their questions - and often at this length, or more.) I am a big fan of Dennis Miller and I share his love for unfiltered ranting. Often, when I could no longer take the guff any more, I would post one or more of the following rants - which usually got me more datable responses than any nice or romantic post I made. So maybe you might enjoy some of these, all of which I previously posted on Craigslist. Of course, in consideration of your delicate digestion, I am omitting the parts with personal description and information.Let’s see . . . I’m Barney seeking Godzilla?------Ladies, I understand that you’re not Barbie and you’re not seeking Ken. I even understand that it must be galling to encounter men whom you think are seeking Barbie. But I honestly doubt that you’ll find a Men Seeking Women post that actually SAYS “Ken Seeking Barbie” – and I can’t imagine that such a post would last more than five minutes before being flagged out of existence if it showed up!But if you’re NOT Barbie seeking Ken, then why is it that literally dozens of Women Seeking Men post every day to be for Bella seeking Edward, Scarlett seeking Rhett, Sookie seeking Bill, Meredith seeking Derek, Juliet seeking Romeo (and thinking that “wherefore art thou Romeo” means “Where are ya, Romz?”) Michelle seeking Barack, Carrie seeking Big, Demi seeking Ashton (which of that pairing represents the most wishful thinking?), Scully seeking Mulder (dating ourselves, aren’t we)? Why would you imagine that those flights of fancy are in any way healthy?And these things are so evanescent and changeable! After all, I can remember, not long ago, women who said they were Jessica seeking Nick, or Kate seeking Jon! I’ve even seen, not that long ago, God help us, the vilely selfish clueless tastelessness of Lisa seeking Patrick and Natasha seeking Liam - guess it doesn’t matter which spouse dies, it’s Big Romance either way? I suppose I should be grateful that I haven’t seen Rihanna seeking Chris! But if you wish to convey the notion that you’re seeking eternal, uncritical, undying love, why not use a little imagination, and say you’re Jenny seeking Forrest, or Eve seeking Wall-E?But that’s not what you’re seeking to convey, is it? And it certainly isn’t what you’re conveying. What you convey with all the not-Barbie stuff is that you think all male fantasies are inherently evil and oppressive – never mind that men don’t actually say they’re seeking Barbie – and what you convey with your female fantasies is that you have completely unrealistic expectations to which no actual human flesh-and-blood males can possibly measure up. Unless a guy happens to be undead, of course, then HE’s got it made!I believe in romance, totally. I have dreams. I even have a fantasy – to find love with a real woman. Not Barbie, not Angelina, not Hillary nor Michelle, DEFINITELY not Sarah (although she could LOOK like Sarah, for sure, but not Bristol, pre OR post-surgery, yuck!) not Juliet, not Lolita, not Tamiko or whatever the Asian geisha fantasy woman is supposed to be named, not Jenna Jameson, not Megan Fox (who IS Megan Fox?), not a Desperate Housewife, no one sleepless, nor clueless, and I don’t care if you love dogs. A real person, OK? Someone like you, someone like me. I don’t care how many times I’m knocked down; I still get back up and keep searching for the real thing. I want a serious, committed, monogamous, long-term relationship. If someone reads that sentence and thinks “marriage” – hey, even better. But I want the real-world thing, between real people, with baggage like kids and divorces (although I have neither) and job and money woes and love handles and cankles, not imaginary baggage like sparkling in the sunlight, Scorpio rising in my third house, or a thirst for your O-negative.If you would like to explore possibilities with me, please send a reply that says something about yourself without borrowing from a movie or TV show or TMZ or Entertainment Weekly, and please send a photo and I will send one back. Be sure to put “No vampires!” in the subject line so I know you’re not spam. We’re not getting any younger here!--------Burn Barbie burn!You know what? I say it's time. Long past time. Let's burn Barbie in effigy! No more horrific suffering for hordes of self-esteem-damaged women who constantly have to suffer comparisons to Barbie, sez I!Here's my plan. We'll gather at the north end of the Bridgepointe parking lot in San Mateo, over by BJ's Restaurant and Brewhouse. Once the sisterhood is assembled, we'll go in, place our orders for nachos, wings, and some deep-dish pizzas. Then we pass out the lengths of two-by-fours, and the point women - dressed as G.I. Joes, of course - will be armed with M-16's. Then we'll unroll the mats, stretch, do a quickie set-up yoga session, about ten minutes, then everybody waters up, rolls the mats, and it's time! We'll advance on the Toys R Us - any women who detour to check out new arrivals at Marshall's will not get any pepperoni - and at the signal (a recording of Fran Drescher as the Nanny whining "Omigaaaaaad!"), we charge! The point women with the M-16's provide cover while the squad leaders grab shopping carts. We converge on the Barbie aisles from both ends. The infantry grunts will sweep the dolls from the shelves with reckless swings of the two-by-fours (wearing bicycle helmets for protection is optional). Sappers toss the offending icons into the carts, while snipers in enfilade behind the Bratz dolls launch a barrage of Tickle Me Elmos at any hapless clerks who try to intervene. Special-forces troops will raid the Silly String rack, and prepare to lay down cross-fire at the checkout clerks, so the loaded carts can make the escape. Once we've cleaned the place out, we toss the impossible little buffies into a pile, shpritz the gasoline, and let the bonfire begin! Because we are icons of liberation, and not terrorists, we will return the shopping carts to the cart corrals, and we won't leave them for our sisters to bump into on their way to Bed Bath and Beyond and Target. Once we've burned all the platinum blond manes and improbably perky tits into petroleum-based sludge, we leave photos of Rosie O'Donnell, Michelle Obama, and Tim Gunn at the site as a warning to mothers as to who the real guardians of femininity and the real fashion goddesses are supposed to be. (Yes, Tim, you ARE a goddess, and we love you!) And then to the pizza!Ladies - there are exactly six men in the Bay Area who care about Barbie. In fact, all six owned and played with Barbie. Four of them work in hair salons; one scares off women trying to fit into petites at Nordstrom's, and the last is a towel boy at the Power Exchange, who wears the cutest belt at work - and nothing else. Every other straight man, whether or not he wants a living Barbie, or a submissive Asian girl who weighs 98 pounds but has 44DD breasts, or likes real women, doesn't give a shit about Barbie. Men don't use the Barbie metaphor, and men don't get the Barbie metaphor. Whenever a woman whines about Barbie in a personals post, it is one the biggest possible red flags a woman can send up to send men clicking away frantically to their favorite Internet porn site. It simply SCREAMS "I have HUGE issues with my body! I feel my femininity is a HUGE burden, and I just don't want to deal with it! I RESENT how much it will cost to dry-clean the blouse I'm going to wear on the date I'm dying for you to ask me out on! I HATE MEN!!!!!!!!...but if Ken shows up at my door, I'm getting out the four-inch stilettos..."So since mentioning Barbie is the kiss of death, and you're all suffering from the relentless (female-invented, female-marketed) assault on your self-esteem, fuckit, let's saddle up and BURN THE BITCH DOWN!Are you WITH me??? HUUUU - AHHH!!!!!!-----------Cliché massacre! Help stamp out . . .I shamelessly beg you, by the giant greasy gonads of the great God Ghu, PLEASE don’t answer this post if you’ve posted in any of these ways:• You’ve talked about finding a spring fling or a summer romance• You’ve quoted lyrics from “Summer Lovin’” from Grease• You’ve said something about “the livin’ is easy.” Trust me, the last image you want to evoke when you wish to attract a man is any thought of Fantasia Barrino. She may sing the hell out of “Summertime” but most of us think that she probably packed on those few extra pounds by consuming baskets of male genitalia – she’s one scary broad!• You’ve said that there is no “we” in “summer” but there is a “u” and “me” (shudder!)• You talk about playing in the summer like a kid. When will women ever realize that men feel the burden of working to pay for the way you want to play, and that we’re less worried about that when you make at least an effort to sound like a mature partner, instead of someone waiting for a guy to come along and indulge them?• You’ve said “’Tis the season”• You’ve ever addressed your post to Santa• You’ve said “all I want for Christmas is . . . ”• You’ve used the words “naughty or nice”• You’ve made reference to mistletoe• You’ve quoted any other Christmas carol lyrics• You’ve said your New Year’s Resolution is to find someone• You’ve asked for a man like Barack Obama – for God’s sake, did you ever have ANY original thoughts? Things that weren’t put there by the last TV program you watched? Do you have any idea how PATHETIC and CLUELESS it sounds to want to date OBAMA? Are you going to answer posts from men who want to date a woman like Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann?• You’ve claimed to be sleepless somewhere or said “Must Love Dogs” – the statute of limitations on movie title references is nine months; ditto references to having you at hello (interesting mental image, though!)• You’re looking for a partner in crime• You’re looking for Mr. Right and especially if you’re not looking for Mr. Right Now• You’ve written something like “Insert witty title here”• You’ve claimed to be bored or lonely – this is my problem, because . . . ? And this is attractive, because . . . ?¨ You can’t describe yourself without a disparaging reference to Barbie• You’ve whined, “Why is this so hard?” or “Why is it so hard to find a [fill in the blank]?”• You’ve ever used some version of “Wherefore art thou Romeo?” Oh, by the way, “wherefore” means “why,” not “where.” Using this phrase as if it means “Where’s my Romeo?” is a crashing demonstration of astonishing ignorance, because it utterly proves that you’ve never read or seen “Romeo and Juliet” and don’t know the scene or the lines that follow.• You’ve said you’re looking for a prince, charming or otherwise, or a knight in shining armor• You’ve framed your post like a want ad for a boyfriend, or used the phrase “No [so-and-so’s] need apply.”• You’ve used the phrase “plays well with others” or other kindergarten references• You’ve put in any astrological sign or any reference to astrology. If you have cancer or drive a Taurus, that’s one thing; otherwise, ***BZZZZZTTT!!!*** CLICHÉ!• You’ve said that your kids or your family are the most important thing in the world to you (we thought it was your fantasy football league standing, of course!)• You can’t write something complimentary about yourself without saying that “I’m told that . . .” or “People tell me . . .” Who are these people? Why do we care what “they” say?• You’ve said that you can’t live without music. Really? For how long? Can we test this, like a David Blaine special? Is the time you can live without music shorter if you’re hanging upside down or encased in a block of ice? This could be cool . . .• You’re guilty of indiscriminate use of the word “fine,” as in “fine dining,” “fine art,” or the “finer things in life.” Actually, we’re now fining people for this, $200 for a first offense.• You love the outdoors but never mention a single outdoor activity.• You love to walk on the beach.• You’re spiritual but not religious. What the hell does this mean, anyway? You’d rather sleep in on Sundays? Or you find spiritual solace in brunch?¨ You’re comfortable in your own skin. Me, sometimes I get the urge to snuggle up in someone else’s skin, because mine pinches so much at the waist. Can I borrow yours?Please write back if you:• Are between the ages of xx and xx, more or less, and might be interested in a serious monogamous relationship with a xx-year-old man• Your favorite movie quotation is something like this: “Worms, Roxanne! I was afraid of worms!”• Love the truly witty and original written word.Please send your picture, and please put “Worms” in the subject line of your reply so I know you’re not spam.---------Enough!For years I've tried to find a life mate online.I wasn't tall enough.I wasn't thin enough.I wasn't wealthy enough.I wasn't a Scorpio. Did you know that out of all the women’s personal ads that mention astrological signs, over half of them only want Scorpios? What do you think that tells you – that Scorpios really are the sexy men, that there’s something special about having a birthday in November? Or does it tell you that astrology is bullshit, and that men facing women who depend on it tells us that sooner or later, she’s going to blow up over some incomprehensible load of crap, because she’s basically an irrational slave to her worst impulses?I didn't own a Harley or a convertible.I wasn't enough of a bad boy - no criminal record, no tattoos, not enough of an indifferent prick.I wasn't spiritual enough. (Hey, you could be a PRIEST and not be spiritual enough for Bay Area women, because how dare you channel your spirituality through ORGANIZED RELIGION?!? HORRORS!)But then the economic collapse came, and suddenly some of my shortcomings weren't so bad. It was as if I'd taken Bill Maher's old advice if you weren't having success dating: "Move to one of your poorer countries! It's much easier to impress the women there. 'Hey, yeah, sure, I got SHOES.'" After all, I had a job, a car, so it seemed it might matter less if I once hadn't been wealthy enough, and still wasn't tall enough. And I guess there must have been a fair number of Harleys and convertibles that got repossessed. So did things get better?You gotta be fuckin' kidding me!Now we got a whole NEW set of demands.And now I'm not aware enough.I'm not conscious enough.I’m not mindful enough.I'm not green enough.I don't tread lightly enough on the planet.I'm not organic enough (even though I can't figure out which parts of me are supposed to be inorganic!).I don't have enough alternative modes of thought.I don't meditate enough.I'm not non-toxic enough.I don't practice joyfulness enough.I don't engage in enough healing modalities.I'm not Tantric enough.My soul isn't old enough.I don't have enough poetry, because my poetry is dead white guys like Shakespeare, Yeats, Eliot, and Blake, instead of Hallmark-card bullshitters like Rumi and Eckhardt Fucking Tolle.I'm not in touch with the Goddess enough.It never occurred to me to judge the suitability of a woman as an emotional partner by how much of an environmentalist she was, how big her carbon footprint might be, or how much she cared for animals (other than male human ones).I'm not progressive enough.I don't worship President Obama enough.I don't practice yoga enough.I don't achieve peace and oneness with nature enough. In fact, I stopped bothering with oneness and moved on to twoness. That's not going too well, either.I've always thought that sex and touching and hugging and cuddling and mutual support and encouragement were important, but I've caught sight of myself naked and fucking in the mirror too many times to think of sexuality as something sacred. Enough.I'm not herbal enough.I'm not vegan enough.I don't just eat to live. Sometimes I just want a fucking cheesesteak or a pizza, just because they taste good, and even if it triples MY carbon footprint, I want the fucking food delivered before the game starts.I don't believe in astrology, so obviously I don't resonate with the cosmos enough.I'm not aware of karma enough. (Bummer, huh?)I knew some people would think I was kind of old-fashioned because I don't IM, text, or tweet, and I'm not on Facebook. I prefer writing and speaking, in full sentences and paragraphs, in emails, snail mail, on the phone, and in person. I've earned enough money by writing and teaching and speaking to think I might be pretty good at it. But now I know my communication isn't DEEP enough.I'm not enough of a burner or hippie, and I'm not 420-friendly enough. Oddly, while I don't smoke tobacco myself, I haven't managed to despise or be disgusted by those who do. Clearly, when it comes to mind-altering substances, I am nowhere near politically correct enough.I'm not earthy enough.I'm not primal enough.I'm not indie enough.I knew that I was extremely nearsighted with a touch of astigmatism, but I didn't know that I couldn't see the full spectrum. Well, I knew that I can't see into the infrared or ultraviolet, but neither can anyone else, besides Superman and Geordi LaForge. Apparently there's ANOTHER full spectrum I don't see.Even though I prefer larger women, sometimes I can't see past not only the avoirdupois, I also can't see past the anger, bitterness, and misandry to the inner beauty I'm told is ALWAYS there. Sometimes I just see a mean bitch who happens to be fat, and who imagines I'm supposed to think that her adipose is stained glass. And apparently this isn't just another form of myopia, it's proof that I'm not spiritually evolved - enough.I'm not nonmaterialistic enough. (Hey, SOMEBODY has to pay for the dates!)I'm not poly enough.I don't live in the moment enough.I don't listen to NPR enough.Hell, even I've figured out that I don't watch Oprah enough!But you know what I say? I say enough is enough! Don't any of you women realize that the main reason you are so obsessed with this pseudo-spiritual crapfest is that you are not getting laid enough? That the only thing that your vast spiritual journey is accomplishing is creating yet another yawning unbridgeable gulf between men and women? I say fuck all of you allegedly spiritually superior bitches, fuck you to death! Go sit in a fucking circle on your yoga mats out in nature, get in touch with the Goddess, harness the healing energies, and tread lightly everywhere except upon the patience of men. There, be sure to continue to roll out the howitzers and raze what's left of our dignity into primal organic particles, so we can finally achieve oneness with the universe. And maybe then we can find a decent woman!