Things I learned about men from an issue of Cosmopolitan

My mother-in-law was here last week, and she brought with her the June 2006 issue of Cosmopolitan. I told her to leave it here so I could look through it and see what they say about men, because it's always interesting to see what women think about men. You can believe me or not, by the way, about that story - I know some of you will think I subscribe to such a fine publication!

On page 70, ladies can find out how to tell if a guy is looking for love or just sex. These signs are accompanied, of course, by pictures of shirtless guys. Here's one: A half-smile means he's looking for sex. Also, a long, piercing gaze, even though you might think he's smitten, is unnatural, and it means he's trying real hard to seduce you. Meanwhile, if he laughs easily or interlocks his hand with yours, he's looking for love. So there you go.

On page 76, we learn things to tell your man to, presumably, turn him on: you occasionally go without underwear; you have sexual fantasies; you have looked at porn; you, um, pleasure yourself. Do women really need to be told that men enjoy hearing all four of those things?

Page 136 gives us erotic water positions. I'm not even going into those!

Apparently, men hate to talk and like to have sex. So on page 140, we get the secrets to really understanding each other. When you're on a long trip and your man doesn't want to talk, women should learn to just shut up (hey, I'm only writing their advice, although they say it more nicely). Of course, according to Cosmo, if you have something really important to say, it's a good time, because men feel more comfortable talking side to side rather than face to face. But don't push him! Most of this article is about how men don't like to talk. Strange.

On page 152, we get annoying traits of men and how to turn them into a positive. Most of them are fine, but one of them made me laugh: He doesn't make a lot of dough. What an annoying "trait." The answer, surprisingly, isn't "try to be less shallow."

Page 156 gives women advice on how to turn a "friend" into a "boyfriend." As someone who had big problems approaching women in high school and therefore accumulated a lot of female friends but few girlfriends (I was the "good listener"), this one is easy: tell him you want to jump his bones. That should work.

All of this advice is bizarre, not because it's necessarily wrong, but a lot of it seems to imply that men will never change and that women need to adapt to make a relationship work. They don't say so in so many words, but that's the implication. I always tell Krys that women's magazines are some of the worst perpetuators of stereotypes about women around, and Cosmo seems to be the leader in that regard. But I guess if changing your personality gets you a man, then all is right with the world. Right?

So, ladies, heed Cosmo's advice. It will lead to sexual and romantic fulfillment. And don't even consider asking your man to change. That's just foolish.

What's the big deal with fathers anyway?

I thought I could do some links this week, but after a few days during which I had some time to surf the web, I ran into obstacles. The kids are actually taking up a lot of my time - imagine that!

So it's Father's Day, and although I don't buy into these ridiculous Hallmark-mandated holidays (I'm not knocking it, because I got a few books from the wife, but it's still silly), it is a good day to reflect on fatherhood and what it means in today's world.

I love being a father. Despite yelling at my kids when they don't do what they should (well, Mia gets the brunt of it, because she understands me, but Norah knows the word "no" now, so she gets a little of it) and realizing that I shouldn't yell at them because it will eventually turn them into serial killers, I really enjoy being a father. In our society, there is a lot of debate about "traditional" families and how those crazy gays and lesbians want to destroy it and how can two women raise a child when kids need a father, damn it! That's what the "traditionalists" say, anyway. Well, maybe, maybe not. Lots of fine people have been raised by single mothers, just as lots of fine people have been raised by single fathers. Fatherhood, however, still doesn't get a lot of respect, which is strange.

Part of this is due to feminism. Yes, I'm going to attack feminism! Well, not really - the basic tenet of feminism, it seems to me, is that women should be treated as human beings and not chattel, which is certainly a noble thing. Feminists, for the large part, are not man-hating harpies, as the conservative right would have you believe, but a vocal segment of feminists claim that one woman can do the job of two people (whether they are women or men doesn't really matter). In child rearing, this means that a single mother is just as capable as a woman married to a man, or two women, or two men. This is where fathers become downgraded and even extraneous, and it bothers me. Because no single person can do as good a job, especially in raising a child, as two people can. We are, of course, talking about committed individuals - if one part of the couple isn't interested, it could be far more damaging than a single person raising a kid. Because mothers are seen as having a far more emotional attachment to their children - they did, after all, carry them in their wombs for nine months - fathers are the ones written out of the equation.

This bugs me, as it should everyone. Again, I'm not going to bash single mothers, most of whom have no choice in the matter. However, you can't tell me that a devoted single mother is a better choice to raise a child than two devoted parents, which usually means a mother and a father (not to downplay gay couples raising kids, but I suspect their numbers are miniscule). First, single mothers usually have to work, and work a lot, and this cuts down on time spent with the children. Kids need to spend time with their parents, and that's difficult when the single parent has to work all the time just to provide the necessities for their kids. In America, obviously both parents have to work often, which presents the same problems, but at least parents who both work can try to juggle their schedules. The extra income is nice, too. In a household where only one parent has to work, like mine, the kids benefit from the time they get with the parent who stays home. If Krys were a single parent, she would probably be forced to move closer to her home because she wouldn't be able to afford the kind of child care that Mia needs. And if Mia were in a "regular" day care (which she probably wouldn't be, because they wouldn't take her, but let's imagine), she wouldn't get the care she needs. We're lucky that I get to stay home, but the situation is the same in households with two parents - the kids get to bond with their parent, and I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that makes for better kids.

Fathers in the equation are often discounted because they have always been seen as the breadwinners. Ironically, in our post-feminist world, stay-at-home dads are still seen as a bit of an anomaly, mainly because even after all the advances feminists have made, men still get paid more and are hardwired to a certain extent to believe they must be the providers in a family. A small example of this: above the title of Parenting magazine is the tag line: "What really matters to moms." [Emphasis mine, obviously.] The articles are largely mom-centric, although not overwhelmingly so. There still seems to be an unspoken criticism of stay-at-home dads, as if they can't provide for their families and there's no possible way they could be as good a parent as the mother. It's a bizarre double-standard, and one that is slowly changing as more fathers stay home with their kids and more mothers stay in the workplace. I'm certainly not saying I'm any better than Krys as a parent - I'm different, but not better. But I think I do a pretty good job when I am home alone with Mia and Norah, and they seem to have a good time, too.

The biggest problem with fathers today is fathers themselves. Men in general are weird in different ways than women are, and unfortunately, neither gender wants to admit that they can learn stuff from the other. Men, I think, find raising children less macho than they should, and therefore often pass off to mothers the nuts and bolts of it. This has a lot to do, I think, with the way men are raised - not necessarily poorly, but it does seem a lot more difficult for men to be as emotionally connected to their children. I love Mia and Norah more than anything, but I think Krys feels more connected to them - again, because she carried them inside her. That allows me, I believe, to be a little more objective about them. Krys spoils them more. Part of this is because she's a woman, and part of this is because she's not around them for hours and hours on end. When she gets home from work, they pine for her, and she indulges them a little more than I do. I shouldn't write "spoil" because I don't think they're spoiled. I suppose she's more attendant to them - I ignore them a lot, because I think they need to figure things out for themselves. Well, not Mia, but Norah. I've had to stop typing this twice because she has wandered off, and I looked around and realized she was far away. So I had to follow her - I'll ignore her, but I don't want her getting into trouble! Krys doesn't do that - she sits with them and talks to them more than I do, and I don't know what's better. I think it's good that they get a mixture of both styles. But I still love them dearly, and I can't imagine being the kind of father who doesn't show them how much I love them. Fathers need to realize that showing emotions doesn't make you less manly, while mothers need to realize that smothering your kids with kisses doesn't mean you love them more than fathers do. The balance between mother and father helps kids, I think, to be more well-rounded. Krys and I both have different skills as adults, and I hope we can pass on both to our kids. I know I'm going to teach them not to "throw like girls," because Krys sure won't be able to!

It's a shame in society that fathers often end up the deadbeats and losers in a relationship, but it also seems like bad fathers get more publicity than bad mothers. In Arizona, as I'm sure around the country, there is a bit of an epidemic of boyfriends killing the children of their girlfriends. The men get the worst of it, naturally, but only until recently did the state start holding the women responsible as well - the kids, after all, are theirs, and often they're more concerned about pleasing the boyfriend than making sure their kids are safe. There are bad father and bad mothers, but for some reason we always try to find excuses for bad mothers - they're insane, they're depressed - instead of just recognizing that some people are bad parents. We have no problem trashing a dad who does something horrible, after all.

So it's a day to celebrate fathers, and that's fine. I think being a dad is a wonderful thing, and I'm very glad Krys and I decided to have kids, even though they drive me insane occasionally. It's also nice to see that we are continually breaking down stereotypes of both men and women, because that can only benefit both the kids and the family unit in general. Kids flourish in families - no matter what kind - and that's what's important. Isn't it?