Four reasons you shouldn't date a liberal...

...according to some very accepting self-proclaimed "conservative" women.

1)Liberals are arrogant

-According to Skye (who is apparently getting back at her hippie parents for giving her such an easily mocked name), liberal guys have "a sense of smug arrogance."  She continues, gracefully and respectfully, "There are times when I have dated liberals and there is an arrogance that pervades every facet of their personality.  It's not just a political thing with them; it's a lifestyle."  

2)Liberals are whiny

-Kit Lange, who also writes for gatheringofeagles.org (no, it isn't a Stephen Colbert parody) says that liberals are "very selfish and want you to baby them."  She then goes on to give her description of a guy that she recently went on a date with, who she could automatically tell was, dun dun dun, a liberal: "His nails were longer than mine, they were manicured, he had a ponytail, and immediately started talking about how I shouldn't smoke because it was bad for the environment."  

Note to Kit: You seem to have confused the world "liberal" with the word "douchebag."  

3)They treat women as equals

-Dicks.  Conservative woman on the prowl, L.A. Holmes, says, "Liberal men, by and large, seem to have forgotten what chivalry is. I don't know if that is a consequence of how they were brought up, the women's lib movement, and all that."

Note to L.A.: Yes, the women's lib movement and "all that."  Sorry you can't sit down on the train when your feet hurt because some liberal guy is in your seat, but you might want to thank the women's lib movement for, you know, giving you the opportunity to hold your job at the assignment desk at Fox News Channel.  

4)Clintonian socialist entitlement (i.e. "Let's split the check.")

-And I saved the best for last.  Moxie, a professional photographer and freelance douchebag, has quite a bit to say about liberals.  So much so that she is writing a book.  Let's hope her insightful comments into the world of dating liberals is a preview of things to come!  Here are some highlights:

•"Sure, I used to date liberals.  They were always the ones who had problems with conservative women.  So much for the 'open-minded liberal' myth."

•"Liberals were always happy to suggest we split the check; it must be some Clintonian socialist entitlement."

•"[Liberals] also tend to own clothing displaying their irrational fear of Dick Cheney, and/or love of Che Guevara.  They are shaggy haired, greasy hipster types you find loitering in the Apple store."

But even Moxie holds out some hope for those poor, shaggy liberals : "Even now, I'd date a decent liberal.  If a guy really cares, he should have no problem voting McCain/Rove '08.  It will make him feel like a real man."  

She added, "Scratching his balls in public would also work."

Full article: http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/04/interviewing_six_conservative.php

Dear Urban Outfitters,

Over the years, I have given you my money and undying gratitude for your propensity to carry shirts that actually meet the top of low-rise jeans. Perhaps this season you are at the mercy of your suppliers, who appear to be punishing you for something. Or perhaps this is some sort of a joke that you are playing on your consumers. I can picture your senior buyer, sitting in a room, snickering at the obviously hideous items the stores would soon be featuring. I guess it is an interesting social experiment: just how ugly do the clothes have to be before people stop buying them? I hope we have reached our limit. Examples follow:


Even Dexie's Midnight Runners would be offended.



Um. What?


Perhaps it's a bad sign when the person getting *paid* to wear the outfit looks apalled.

Ok, Urban. Ha. Good one. Can you fire your (obviously inhumane) buyer now and apologize to anyone who purchased high-waisted shorts? Or maybe you should issue an open apology to the general public, who will have to deal with unprecedented levels of camel-toe all summer because of this stunt.

Crisis of Crisis

Now, I blame John Mayer for a lot of things: douchebag undergrads sitting under trees and singing insipid love songs on the first day of Spring; increased media coverage of Jessica Simpson; etc. But probably the most offensive thing he has done to me is to introduce the term "quarterlife crisis" into my lexicon. When I was 17 and still young enough to appreciate John Mayer (on a deeper level than everyone else, of course) his song "Why Georgia" was perfect fodder for mid-summer, windows-down, late-night drives. I used to sing the lyrics, "Might be a quarterlife crisis/or just a stirring in my soul" with a naive smile. At 17 I thought the idea of a "quarterlife crisis" was a cute little joke.

Now that I am nearing the age of the "quarterlife," I don't feel the effects of this crisis personally. I don't believe that I should have my entire life nailed down by the age of 25. That thought, in fact, depresses me. But many of my friends seem to believe that they are going through some sort of a crisis that requires the aid of of self-help books. A recent blog post by one of my friends discussing the theme of an approaching (dun dun dun) 24th birthday resulted in a deluge of comments ranging from "I know exactly what you mean," to "Read this book. It really helped me through this tough time."

The book that was sagely recommended is "Quarterlife Crisis: The Unique Challenges of Life in Your Twenties." After a short search on Amazon.com, I found about five books with a similar theme: helping 20-somethings get through their 20-something lives. My problem with these books is they seem to be *creating* a problem rather than *solving* it. Do you have feelings of uneasiness? Are you not totally happy with your job? Are you between 24 and 30? Well you can stop worrying because we have the solution! You are going through a quarter-life crisis! And this book will get you through it!

Aside from the fact that I think all self-help books have minimal to no actual benefit, these books seem especially unnecessary. The first line of "Quarterlife Crisis" reads as follows: "The quest to define ourselves begins during childhood, but when twentysomethings enter the 'real' world, the process can seem to start all over again." Wow. What a progressive idea. As an adult, you are constantly changing and trying to find your place in the world. I hope the rest of the book is as insightful. And it looks like I'm in luck, given the chapter titles: "How Am I Supposed to Figure Out Who I Really Am?" "What if I'm Scared to Stop Being a Kid?" "What If I Fail?" "What Do All of These Doubts Mean?" and my personal favorite, "Can I Carry Any Part of My College Experience into the Real World?"

When did college become a bump in the road on the way to adulthood? Last time I checked, college was supposed to provide a few transitional years between high school and adulthood; the purpose of college, in fact, was to *prepare* people for life after college. Why are we going to college if the skills we learn in it are completely useless? The answer is: we aren't. As much as the writers of these books would like us to believe college campuses exist in some sort of vacuum that have no connection to the outside world, it just isn't true. College is still an institution of preparation where students improve their analytical skills, writing skills, and, outside the classroom, their social skills. After graduation, these twentysomethings have plenty of options and plenty of opportunity. I know because I am one of them. And I find this feeling of possibility rather liberating.

So what makes people of my generation think that there is something fundamentally wrong with them because they don't feel perfectly settled at the absurdly young age of 25? Is it the pressure to be monetarily secure and successful at a young age? Is it the self-help book publishers trying to make money on a previously untapped demographic? Is it based on a sense of guilt that college was just too much fun? Or does it boil down to even larger problems, like the inherent pressure of living in a competitive capitalist society?

I'm sure these are all viable factors, but someone, somewhere along the line decided that a perfectly normal state of liminality needed to be idenitfied, studied, and remedied. I'm guessing it was a twentysomething with a little too much time on his hands, and for that reason, I choose to blame John Mayer.