The Woman Calculator

I've had a few years now to think about what traits (or lack of traits) I would want in a potential mate, as well as what traits are complete deal killers. The deal killers aren't necessarily the things that are most important to me, but they have a cut-off point, beyond which I am not willing to go. For example, I don't care whether a woman is a genius or just barely above average, but if she's stupid, then I'm not interested.

1. Respect. She can't be rude or spiteful. She has to treat other people, especially me, with respect.
2. Patriarchy. She can't want to be in charge. I suspect that all women have a tendency toward manipulation and control, but if she knows this and tries to suppress it, that's all I ask. She has to believe that her husband is her head and be willing to submit herself to him and her will to his.
3. Integrity. She can't be a thief, a cheat, or too much of a hypocrite.
4. Figure. I'm OK with athletic, thin, chubby, tall, or short. But she can't be obese, skeletally thin, muscle-bound, or terribly misshappen. Call me shallow if you want, but if I'm not in the least turned on by what I see and feel, then that is going to be a serious hinderance to a relationship.
5. Age. At least 18 (preferably over 25, but some young women are exceptional) and no more than 5 years my senior. I'm not interested in jail bait, and how many teenage girls in today's America are settled enough to handle a husband and children? On the downside, how many 25-40 year old women aren't bitter, sick, or have to hire a bellhop to carry all their baggage around?
6. Honesty. Related, but not quite the same as integrity. So many women lie as a matter of course. Much of the time, they don't even realize they're doing it. They lie to protect themselves or to spare someone's feelings or just because they feel like it. Nobody is perfectly honest, but there's a limit.
7. Beauty. An attractive face is clearly a plus, but beauty eventually fades. I don't care if a woman is plain, just so long as she isn't hideous. Fortunately for all of us, really ugly faces are even more rare than beautiful ones.
8. Baggage. Everybody has issues, everybody has baggage, but a person has to be able to function. I'm not interested in anyone who's bipolar, psychotic, misandric, rage-filled, possessed, exceptionally bitter, too self-hating, etc...
9. Religion. She has to be a believer. She doesn't have to agree with me on everything as long as she is in general agreement and knows that I set the rules in my house. If she doesn't know Yahweh, then she can hang out and be friends, but that's as far as it'll go.
10. Intelligence. As I already said, I don't care if she isn't a genius, as long as she isn't stupid. I don't need a woman to match wits with me, but I need to know that my house will remain in order if I am absent. I need her to be able to understand me when I speak and to respond in an intelligent manner. If there will be children, then she needs to be able to teach them.

I gave weights (from 1 to 5) to these characterstics and 26 more and put them in one column on a spreadsheet. I then ranked several women by how they scored. If she doesn't have the characteristic, then she gets a score of 0. If she has it in moderation, then she gets a score of the characteristic weight times 1. If she has it in abundance, then she gets a score of the weight times 2. For example, I gave Intelligence a weight of 1. A stupid woman gets a score of 0, and she's disqualified no matter how she scores otherwise. A woman of average or slightly above average intelligence gets a score of 1, and a very intelligent woman gets a score of 2.

Characteristic	Weight	Woman1	Woman2	Woman3
Intelligence	1	2	1	0
Maternity	1	1	2	2
Trait 3	2	2	4	4
Trait 4	2	4	4	4
Trait 5	3	6	3	6
Total	18	15	13	16

These characteristics received the heaviest weights:

• Recommendations. Weight=5. Recommendations from people I greatly respect.
• Respect. Weight=3. See above.
• Patriarchy. Weight=3. See above.
• Kindness. Weight=3. Obvious.
• Integrity. Weight=3. See above.
• Industry. Weight=3. Hard working and self-motivated.
• Health. Weight=3. Obvious.
• Figure. Weight=3. See above.
• Age. Weight=3. See above.

A few other characteristics: Cheer, generosity, spirituality, torah, humor, fertility, family, domesticity (cooking, mending, etc.), financial acumen, etc.

I put 12 women on my chart. I was already very interested in 2 of them, mildly interested in 4. 2 others had expressed an interest in me, and I added 3 in whom I have no interest at all, just for balance. Based on the deal killing traits, I immediately eliminated 9 women. Out of a possible score of 136, the remaining 3 received scores of 93, 91, and 22. (The last received such a low score because too many cells are occupied by question marks.) That gives me a plan of action: Attract the attention of the 2 top scorers and collect more data on the 3rd place finisher.

I'm sure most women and some men would find this method too cold. I'm fine with that. If you don't like it, don't use it. I expect this might be more useful to analytically inclined men--computer geeks, engineers, etc. Many others might think I'm being too picky. I'm fine with that too. For the moment, I'm perfectly happy being single. I don't have or want a girlfriend, and I haven't asked anyone out since last August. At the moment, this is more of an intellectual exercise than anything else.

Correction: I had a date in December, but it didn't turn out well. There's a deal killer I didn't mention: She forgets to tell you she's married.

Update March 13, 2008: Here's another deal killer: gross immodesty. I don't mind a tomboy, and I don't mind a twisted sense of humor. I don't want to hear about her sexual exploits or how proud she is of her bodily functions. I don't want anyone else to hear those things either. Modesty is all about knowing (and keeping!) the appropriate time and place for everything.

Update March 14, 2008: I used to think I was the only man to be so analytical about relationships until I came across this Kim du Toit article: Why Bother?

Update March 15, 2008: I need to add yet more fields:

• Parental Recommendations. Weight=5. Recommendations from my parents.
• Infatuation. Weight=4. Feelings come and go--which is why this only counts for 8 out of a possible 154 points (so far)--but I'd still really like to feel something for someone I might marry. Call me a romantic.

An Omniderigent God and an Overzealous Government

 ...he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.
Leviticus 1:3 

God has the power to force everyone to do the right thing. An omniderigent God could make human society run like a unity machine of the first order. But then it wouldn't be a society, it would be a machine. Although I'm sure that would please politicomechanizers such as Horace Mann, Joseph Stalin, and Hillary Clinton, I don't believe it's what God wants. Not only does he refrain from micromanaging every aspect of life, but he also wants us to leave each other alone. He never authorized governments to force people to do good. He never even authorized them to prevent people from doing all kinds of evil. People need to be free to make their own decisions, to tithe or not, to care for the poor or not. Charity at gun point is self-defeating. It breeds resentment, hatred, and eventually murder. It drives good men finally to declare, 'No more runnin'. I aim to misbehave.' Tar and feathers to follow.

Licensed Drug Pushers

 We imprison people who push politically incorrect drugs, even the ones that help extend the lives of very sick people. We reward people who push politically correct drugs, even the ones that destroy the lives of otherwise healthy people. Soma, hydrocodone, xanax, alprazolam, oxycodone, vicodin, gabitril, methocarbamol, topamax, ambien…You name it, and your doctor will probably prescribe it with no questions asked. Say you need more, and he'll probably give it to you. Tell him you're addicted, and he'll give you even more, or else he'll prescribe some other addictive chemical so maybe you won't mind the first one so much. Maybe he'll refer you to someone else. Maybe he'll just kick you out of his office so he doesn't get in trouble with the alphabet soup. When your husband or wife or child expresses concern about your steady diet of pretty colored pills and gel caps, your doctor will nod knowingly, promise to talk about weaning you off of something, and then prescribe something new. And all the old stuff too.

I know that there are a lot of doctors out there who really care about their patients. However, in my experience, far too many of them care more about their bottom line than about your health. They'll prescribe all the Ambien you want, because it will keep you coming back and your insurance company paying the bills. They almost certainly won't tell you about the voices, the hallucinations, the terrible nightmares, the blackouts, and the miserable lives of the people who try to love you.

The miracles of modern medicine. Ain't it grand?

God's Charges

 ...gave them a charge unto the children of Israel, and unto Pharaoh king of Egypt...
Exodus 6:13

God delegates all authority to be used for a purpose. Rulers have authority over cities and regions and nations to be a terror to evildoers. Bishops and elders have authority over congregations for their teaching and guidance. Husbands have authority over their wives, and fathers have authority over their children, but not so they can do whatever they want with them. If Moses had ordered Pharaoh to let the Ethiopians go or if he had led the Hebrews in armed rebellion, he would have overstepped his commission. He was granted authority over Israel and Pharaoh solely for the purpose of bringing Israel out of Egypt. Husbands and fathers and mothers also hold their authority conditionally. Men may not order their wives and children to lie or steal, and mothers may not severely treat their children.

Girly Men for McRomhuckiani

Yep. All Muslims want to kill all Americans. We have to be over there so they don't come over here. Whatever.

I've met a few Muslims, and as far as I could tell, none of them wanted to kill even a single American. In fact, some of them seemed like pretty decent people. What's really amazing is that none of them were terrorists. They were just ordinary people trying to make a living right here in America without shooting anyone or blowing anything up.

Terrorists are bullies, and like all other bullies, they harass you for one of two reasons: to provoke a fight or to prevent a fight. Call them the Fighting Bully and the Intimidating Bully. Saddam Hussein seemed to be of the latter sort. So too are most governments, including those of Afghanistan and Iraq. They use violence to cow and pacify. For the most part, we have absolutely nothing to worry about from them. They make a lot of noise about the Great Devil in the West, because we are a useful tool to keep their people in a state of perpetual fear. It's the same way Washington uses al Qaeda and the Taliban. They scream and threaten, and their people might dance in the streets when our buildings burn down, but most of them aren't so stupid as to want real war with us. If you stand up to the Intimidating Bully, he will almost always back down. If he doesn't, then spill some blood. Learn to speak his language, and he'll start to listen.

If the media reports are to be believed, then Osama bin Ladin is the other sort of bully, the kind who wants to fight. They pick at you until you lash out, providing them with a public excuse to try to really hurt you. This is the kind of bully who won't back down if you stick up for yourself. Unfortunately, he's almost always more than you can handle, or at least he believes he is, which is often just as bad. You can do one of two things with the Fighting Bully. You can put him down hard or you can change the rules. Don't give him the reaction he wants. Give him something completely unexpected. Does he want a military showdown? Offer him Jelly Bellies with one hand, while your other hand pays someone else to knock him over the head from behind.

The Bush method of dealing with terrorists is stupid. If the party line on 9/11 is accurate then a war in the Middle East is exactly what al Qaeda wanted. Iraq was never a threat to the United States, neither was the Taliban. Operation Iraqi Freedom never had anything to do with anyone's freedom--especially not ours--and everything to do with pride and greed. Ron Paul's take on foreign policy is exactly right on this. If you aren't going to declare war and execute it ruthlessly, then get the heck out. Offer Afghanistan some Jelly Bellies and issue some letters of marque and reprisal. Smuggle in a few truckloads of Cosmo every month. That would really teach them.

Now we have two probably unwinnable wars going on, wide open borders, and every reason in the world for a thousand and one Arabian terrorists to want to cross them. We went over there so we wouldn't have to fight them over here? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

The truth is that Bush and company want to keep you scared. They make up boogeymen so you'll cower under your blanky and cry for Big Brother to make you safe. They never intended to free Iraq or to defeat terror. They intended to promote terror, because Bush is every bit the Intimidating Bully.

The Means of Vexation and Oppression

The situation of the inferior gentry, or Franklins, as they were called, who, by the law and spirit of the English constitution, were entitled to hold themselves independent of feudal tyranny, became now unusually precarious. If, as was most generally the case, they placed themselves under the protection of any of the petty kings in their vicinity, accepted of feudal offices in his household, or bound themselves by mutual treaties of alliance and protection to support him in his enterprises, they might indeed purchase temporary repose; but it must be with the sacrifice of that independence which was so dear to every English bosom, and at the certain hazard of being involved as a party in whatever rash expedition the ambition of their protector might lead him to undertake. On the other hand, such and so multiplied were the means of vexation and oppression possessed by the great Barons, that they never wanted the pretext, and seldom the will, to harass and pursue, even to the very edge of destruction, any of their less powerful neighbours who attempted to separate themselves from their authority, and to trust for their protection, during the dangers of the times, to their own inoffensive conduct, and to the laws of the land.
-Sir Walter Scott, Ivanhoe

Sound familiar? Nothing has changed except the technology of oppression. The "great Barons" of today still protect each other while they pretend to be enemies. They still use the Franklins at the EPA and the IRS to ride the backs of the common man. Minding one's own business–even minding the law–is no protection against thugs. They believe that, since they write the laws, they are free to ignore them whenever it suits. You cannot live through a single day without breaking some law, without tripping over one of the many blocks placed for that very purpose.

Nenastnyj vs Ron Paul

SecureWorks' Joe Stewart recently revealed that the culprit behind October's Ron Paul spamming was a low-level spammer-for-hire known as nenastnyj. I'm not saying there's a vast neocon/communist conspiracy or anything, but using the same transliteration system taught by the Defense Language Institute, nenastnyj is a Russian word meaning "rainy." The botnet software used by nenastnyj was also Russian--or at least CIS--and probably controlled by a server in one of the CIS nations. The likelihood of this all being coincidence is fair, since DLI has probably trained tens of thousands of Russian translators over the years and is almost certainly not the only entity to teach this particular system. It might even be taught by Russian universities. I just thought it was interesting enough to share.