All I Want for Christmas Is a Few New Dads

How much do I love these guys? Answer: very much. They are featured in this month's New York Magazine, which I purchased in the hopes that it would continue to cover the "women! They get drunk now!" beat. (Women Who Drink are the new Women Who Don't Always Wear Dresses, yall.) I was disappointed - sorely - but did read an interview with these guys, who, as previously mentioned, I now love. Their story is about the long and often bitter struggle for GLBT rights in America, and is therefore educative and relevant, but perhaps of equal importance is the fact that it contains several jokes:

Dietz: Although we hope whatever we do will benefit the community at large. To know a couple who have been together so long can be inspiring, especially because we look so marvelous. If we looked haggard, it wouldn’t be so inspiring.

Madson: We got married at the Pilgrim-landing site—so much for the Puritans.

Dietz: We were stunned and happy.

Madson: And then it was over. We’re married. It’s two in the afternoon. What now?

Dietz: Now we just wait for death.

Okay, dudes, here is the thing: I have had two stepfathers and a biological father, so I am neither shy nor inexperienced when it comes to investing in the Father Figures market, and having reviewed your thirty-eight-year relationship and total awesomeness re: jokes about it, I can state with some assurance that it is quite desirable. I guess what I am saying is: this Christmas, how do you feel about adopting a twenty-six-year-old child? Keep in mind that I come with my own bourbon!

SCIENCE FACT: People Who Benefit From Privilege More Likely To Think Privilege Is Awesome

So: there is a study which states that men with "traditional" views on gender earn more than men with egalitarian views. Surprise! (By the way, I love the euphemistic use of "traditional" rather than "sexist." Like, if I burned a woman to death because I thought she'd been blighting my crops with her menstrual blood, that wouldn't be a witch hunt - that would be "traditional agriculture.") Here, the authors of the study, Livingston and Judge, struggle to explain this puzzling new phenomenon:

"It could be that traditional men are hypercompetitive salary negotiators -- the Donald Trump prototype, perhaps," Judge said. "It could be on the employer side that, subconsciously, the men who are egalitarian are seen as effete."

Oh, "effete!" Yes, that's probably it: employers only give raises to sexist men because non-sexist dudes are giant pussies. By Jove, Science, you've done it again! 

Anyway, it's probably true that sexist men are rewarded more than non-sexist men (and all women) for their work. It might even be true that sexist dudes are super-powered ultra-negotiators who earn higher salaries because of their manly fortitude, although I really doubt it. However, it really seems not at all groundbreaking to point out that the people who benefit most from sexism are the people most invested in preserving it. Call me an idealist, but I generally think that a study should, if at all possible, be slightly more enlightening than an average episode of Mad Men.

Because, seriously, Mad Men has this: 

And he wears shorts.