Elsewhere on the Web (8/20/07)

Anterior Commissure on the reproductive success explanation for why men insult women:

Researchers uncovered convincing evidence that partner-directed insults help to "maintain an intimate partner's exclusive involvement in the relationship." While men employed a variety of insults, ranging from physical to mental, insults that accused a mate of sexual infidelity were most predictive of men's successful mate retention. It's no suprise, then, that men most likely to insult their partner were those who believed their partners were likely to cheat. Based on these findings, researchers believe that:

Men's use of these particular insults may lead a woman to feel that she can do no better than her current relationship, or that she is incapable of finding another partner...functioning to prevent or thwart a woman's defection from the relationship.

Obviously, it's not entirely surprising that most species sneakily employ a variety of manipulative tactics to find and retain their mates: male snakes will mimic other males in order to thwart their competition, some male fish are known to do the same, other male fish may even pose as fruit. (Emphasis mine.)

(One time I was trying to catch my girlfriend cheating, and I totally posed as fruit basket. She couldn't even tell, and I so caught her.)

Chick-lit in Saudi Arabia is a provocative thing:

The prose stays mostly light, even gratingly so at times. Hushed-up nose jobs in Lebanon, makeup tips, modest robes tailored to show off curves and designer-label hijabs are all part of the bitchy game that decides a girl's future. And even once the thumbprint is on the marriage contract (women aren't allowed to sign), the woes aren't over: How long, for example, is it appropriate to make one's husband wait for sex? One night after the wedding? Seven? Which unspoken code of behavior might be governing his actions, and will he punish you if you're wrong? Navigating this maze of requirements could mean the different between divorce--and thereafter possible confinement to the house -- and a tolerable lifestyle.

It's hardly surprising, then, that courtship often manifests as a materialist status race. Alsanea expects a lot of her guys: money, height, prestige, culture, Barry Manilow-singing teddy bears, diamonds on Valentines Day, affectionate notes stuck on the fridge, and so on. And from the weak-minded puppets of familial authority, to abusive cheaters and pathologically suspicious control-freaks, the guys always disappoint. Flirting, officially forbidden, struggles through a variety of tortured avenues-instant messaging, "numbering" girls through tinted windows (that is, publicly displaying one's cell number in the hopes of getting a call), and the occasional covert cafe meet-up.

Victor David Hanson on why we should study war:

The academic neglect of war is even more acute today. Military history as a discipline has atrophied, with very few professorships, journal articles, or degree programs. In 2004, Edward Coffman, a retired military history professor who taught at the University of Wisconsin, reviewed the faculties of the top 25 history departments, as ranked by U.S. News and World Report. He found that of over 1,000 professors, only 21 identified war as a specialty. When war does show up on university syllabi, it's often about the race, class, and gender of combatants and wartime civilians. So a class on the Civil War will focus on the Underground Railroad and Reconstruction, not on Chancellorsville and Gettysburg. One on World War II might emphasize Japanese internment, Rosie the Riveter, and the horror of Hiroshima, not Guadalcanal and Midway. A survey of the Vietnam War will devote lots of time to the inequities of the draft, media coverage, and the antiwar movement at home, and scant the air and artillery barrages at Khe Sanh.

Matthew Nisbet on cognitive dissonance and why New Atheists are shooting themselves in the foot:

Everything we know from social science research on attitude formation and beliefs predicts that the communication strategy of the New Atheist noise machine will only further alienate moderately religious Americans, the very same publics who might otherwise agree with secularists on many social issues.

The Dawkins/Hitchens PR campaign provides emotional sustenance and talking points for many atheists, but when it comes to selling the public on either non-belief or science, the campaign is likely to boomerang in disastrous ways.

Read the whole thing.