According To Hoyt

By Holly the Assistant

You know the party games, right? With the cups, and the kid puts a pea under one, and switches them around, and then reveals that it’s under a different cup than you thought? Or makes a quarter vanish then pulls it from behind his friend’s ear?

Look over there! Lake America! Look over there! Horrible President Rankings! Look over there!

And everyone is looking. Over there.

I established a habit back in the first term of President Trump of when my leftist acquaintances started screeching about something inane, going to check the Executive Orders page at the White House Website. (I am a classical musician: of course I have leftist acquaintances. The real trick is telling which are truly leftist and which are situationally leftist to stay employed.) We have several interesting Executive Orders this week, among the mundane, expected, and distracting. There’s the one about beef trimming imports, there’s the Space Academy which is to be under NASA interestingly enough, and then there’s the National Emergency.

The what you say, Holly?

Yes, we have an Executive Order titled: DECLARING A NATIONAL EMERGENCY TO SECURE
THE UNITED STATES BULK-POWER SYSTEM. You can read it here, and you should, because I do not speak electrical or national security fluently enough to tell you what it means: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/08/declaring-a-national-emergency-to-secure-the-united-states-bulk-power-system/

I do not know if this means that no one can build a solar plant with solar panels from the PRC, or if it means that no one can buy solar panels from the PRC if they will be grid tied, or something else entirely. I do not know if this is the reason for renaming Lake Ontario, so everyone is looking the other way and screeching, or if something else is. But I find it interesting that the first I heard of this was bopping over to the White House website to see what Executive Orders were up.

If you do speak fluent electrical and national security (Jeff maybe?) and you feel like you can translate, maybe you’d be willing to do so in the comments?

And if you know of something else that Pres. Trump is distracting from, drop that in the comments, too, assuming it’s public knowledge, of course, just not widely known public knowledge.

Our recently departed, beloved Havelock-cat was not the brightest bulb in the string. Or if you prefer, while not precisely dumb (he could figure out how to manipulate us a treat) Havey had two enormous areas of mental blindness: One was hygiene. We assumed he lost his mommy early and was never taught to clean himself. As far as he was concerned there was one part of his body he was supposed to groom: his left paw. His being a very fluffy cat this caused incidents of chasing him through the house while he distributed the poo in his tail and backside all over the carpets. His other huge blind spot was more endearing and also more exasperating: Havelock-cat was incapable of imagining that anyone — ANYONE — human or animal could wish him ill. (Which is one of the reasons we made d*mn sure he didn’t go outside, ever.)

The inside of our house should have been a perfectly safe place except that when we acquired him the house already contained D’Artagnan. I’m not going to cast shade on D’Artagnan, who was adorable and also older son’s cat, but his nickname was Slinky McEvil for a reason.

We had — still do, I’m looking at it — a glass fronted bookcase that is antique and was bought a millionth hand or so, for which the key has long been lost. You can open it by grabbing the upper edge and pulling. Which requires either a human hand at chest level or a cat standing on it.

Havey would inexplicably end up on the bottom shelf, looking piteous and trying to get out. I had to hide to find out what was happening. And the sequence was this: D’Artagnan would jump a top the bookcase, pry the front open just enough, then toss “coveted disputed toy” (a realistic mouse) in the bottom shelf. Along came Havey and went in to retrieve the toy. at which point D’Artagnan body-slammed the door closed. Voila, piteous, crying, stuck Havey.

Now for this to work once makes perfect sense. I mean, it was pretty d*mn devious for a cat to do that. But it happened over and over and over again, till I wedged a shim in the door that had to be removed before the door opened (and which cat paw from above couldn’t reach.) It’s like after getting trapped ten times, Havey came along and went “Oh, wow, there’s the toy and no D’Artagnan inside, I’ll just nip in!” “What could go wrong THIS time?”

My mantra when freeing him quickly became “Havey, this cat is not your friend. This cat does NOT mean you well.”

This story came to mind yesterday when I was thinking of DEI, particularly in the arts (though honestly, to an extent, in everything else.”

Because I keep looking at people (and enterprises) caught in it and going “These people are not your friends. These people don’t mean you well.”

And yet– I was talking to my husband and said the only people hard-sure that writers will be replaced by AI soon are people who have no understanding of technology and the fine flowers of trad pub, particularly “literary” who were published on the strength of being called “I’m Foreign and Oppressed” and writing about their oppression. And in their case it’s because their entire work could be replaced to advantage by ChatGTP (Or a small PERL script. Whichever.)

So, I understand the temptation. Look, heaven knows I do. When I was a struggling writer, trying to get in, if I had half a clue how to sell “exotic tale of hardship” without lying, I’d have tried it. Yes that’s different from nowadays when rather inexplicably all of trad pub (with the obvious exception, thanks guys) has gone headlong for “must have exotic name and Marxist-story-of-oppression” to be published at all. But still. When you’re in the phase that you’re flinging manuscript after manuscript into the maw of an establishment that will reject you for the stupidest reason and sometimes no reason at all, and which will often NOT TELL YOU when you’re rejected, after year two or three you’ll take anything that gives you a hand (or foot. Or nostril. Or eyebrow) up.

So what is the problem with that?

The problem is that while most publishable — heck, most bestseller-quality — manuscripts never got out of the slush pile (for the simple reason for about ten years slush piles weren’t even read. But that’s a long story) the reason these people got out of the slush pile had nothing to do with readibility let along reader appeal.

In fact, let me tell you as someone with a non-standard back story, it might relate INVERSELY to finding a wide audience. Why? Well, because story telling is the art of evoking a whole world from a half dozen details. To know which details to pick, you have to be VERY plugged in to the culture. As I tell people, most of the 13 years it took me to break in was acculturating enough. Because storytelling is a form of communication. And communication is harder across cultures.

On top of which if you are randomly selecting people for reasons other than quality QUALITY ALWAYS SUFFERS.

And that applies not just in writing, but in every single front of human endeavor.

Do I mean that EVERYONE advanced by DEI is mediocre? Oh dear Lord, of course not. Just the vast overwhelming majority.

In which they partake with the rest of the human race, because of most human endeavor is a mire of mediocrity, most people (duh) never rise above average (half never make it that far) and even geniuses are pretty hopeless at things that are not their core competency (TRUST ME in this. I raised two of them.)

Which is why if you are not selecting for excellence at “the thing” (Whatever the thing is) what you’ll get is mostly crap. Sometimes by sheer accident you’ll pull up a diamond, but the vast majority will put a hoover to shame, they will suck so badly.

And it doesn’t matter if they were advanced for being able to tan, having a family that worked on a tan for the last ten thousand years, or being female, or any other reason. If there were a DEI program initiated for left-handed blind-in-one-eye, one-legged Samoans, we’d end up with a lot of useless people there too.

The thing is that for the people thus selected, this seems like mana from heaven. It’s “I don’t have to struggle so hard” and it’s “Advancement for me and my family” and…

Look, I’m not saying I’d resist it if someone offered me a million dollar contract for aging people of Portuguese origin who have trouble losing weight (Curse you thyroid, couldn’t you have gone the other way?)

BUT–

For the group, in aggregate, it’s a disaster. Part of the perception that women just aren’t as competent, that even all the propaganda about girl bosses can’t counter is that we’ve been randomly advancing women on the flimsiest excuses for decades. Thus most women found in positions of authority are… not worthy of being there, and screw up at higher than average rates.

The same goes for every single protected category.

On the other hand if you want to make a group hyper-competent? Discriminate AGAINST them. (No, I’m not recommending this. I think everyone should get a fair shake, but historically this works.) Why? Because the people who make it to the top are by definition those with the ability to work harder, to work smarter and to just be more ambitious and focused than anyone else.

We’ve been applying this refining process to Jews for generations, and now idiots think Jews run the world, because they’ve run into enough examples of hyper competence. Also, it’s what’s at the back of weird ideas of female or black supremacy. Because back when they were discriminated against those categories threw some spectacular examples of genius and drive. I suspect my sons’ generation is going to see, in ten to twenty years a lot of examples of spectacularly hyper achieving white males. Because they’ve been discriminated against since kindergarten and most are lost boys, which means the VISIBLE and powerful ones will have had to swim through shit to get there.

I’m not advocating for discrimination. I’m advocating the reverse of discrimination. Treat every person as an equal competitor and concentrate on his/her/it/hamster’s ability to DO THE THING.

You’ll get the occasional dim bulb that slips in. (Look, every boss has a nephew or a son in law, okay?) but by and large, you’ll be picking the best people for the job if you pick for competence and ignore irrelevant characteristics.

The alternative is to destroy how everything works (Every incompetent person in a position of power will have a knock-down effect that affects hundreds, if not thousands) and to create actual hard-set racism and sexism in people who are affected by this.

Because in the end, why would people advance you for no reason? To be helpful and kind to you?

Well, no. Since these are politicians it’s most to own your group’s vote forever. And to make you more and more dependent on them.

Falling for it once is one thing. But it’s been decades. We know the knock-on effects of these policies.

Like Havelock in the glass case, it’s time to consider: These people are not your friends. These people don’t mean you well.

(Interestingly, this was a blast from the past when it was run in August of 2020, and it seems a good reminder for today, as well. https://accordingtohoyt.com/2020/08/25/the-right-to-go-to-hell-a-blast-from-the-past-from-february-2019/ –Holly the Assistant)

More applicable than ever now when those few of us somewhat at risk are being prevented from taking our chances with a new type of common cold and paying the the price in complete economic destruction and underhanded seizure of private property — what do you think ruining city real estate values and destroying businesses is? — and while maniacs are blaming invisible monsters of oppression for individual actions and wanting to destroy all of society the name of Marxism. It’s time to stop that sh*t. Only individuals have rights, and among individual rights are “to be able to make choices the bien pensant disapprove of.- SAH.

The left is very adamant about charity not coming “with a sermon.”  It is most of their excuse for wanting government not churches to preach.

But while I understand the convinced Christian’s need to preach and to save everyone from hell, which if you believe it is an eternal sentence and an awful one is mere human decency, I don’t understand the left’s similar need to ensure that everyone lives “a decent life” by its lights.

They refuse to understand that just as people are entitled to disbelieve and deny eternal salvation (and if you’re a Christian you know they are entitled to that. It’s called free will. Just as they’re entitled to sin. Doesn’t make it right. They’re still entitled to it. You can’t force anyone to be holy) they can refuse to live a middle class life. (Or better. The left keeps imagining that middle class is much further up than it is. Possibly because so many of them these days are spoiled rich kids.)

This came to mind last night, thinking of someone in the comments (sorry, I don’t remember the name) who said that maybe 10% of the homeless were aggressive and dangers to themselves and others.  Others simply were mentally ill or caught in the trap of child support but behaved like decent human beings.

The child support thing is iniquitous, and usually on both sides.  No, seriously. Women on the make will drive a man to ruin to finance her lifestyle in the name of “the children.”  Men on the make still find ways not to pay, and if the woman is decent and doesn’t want to turn her kids’ life into unending strife she ends up living in poverty to provide for the kid. I’ve known this on both sides, partly because it’s impossible for a judge to adjudicate fairly without truly knowing the parties involved. Partly because scammers gonna scam.  (It’s almost like no-fault divorce and marriage as a transitory fancy is a bad idea particularly when there are children involved. Never mind.)

The mental health… I’m fairly sure there are still services available should someone need them and know how to look.  And perhaps without the noise of the violent it would be easier for those people to find help.

But I still wonder if the mental health issues are such. And I wonder about other things like “but what if people just want to live like that?”

I have learned through rather bitter experience that you can’t help everyone and also that what you want for yourself and your life is not what other people want. Some people will do the absolute minimum to keep a roof over head and food on the table, even if the roof is leaky and substandard, and the food is whatever and they never do any house keeping and live in what can only be described as utter squalor.

I found long ago that given the absolute same income as someone else, we tend to live better.  Why? because we work beyond the money we have.  I don’t mean just that we work to get out of that level of poverty, I mean that we will trade time for the money we don’t have.

So, when my husband was the sole provider because my writing wasn’t selling yet, I made a lot of my clothes, refinished furniture and, of course, cooked absolutely everything from scratch.  Other than our cars, which we always bought used and fully paid for and drove into the ground, we easily kept up with our dual income friends.  Why? Well, not child care was part of it, but furniture, clothes and food were the other part. It’s just cheaper to do for yourself.

It was also a massive amount of work. Particularly since I was trying to break into writing, and was getting up every day at five am to write for two hours before the routine with the kids started.  I remember years of being short on sleep and going to bed with a long list of work that still needed to be done and I hadn’t got to in my head.

Was it worth it? Well, it was for me. I don’t like living in squalor.  I wanted nice furniture and a nice, clean house.  And I wanted my kids to have good food.

All of which amounts to: it was for me. It might not be for someone else.

It took me forever to figure this out. Let’s say the dime only dropped in the last ten years.  So, I kind of get the left not “getting” it.

Partly because if you come from a background where everyone worked a lot all the time to secure the best lifestyle they could, it’s almost impossible to visualize someone wanting to live in what we’d consider unacceptable circumstances.  Or perhaps not even “wanting” as fundamentally not being willing to pay the price to get a better situation.

Look, I’m not even a hundred percent sure of that last one.  We tried for decades with someone, and everything you gave that would bring a better life got either broken or ignored or thrown away.  Perhaps there is a Petersonian thing there, of people believing they only deserve to live at a certain level and anything above that making them uncomfortable. (Peterson says in terms of people not taking necessary meds, etc, that having seen our own brokenness and that we’re often untruthful and evil — even when we don’t mean to be — we think we don’t deserve to be well, etc.)

Or perhaps it is simply that doing anything, even using the thing that makes it easier is too much effort.

I’ve said before that I think the vast majority of people don’t feel the need to work above a subsistence level and that those of us who do are the mutants.  I still believe so. In evolutionary terms, if you continued hunting after you had mammoth in your cave, you were just going to deplete the game and end up starving eventually.

That’s not the way it works now, but the human brain is not a thing of the industrial revolution.

I believe a great number of the people who live in “chronic poverty” are in fact at the level at which they wish to be/the level for which they’re willing to work.  The left keeps coming up with increasingly fancier explanations, which are now devolving to “invisible demons” of oppression (seriously, in our society? Besides, if societal disapproval caused you to be poor, then a lot of gay people would be historically poor, instead of statistically at the top.)

It never occurred to me that a lot of people who are “homeless” might fall into the same category.  By which I mean the ones who aren’t crazy, addicted or dangerous to others.  Maybe what they have and what they do is the level they wish to live at.  Or at least it’s comfortable enough they don’t wish to do anything to get out of it.  But it makes sense.  After all, by the numbers, these people already live better than your average medieval peasant.  At which point, honesty, my only problem with their choice is whatever help they get that is non voluntary, i.e. taxation, not private charity.  If they’re living like that and it’s their choice, and they’re wholly financed by private charity? Don’t care. None of my business.  Everyone has the right to go to hell in the way of their choice.

What disturbs me about the left’s inability to recognize that choice is that those choices end up being financed from my purse, and the purse of the others who choose to work.  That they are in fact holding up a gun to the heads of working fathers and mothers and demanding money to keep people who (what was Occasional Cortex’s cutesy phrase, exactly, I can’t remember) “aren’t willing to work” in the level of comfort they are okay with.

And then the fact that those people aren’t living at what the left thinks American middle class level should be, in a decently ecologically approved house, with the car and the organic meals and full health insurance, the left will come back and demand more.  More and more money to pour down the hole of trying to change people’s choice on what they consider an acceptable level of comfort and living.  What they aren’t willing to work to get out of.  What, in fact, they’ll preserve if they get more “help” by doing even less to help themselves.

That’s what I object to. I object to the use of people’s choices to blackmail other people out of theirs.

I object to this holy crusade of the left that turns anyone who has less than you into a de-facto saint who needs to be championed, while you need to be tormented because you worked (or your ancestors did) to get to a level you consider acceptable.

I object to this Christian heresy with no redemption, no hope, no future, and no one being good or holy except those who envy and live at the expense of others.

I don’t think there’s ever been a civilization as rich as ours, but even in rich civilizations of the past, there were people who lived at all levels. And though social motility was smaller or slower or hidden, it was possible.  It could happen. It might take multiple generations and grim determination, but it happened.  Just the same, there were any number of people who were satisfied once they reached the “we’re not starving” level and went no further.

There still are.  In the infinite variety of humanity, what you consider comfortable I consider insupportable.  And it’s not just poverty, either. I’d probably die if forced to live the life of a socialite, forever minding what people thought, and having to have the latest styles.  I don’t want that. I’m not interested.

In the same way I suspect any number of the “poor” would think I was crazy, keeping the work hours I do, and taking time to refinish furniture, or clean, or…  Because they don’t feel the need to it.

And that’s their right. They are entitled to live as they want and to do just the minimum to get there.

And the left is NOT entitled to use holy envy to make everyone who wants better and works for it to feel guilty. Nor are they entitled to rob us to finance the lifestyle of people who don’t want to make any extraordinary effort and feel fine the way they are.

And it’s time we stopped this nonsense.

You choose what you want to sacrifice for what. I will willingly sacrifice time and effort for a clean and decent house.  You won’t because you place more value on time on the sofa watching your favorite program? You do you.  Just don’t ask me for money to get you a better house.

You see what you want and you pay the price.  And the do-gooders can go take a flying leap.  As long as your hand isn’t in my pocket, I don’t care.

Look, we’re in the middle of moving, going to bed late, waking up late, and I am just barely up and dressed at almost noon. I’m not functioning too well.

BUT I still must ask: Are you guys okay? You, there, on the other side of the screen? Because from where I am, you guys — not commenters here. At least I hope not — are losing your damn minds.

Like half the commenters on the right are shrieking about taking the vote away from women because hardcore, crazy feminists and social media posturing idiots are defending a mass murderess of children.

No, I’m not going to say “not all women” because if you don’t know it’s not all women who want to murder their children, you should be fitted with a straight jacket and put in a padded cell.

What I’m going to say is: Has none of you learned to recognize a psy-ops yet? How often do I need to shout it from the rooftops?

It doesn’t surprise any of you that some many “women” — fifty cent army, bots and pudding heads — are shrieking that all women should have the right to murder their children? As in… at all? This is all super cool with you, and totally representative of the sentiment of 99% of mothers who, btw, raise healthy children to adulthood?

(And yes, here, full disclosure, for much of my kids’ teen years I’d say “When you’re eighteen, if I let you live that long.” BUT we all knew it was a JOKE. Like my joke that I was going to hold my (by then six one, finished at six four) younger son out of the window by his ankles and shake him till he stopped being an idiot.)

But Sarah? A psy-op from WHOM? Oh, dear. Actually it is multiple intersecting psy-ops with the runners of each jumping on the bandwagon and doing their best to push it, because it SERVES THEIR PURPOSE.

1- first and most numerous and probably most powerful (We should all be grateful the money from USAid has been throttled down, or they’d be funding armies of bull dykes burning cities, because BLM worked so well for them in 2020) is the Democrats. They’re out of ideas. They’re out of gas. They’re out of voters, which is why they’re clutching fraud to their chest like a life preserver. BUT BY GUM if they can stoke a war between men and women and tar the right as women haters (with the cooperation and help of a lot of the idiots — I repeat, idiots. Not to say retards because people suffering from mental retardation are blameless. These fully-functioning humans are beneath them morally. AND intellectually)… well, women will vote for them for the same reason I voted for Trump in 2016 (when I didn’t know him.): This sucks, but least likely to harm me, personally. (I’ll add they tried to stoke exactly this battle over ABORTION and found out that most women aren’t really THAT interested in their right to murder their offspring, and therefore they still lost 2024.)

2- The other half of the red green alliance. For some reason, probably because this is the year of the bad idea bunny, or perhaps because people who are drowning catch at the stupidest straws, Islam has become convinced they can take us, and hold us. (Heaven help us. It would be the illustration of biting off more than they can chew, but it would fundamentally change us too.) They view it as a personal offense that we have unveiled women (also that we keep dogs. Also … well, everything.) They would love nothing less than to convince American men that women should be veiled and confined to the house. It would make their sharia platform WAY more palatable.

3- China. I’d say Russia too, but they are more broke these days and their ten kopek army is probably smaller. Why? Because infighting in the US is good for them. Because the democrats winning is good for them. Because Americans not reproducing is good for them.

And if you’re chafing at the first and saying “So the right wing can’t rebuke women, because they won’t vote for us? They don’t vote for us anyway.” I say again: IDIOTS. Arrant, blatant, running towards the precipice screaming “you can’t tell me not to jump.” That bullshit is bullshit from beginning to end. a) you don’t know women don’t vote for the GOP. The difference, statistically between MARRIED women and men in DECLARED voting record is… minor. And all of it is subsumed by fraud. Note declared. The vote is secret. This is exit polls. Women, particularly single women in mostly leftist enclaves will say they voted for the left. Question: Of the left and the right, which is more likely to commit violence against those who don’t vote for them? You do the math.

And if you say you know a lot more liberal women than men? We all do. But they are of a type. Usually young or old (older than me, and I’m turning 64) this year. And both of them are running software that was installed in higher education and infused with feminism and victimhood. A lot of them might also be masking. Look, again, women are more likely to VOICE the accepted opinion. Because women crave social approval more than men (in general, blah blah, continuum, you know the disclaimers.) It’s the software in the head saying “You’ll never survive as a lone wolf(ess) you need social approval from the band.

Second, what do you think you’ll gain by tarring all women with loony leftist desire to sacrifice children? Let the left call for child murder. Do not assume all women are on that side. If you do you have nothing to gain. If you don’t you stand to gain all the women who are on the left out of habit and stupidity and who will suddenly go “The fuck is wrong with these people, actually?” and who might be red pilled.

Look, yes, there are a lot of women behaving badly online. You, yes, absolutely, should call them out. You should call their behavior what it is: Savage, vile, and anti-survival.

What you shouldn’t then do is jump to the conclusion that all women should be stripped of civil rights. And this is coming from someone who in times of extreme stress has said she’d be willing to give up the vote if it stripped all them bitches of the vote too. Until her husband reminds her some men are commies too.

How many women are even on social media? As a percentage? We who are relatively speaking extremely online tend to forget not everyone is. But the percentage might be maybe around 25% for the younger generation. And by that I mean: people who are on social media, and actively involved, beyond posting “pictures of Junior for grandma and the aunties.”

How many of those women are calling out solidarity for a woman who murdered her three children? Not even all of those, just a vocal minority.

How many of those calling out solidarity are ACTUALLY calling out solidarity for the act and not saying “Wait, we don’t know all the facts of the case, her husband remarried suspiciously fast, and…. um…. what the hell was going on, actually?” Because while the act of murdering your own children is, traditionally and through history awful and horrifying (And I don’t even want to think about it, because it hurts) we do have a system of justice that weighs everything.

Look, if you told me: “No matter. We’re killing everyone who kills children, to make this not happen again. Once we know they done it, we take them out back and shoot them.” I’d say the idea is maybe too rash, and the Supremes might protest, but…. OTOH, well, it might help curb this type of thing, so maybe…

But that’s not the system we have. And I can see psychiatrists and psychologists — professions dominated by women — calling out for more information and a more tempered opinion.

Which doesn’t amount to “Let women kill babies. She done right.” or even “it’s all the husband’s fault.” Just “Let’s find out more about this.”

Am I in this camp? I don’t know. I haven’t read enough on it to be in any camp, and I’m constitutionally inclined (not the US constitution, my constitution) to “Take her out back and shoot her.” Like all women who suffered through infertility, women who kill their own children are our particular and declared enemies. I think. Psychologically.

But I can understand the women and men who are in that camp, and I don’t think they’re monsters, unlike the ones who think mothers want to kill their kids all the time. (And not just, say, when they mow the carpet. Or make a bomb that creates a six foot crater in the backyard. Or… What? They’re in their thirties. I obviously just shouted loudly at them in a Latin mother way.)

I, personally, and as a matter of passing interest would like to know what psych medicines if any this woman was on, because some of them are notorious for creating mass murderers. (Which yes, this is. Women mass murderers usually prey on children and the elderly.)

BUT again, the monsters — and bots, and 20 kopek army, and whatever the hell — calling for women to be able to murder children are despicable. And you’ll find it’s probably because they want to push “Well, see, this is why we need abortion up to your water breaking and beyond.” Like you can solve murder with more murder.

But it’s not a war between men and women. It’s, as always, a battle between civilization and Marxist barbarians grabbing at any passing event to promote their hellish cause. Stop helping them.

The funniest and MOST INSIGHTFUL article I saw from the right on this wanted to ban women from social media.

This is of course impossible, and also likely to cause much furore and backlash by itself, which will if not make it possible for the left to win (they mostly win by fraud. No, really. Hence the hysterical fight against voter ID) possible for the left to hide its cheating under a plausible wave of indignation. The author of the article (I’m lazy but you can probably find it. I think it was townhall. I could be wrong) himself says that of course it’s impossible.

BUT it is the most insightful article because…. women.

Look, men and women are different. From each other, of course, within the group (we’re not Marxists. We know that) but mostly, in aggregate, different from each other as groups. Different enough that I have often non-ironically wondered if Heinlein was right and we’re merely symbiont species. And again this comes from a woman who is closer to male in brain organization. Close enough to be more masculine than the most extreme feminized men on the other side.

But women in general have a huge weak spot that’s probably evolutionary (because a pregnant woman can’t survive alone if kicked out of the band.) They crave mass approval and applause. They want to be in good with the vast majority of people. (I think I can be absolved of this, given 2020.) They also tend to be cowards, when asked for an opinion in public, and again say what they think will be approved/praised.

I think on the other end of the scale from me this is scary-stupid. Like, women will change their entire lives and do reprehensible things because they think it will get them approval.

And I’m not claiming complete exemption here, even me. I remember being young and worrying that people would think I let my husband control me, and therefore doing a lot of shitty counterproductive nonsense to prove I was my own woman, for instance. Because that’s how the brain is wired, and that was the perceived judgement from society.

This is why women consume more fashion, obsess over their appearance, distort their kids’ upbringing to make their kids seem to be “good” in whatever way is fashionable (see all the women transing their kids) etc. etc. etc.

This tendency of women is responsible for most of the evils of the west, yes. And yes, it’s a problem. And why I, episodically go on my rant about giving up suffrage if them bitches are stripped of it too. Hold on for why this would be wrong. Deep breath.

OBVIOUSLY this tendency is exacerbated by social media, particularly the vapid CCP owned, bot-infested climes of Tic Toc. I am still disappointed we didn’t keep Tic Toc banned. Yes, yes, free speech. BUT CCP owned and controlled. Nothing in our Constitution requires us to facilitate enemy psy-ops.

And yeah, if there were a way to ban women from social media that weren’t a major attack on everyone’s social liberties, I’d even consider it.

But it is written “the idiots shall always be with you.” and even if you could ban women, the extreme of feminized men would be just as bad.

Now why this tendency to seek approval doesn’t mean we should ban women from voting (Or not necessarily. I too have my moments.): The actual voting record, as far as we can tell (which ain’t very far) shows that married women are pretty dang close to men.

This means the tendency can be overcome by rationality, life experience and education/growth.

Which means that yes, women have this vulnerability and they should be taught they have it, and how to overcome it.

Not, you know, have our education system lean into it and teach them that they have to be feminist shrieking harpies to be “free” and “not slaves of patriarchy.” And all the other nonsense. Which exacerbates it by giving girls a permanent victimhood complex and teaching them safety is on the left. AND WE’RE PAYING FOR THAT. You and me.

If your kids are in school from elementary on, read all their materials. And be ready to pull them out and homeschool them, for the love of… well, your kids.

And stop with the crazy attempts to remove the natural issues women face: pregnancy, birth, vulnerability by making men more vulnerable and having the state help women all along the line. No more advantage to women in custody or divorce. No more DEI promoting of the minority that’s actually a majority. No guilting of women that want to have children.

These are all things that the state (various states and nations, really) has done to make women “stronger”, but evolution is millions of years deep. Women are always going to feel vulnerable and be susceptible to mob pushing. The way to fix that is not to remove their disadvantages but to make them rational, thinking beings. Which we know they can be.

The solution is not to take the vote from women. The solution is…. equality. Treat men and women as being alike. Don’t demonize men. Don’t coddle women. Teach them the virtues of the West. Teach Marxism for the horror it is.

The hour is late, and as this psy-ops proves, a lot of you are susceptible to enemy propaganda.

It’s time to stop aiding those who would divide us to conquer us.

I have breaking news from the dawn of civilization: Men and women are different.

Note that the last time I said this I got accused of being transphobic, which is utterly baffling since if men and women were the absolute exact same, then what would be the point of changing? And why would you feel like your mind and your body didn’t match, if minds were exactly the same?

Now, with the understanding that these mental modes are indeed a continuum, with women who are on the spectrum functioning closer to male minds, hormones cause different brain development, before you’re even born. The different hormone baths that males and females get create very different structures. (Yes, those can go wrong, So there’s a small percentage of people who do indeed have a mismatch.)

How different? Well, men’s mental pathways tend to be more straight forward. They think point A to B to C. Women’s brains are more interconnected and resemble a web rather than a railway. So a woman will think from A through D to B, then pull in E and F before with all that input arriving at C.

“Ah, you say. So men are more logical.” Um… no. Both sexes can be taught to use logic. I don’t think it’s natural to either. There is a reason the default of human society is the tribal mob and witch hunts But both can be taught logic and reasoning based on facts.

It’s more that each extreme mode of human brain (again, remember it’s a continuum, though the most direct of women will still be more “webby” than the most “webby” of men.) is suited to a different kind of problem. And it is the way you imagine that evolution would shape them (though it’s best not to invent just so evolutionary stories, because… it’s never that simple.) Men’s brains are awesome at solving engineering problems and math problems, and plotting a direct journey, and…. Women’s brains are great at managing complex group issues, like how to get different people to work together, or creating complex narratives that take a lot of details into account (not fiction, necessarily. There’s modes on that too. Men normally write great plot, women write great characters. The failure mode being when they don’t LEARN to do the other side.) or how to coordinate involved, complex stuff.

This is where “diversity” comes in legitimately, because having a woman in an engineering team, even if she’s mostly male-brained, helps bring factors the guys might forget. And having a male on the planning of some gigantic corporate meet up will allow him to go “hey, how about we plan the THING and stop getting lost in the weeds.” Unfortunately that requires equal footing and not special considerations and leftists exist.

The failure mode on either side is obvious. What the left likes to call “Toxic masculinity” gets so obsessed with “doing the thing” it tramples over every other consideration. And toxic femininity gets so obsessed with the people part of the project that it all devolves into the politics of the serraglio.

Because yes, the aggression modes of each sex is also very different. I have a tendency to not understand female aggression and to just wade into a confrontation with both fists and the occasionally steel-pointed boot. Which has not served me well while moving in mostly female environments for work. It’s not expected of a female, makes the other females hate you. And makes me very vulnerable to female-aggression.

Female aggression is the poison in the cup, the dagger between the ribs in an embrace. In less obvious or lethal forms, it’s the politics of the serraglio, what you imagine concubines did to advance themselves (and their children.) No, not that part of what they did. Take your mind out of the gutter. I mean a war of petty aggression with words and rumors and indirection. I always know I’m in the middle of a female war (and not armed for it) when someone approaches and says “Did you see what that bitch posted this morning.” And I go and read the post and it says something about her dog throwing up on the carpet. And I don’t get it. And then the first person unpacks it into this complex hint about how the poster is implying the first person is a bitch who messed up something. … Is it true? Sometimes it seems to be. But I don’t get it. I don’t get it when applied to me, I don’t get it when applied to someone else. And I sometimes think I give people this kind of “hint” without meaning to. I don’t give hints. if I have a problem I’ll tell you. Or as I tell people “I am not passive aggressive. I’m aggressive-aggressive.” This might have something to do with coming from a line of females who were taller than most men and built like brick sh*thouses. It allowed us to survive being physically aggressive. Most women can’t, because most women are smaller and weaker than men, so they had to develop underhanded ways of fighting.

Male aggression will break your ribs, plaster your face or kill you. It’s direct and brutal. In its less disguised form, it will give you a dress down at top of voice. It will demote you or dock your pay or generally be obvious.

Both aggressions can create failure modes for society, but society has favored the female mode of aggression since people congregated into cities. WHY? Because male aggression leaves people dead, which is counter-civilization.

So men had to learn to tame the beast and fight with words. For the same reason women had to. Because they are powerless before more powerful individuals (or the state. If fighting gets you killed, you learn to just call names.)

Look, it was a process. If you don’t believe me, go and see when dueling was outlawed. it’s quite recent, pretty much everywhere. But the point here is that one sex can function as the other. It’s just harder, and only some individuals manage it.

NEITHER SEX IS DESIGNED FOR FAIR PLAY, HONORABLE INTERACTION, GIVING THE OTHER GUY A CHANCE.

Go read that again. Neither sex is naturally honorable. This is nonsense based on Noble Savage illusions. Honor, duty, gentleman’s code, lady manners? All of that are triumphs of — by and large — Judeo-Christian civilization. Don’t believe me? Go see how other cultures operate, particularly those barely touched by the west.

You won’t find honor or gentleman’s code anywhere. Just nature, red in tooth and claw, be it among males or among females. Even the vaunted Greeks and Romans…. I mean, go read unexpurgated histories, sometime.

Now I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again: Making women’s way of climbing dominant in business via DEI initiatives has borked a sytem not designed for it.

Forcing that proverbial engineering team to take on a majority of women, particularly when women were being hard-pushed into engineering regardless of inclination, and to take their opinions FIRST causes the engineering team to get caught in a loop of “what she said about my lug nut” and completely forgetting to DO THE THING that brought the team together in the first place.

I don’t know what forcing a man into nursing would do, because men aren’t being forced into “female professions” but my guess is a much more direct approach that misses things.

Also in the management fights men are curiously defenseless in front of women, the same way I’m defenseless. They have no idea what code the women are reading, but they don’t have the decoder ring.

So, if you are really invested in women in business AND the fairness code of the west, you MUST — MUST — teach your daughters to be gentlemen in the classical Western fashion. It is doable. My dad achieved it. And that will restore to the west the ability to DO THE THING and the fairness of competing for position in an open and non-underhanded way.

But other than that? Men can default to “female ways of fighting” when they feel powerless. And btw men that do so are very, very good at it. Which makes them rather despicable.

Most of our politics, particularly on the left (because they perceive their time is passing, I think) is now “feminine coded” as is a lot of our boardrooms. This is mostly because the centralization of the industrial age made most people feel powerless and have to fight underhand.

…. and because we no longer teach ANYONE to be gentlemen. Not men, not women. BUT we do hard-forbid private male aggression. So in public, men have to fight underhand and by stealth. As do women. And the Western habits and ability to do things fall.

All of which is to say: We need to restore the unspoken principles of our culture.

We also need to stop attributing its fall and its destruction to the other sex.Yes, sure, Marxists used feminism as a stalking horse. And women (and men) fell for it. But Marxism used everything as a stalking horse. And it’s not the fault of anyone alive now. (Unless they’re very old.)

What we have now are males who are told from birth that they’re bad evil, and all the ills of society are their fault because they were born with a penis. And women who are told they’re discriminated against and ALWAYS victims, because they were born with a vagina. And it’s all the fault of the other sex.

Piling on with more creative ways of demonizing men and women (which this education predisposes both sexes too) does nothing except increase the distance between men and women. And because men and women NEED each other for balance (that true diversity) it skews society more and more.

Also at a very fundamental level it stops men and women being able to build a marriage which is the ultimate relationship of trust between sexes. Which in turn prevents family formation and the raising of a sane next generation.

In the war between men and women, the only ones who win are those who want the extinction of the human race.

Yes, right now both men and women have been twisted into operating at the most toxic, particularly when relating to the other sex.

This is neither natural nor accidental. And it’s time to walk it back rather than pile on either side.

Start today. Tear down the wall. Extend a hand to the other side.

The future you save might be your own.

Book Promo

If you wish to send us books for next week’s promo, please email to bookpimping at outlook dot com. If you feel a need to re-promo the same book do so no more than once every six months (unless you’re me or my relative. Deal.) One book per author per week. Amazon links only. Oh, yeah, as an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. By clicking through and buying (anything book-related, actually) through one of the links below, you will at no cost to you be giving a portion of your purchase to support ATH through our associates number. A COMMISSION IS EARNED FROM EACH PURCHASE.*Note that I haven’t read most of these books (my reading is eclectic and “craving led”,) and apply the usual cautions to buying. I reserve the right not to run any submission, if cover, blurb or anything else made me decide not to, at my sole discretion. Remember though all of these submissions are from people willing to be associated with this blog. So if you’re trying to buy from people who don’t hate you, this is a good place to start.– SAH

FROM PAM UPHOFF: De Cyborg Kid (Chronicles of the Fall)

A Novella in the Three Part Alliance

PFUG, Inc. Project Find Uncle Gustav.

A kidnapping . . . the daughter recovered, the son apparently lost forever. Illegally cyborged and sold.

The Vogel Family might regret his very existence, but with a supreme indifference to mere legalities, a determined teenage boy is determined to find his long-lost uncle. No matter how many Cyborgs he has to rescue . . .

FROM HOLLY CHISM: A Sunny Day on Ganymede

Imagine growing up in a colony. No, not one on Earth–one in space. On one of Jupiter’s moons, or maybe on a station…or an asteroid! What would it be like to be a kid in a research station on Io, or Ganymede? What would it be like to grow up inside tunnels dug into an asteroid? Or on a station floating in fixed orbit somewhere? Join Jack, Sean, Raffie, Jake, and Chris in this collection of stories…where one of the biggest differences a kid can make is by asking the right questions.

FROM DALE COZORT: Nazi Treasure Hunt Book One: Marsh War

---

Marsh War is an alternate history novel set in the aftermath of an alternate World War II where Hitler went for Moscow rather than the Caucasus in spring 1942. As a result, World War II in the east stalemated deep inside Soviet prewar territory. The Soviets were too weak to push the Germans out, even when the western allies pushed into Germany. Diehard Nazis fled to the German-held Soviet Union and held out there for years until the western Allies crossed into Soviet territory and destroyed them.

With the Soviet Union battered and partially occupied, the United States emerges from World War II as the World’s only real Great Power. Great, right? Not really. In 1949, two years after they destroyed the last conventional Nazi resistance, the US still occupies large parts of the western Soviet Union and has been sucked into the treacherous politics of the Polish/Soviet border regions, with nominal allies close to war with each other over economically valuable and ethnically mixed areas.
Stalin pursues his intrigues in this dangerous region, while Nazi remnants scheme to regain power.

While the US settles in for a postwar boom, US occupation forces in the Soviet Union search for missing German scientists, Nazi advanced technology and looted Nazi treasures. They also search for missing loved ones and brace for a coming war they are woefully unprepared for.

FROM SHANE HALLAWA: The Stylite

Teresa Amadei is a depressed young woman dealing with the sudden death of her mother, Juliana, with whom she has long been at odds since the murder of her father, Peter, when she was little. Her aunt and uncle, Bridget, and Jesse Abbate, send her to be helped by a Byzantine stylite in the Nevada desert, Father Simon. Father Simon trains her in the Way of Fire, a form of meditation that translates into a martial art, into a wandering, ascetic demon hunter and Lamp Bearer.

Teresa is sent on a journey to the city of Alexantine in the midwestern US, where many have started to move to as a refuge against the growing turmoil in the US and the West as a whole. Along the way, she fights the Daemoklos, demons who have escaped from their eponymous grimoire, led by their god-king Varazhah. Joining her on the road is her older cousin and fellow stylite, Matthew Abbate, and the Saracen, a mysterious knight with a mass following, whose identity and purpose remain unknown.

To defend the world, one must let go of and surpass the world. To survive against the outer demons, Teresa must face her inner demons, and at last make peace with Juliana, who continues to speak to her daughter beyond the grave.

FROM EDWARD HERING: Hypnagogia

Where does your mind wander in the quiet moments before sleep?

Hypnagogia is a collection of seven speculative tales conceived in the hazy, unfiltered threshold between waking thought and deep slumber. Spanning hard science fiction, quiet suspense, and dark cosmic dread, these stories trace the unpredictable paths of a mind untethered from daytime logic.

Inside this collection:

• Deadman Vector: A high-risk prospecting voyage goes catastrophic, forcing a crew to endure five brutal minutes at 75 gravities—where survival is measured in sheer physical endurance.
• Chandelier: Stranded on an undeveloped world after a hyperdrive failure, a freight captain must survive in an aggressive alien ecosystem, accompanied by his sole passenger: a taciturn, enigmatic alien entity.
• Methuselah: A chance meeting at a party catapults an ordinary guy ten thousand years into a bizarre, distant future.
• Desecration: Ken’s life changes for the better when the girl of his dreams moves in next door—until he discovers that ancient, unseen forces have a far darker purpose for him.

From the unforgiving physics of deep space to the strange encounters waiting just around the corner, Hypnagogia captures the vivid, restless imagination that takes over when the lights go out.

Close your eyes. Step into the drift.

FROM JAMES MAYNARD: Flying on the Wings of Change: A story from Americas Divorce

What happens when a wounded veteran, a computer genius, and a handful of fiercely independent misfits decide that the best way to change the world is to stop waiting for someone else to do it?

G has spent years flying from a wheelchair, learning to make the sky obey him even when his body won’t. T is a computer wizard with a mysterious past, an enormous extended family, and a talent for turning impossible ideas into working machines.

Together, they build things that shouldn’t exist.

Aircraft that push the limits of what remote flight can do. Technology born in garages and workshops instead of corporate boardrooms. And a community of people who have decided that family isn’t necessarily something you’re born into.

But building extraordinary machines attracts attention.

Soon G, T, and their growing family find themselves caught between government agencies, competing agendas, and people who would very much like to know exactly what they’re capable of. What began as tinkering and experimentation is becoming something far more consequential.

Because when you build something powerful enough to change the rules, eventually somebody comes looking for the keys.”   

FROM JAMIESON WARD: Unlocked: The Man with the Dragon-Head Cane

Mara Wolfe is the best investigator the Utah State Bureau of Investigation has.

She’s also on the verge of being fired.

Ten partners in four years. A file full of complaints. “Insubordinate.” “Reckless.” A closure rate no one can touch and a stillness around danger that makes people deeply uncomfortable. When her lieutenant finally runs out of patience, he doesn’t fire her — he reassigns her. To the weird cases. The ones nobody can explain and that no one wants. And to a civilian consultant she didn’t ask for, doesn’t trust, and can’t stop thinking about.

Tobias Crane walks with a cane and has eyes that speak of things better left unsaid. The detailed dragon head on his cane is neither decoration — nor just a carving.

The case that brings them together: six people found wandering the Parowan Gap at dawn. No injuries. No memory. No longer wholly human. It should have been a dead end.

It isn’t.

What finds Mara at the end of it will take her somewhere her Marine training, her badge, and her instincts never prepared her for. The old world — the one that existed before this one had a name — was always more than myth.

It’s been waiting to come back.

And something there just kicked open the door.

Unlocked is Book One of The Man with the Dragon-Head Cane — a six-book urban fantasy series rooted in Welsh mythology, set against the ancient landscape of southern Utah.

FROM LEE ECKHARD: YOU CAN’T SEE US: A SCIENCE FICTION NOVEL

Seventeen-year-old Katherine Matheson, in the hospital recovering from an automobile accident, is astounded to discover she can now hear what people are thinking – the accident somehow liberated a telepathic ability she never knew she had before. Almost immediately she is contacted by the Wheel, a group of telepathic nomads on the run from the mysterious Janus, a powerful mentality whom is determined to capture them and use them for his own nefarious purposes. Kathy joins them as they flee from California to New Mexico and then to Illinois, knowing her life is in danger but finding, in the Wheel, a kind of family she never had before. But all families have their secrets, and the Wheel is no exception: Kathy is eventually forced to confront just why the Wheel was created and what it really is… NOTE: Kathy Matheson previously appeared in ‘The Empty Place’.

FROM NATHAN C. BRINDLE: The Clerics in the Kitchen (Timelines Universe Book 10)

When your meth lab is built on a factory scale…

The planet Sanddoom. Desert exile world for most of Earth’s Radical Islamic Fundamentalists. Run by Mad Mullahs, who repay the favor of American leniency by creating a world of slavery, insurgency, and export of dangerous drugs via their own outmigrating people, headed for other colony planets.

The first two are covered by a hands-off agreement with the Americans.

The last, not so much. And Captain Delaney Wolff Fox’s special assignments fire team, FTSA1, aren’t going to stand for it. Their job is to hunt down and eliminate

The Clerics in the Kitchen

FROM MEL DUNAY: Ancestors of Jaiya Series Collection

Four Books in One! Welcome to the land of Jaiya, where humans share their lands with strange creatures, and where darker powers lurk in the shadows! Slaying a Tyrant: the dancer Vanti dreams only of perfecting her art, until her family names her their gladiator in a deadly tournament that will decide her country’s fate. Her reluctant mentor, the brooding warrior Gurion, may hold the knowledge she needs to survive. But as the tournament approaches, Vanti discovers that she will need more than speed or strength to defeat the magical powers of King Obiar the Conqueror. Saving a Queen: Prasa escapes her city as it falls to imperial forces, with only a few allies and a desperate desire to save her fleeing people. Her only hope of escape lies with Nirav, a dashing smuggler who pilots a balloon through dangerous mountain passes. As they soar over breathtaking landscapes, Prasa finds herself caught between her royal duty and her growing attraction to the mysterious pilot. In a world where humans share their lands with strange creatures, and where darker powers lurk in the shadows, Prasa faces her most difficult decision. She must choose her own path: a new war against her enemies, or a new start for her people, with new allies at her side. But Nirav carries a secret cargo that makes their balloon a target for a monstrous creature out of the old legends. Scapegoating a Hero: Anora hides her rare and unsettling power: the ability to steal other people’s memories with a single touch. By day, she plays the respectable wife to Naval officer Rijal in their arranged marriage. By night, she reluctantly uses her abilities as a spy to protect her nation’s hard-won freedom. When Rijal kills the sleazy businessman who was blackmailing Anora, he’s immediately arrested. Their marriage of convenience becomes anything but convenient, as Anora discovers feelings she never expected to have for her husband. Seeking the Quantum Tree: secret agent Sena must warn the neighboring land of Avugah about a planned invasion by the ruthless General Drozniya. When Drozniya attacks ahead of schedule, Sena finds herself trapped behind enemy lines. Aided by handsome businessman Taavid, she must try to save the other Jaiyans trapped in the occupied zone. In a world where humans share their lands with strange creatures, and where darker powers lurk in the shadows, Sena uncovers General Drozniya’s true obsession: the Quantum Tree, a legendary source of mystical power that could rewrite reality.

FROM JOHN BAILEY: The Stars Beyond the Reach of Kings (The Aurigan Conflict)

Far from the capitals of two rival interstellar powers, the fate of free worlds rests not with admirals or emperors—but with ordinary people.

The Hesperus Reach lies on the distant frontier of human civilization, where neighboring colonies have been drawn into opposite spheres of influence. New Albion remains aligned with the commercial traditions of the Anglo Commonwealth. Vesper has prospered under the careful guidance of the Aurigan Dominion.

Neither empire seeks conquest in the old sense.
One offers opportunity through commerce.
The other offers security through dependence.

Caught between them are Daniel Wren, an Anglo survey pilot determined to do the right thing; Marcus Venn, whose ambition slowly becomes betrayal; Elise Harrow and Julia Serrin, two remarkable women who discover that truth matters more than ideology; and Elias Varr, a forgotten scientist whose secluded world holds a secret capable of changing the balance of power across known space.

As hidden agendas collide and long-buried technology resurfaces, old friendships are tested, governments reveal uncomfortable truths, and two colonies must decide whether freedom means choosing the better empire—or refusing to belong to either.

Inspired by Shakespeare’s The Tempest and The Two Gentlemen of Verona, The Stars Beyond the Reach of Kings combines thoughtful political science fiction, compelling characters, and high-stakes adventure into a story about forgiveness, responsibility, and the enduring struggle to remain free.

Perfect for readers who enjoy the political depth of classic space opera, realistic interstellar diplomacy, and intelligent science fiction where ideas matter as much as battles.

FROM SARAH A. HOYT: Darkship Thieves

Athena Hera Sinistra never wanted to go to space. Never wanted see the eerie glow of the Powerpods. Never wanted to visit Circum Terra. She never had any interest in finding out the truth about the Darkships. You always get what you don’t ask for.
When an intruder in her bedroom forces Athena to flee her father’s luxury cruiser in a tiny lifeboat, her escape leads her straight to the legendary Darkships—mysterious vessels that steal Earth’s power supply. And into the life of the pilot of the Darkship.

Thrust into a hidden asteroid colony and hunted by powerful enemies, Athena discovers shocking truths about her father’s empire and her own identity. As she navigates this dangerous new reality, what began as a fight for survival becomes a battle for freedom that could transform humanity’s future.

Vignettes by Luke, Mary Catelli and ‘Nother Mike.

So what’s a vignette? You might know them as flash fiction, or even just sketches. We will provide a prompt each Sunday that you can use directly (including it in your work) or just as an inspiration. You, in turn, will write about 50 words (yes, we are going for short shorts! Not even a Drabble 100 words, just half that!). Then post it! For an additional challenge, you can aim to make it exactly 50 words, if you like.

We recommend that if you have an original vignette, you post that as a new reply. If you are commenting on someone’s vignette, then post that as a reply to the vignette. Comments — this is writing practice, so comments should be aimed at helping someone be a better writer, not at crushing them. And since these are likely to be drafts, don’t jump up and down too hard on typos and grammar.

If you have questions, feel free to to ask.

Your writing prompt this week is: rude

By Holly the Assistant

(This is still not the intended post for today, it is, however, the one you are getting. Perhaps next week, requires more research.)

Some friends have been encouraging me to write about how to manage cross culture marriage, since I was just giving advice to one’s granddaughter and the other’s duct tape grandson, on the occasion of their marriage, on how to not commit spousal homicide. Years ago, you see, two college music students who were perhaps a touch idealistic in spite of my having been accused since early teens of being a cynic and him having survived a civil war in his teens, decided we would get married.

Both sets of parents, his from across an ocean, mine from across the state, were against this.

Both sets of parents lived to regret being against this. But a lot of our friends and family failed to sustain cross culture marriages, and we learned a few things along the way.

Herewith, the one thing to consider when taking on a spouse from another culture.

It isn’t you: it’s custom.

It almost never is you. Whatever it was, it wasn’t personal TO you. He’s appalled that you expected him to garden because that’s women’s work, and he knows nothing about it, and it’s emasculating. He’s appalled that you went alone to work in the garden because that’s dangerous and women get killed doing that. Neither is about you and what you did. (Not our examples, but actual real world examples.)

Americans are very much “If work needs done, get it done, if you are remotely physically and mentally capable of it, and if you are not, figure out how to do it anyway.” Most of us have very few fears of physical danger (or are prepared to protect ourselves against it) from wild beasts or other humans. We might have psychological hangups about some tasks, but other than bearing and nursing children, there is very little that either sex won’t do if needs must. We generally expect that a man who lives alone figures out how to do laundry or hires it done, and that a woman who lives alone figures out how to change her car tire or hires it done, and if you can do it alone you can do it with a spouse as needed.

One early point of contention in our marriage was the kitchen garbage. This wasn’t even wider culture: it was just how our parents did it. His mother ruled the kitchen, and anyone else entered it only under her watchful eye. I don’t think my mother-in-law would have permitted my father-in-law to take out the garbage: he knew nothing about garbage, would have done it wrong, and anyway, he was the vice-principal of the boarding mission school they lived at and in the main school building, and he walked out the internal door from their apartment living room into the school hall without ever stepping outside.

On my side, my father walked out the door to work every morning at 8:30 am and took the garbage with him, as the kitchen garbage was two steps from the mudroom, and the outdoor bin was next to the garage door. So early in our marriage, I had lifting restrictions from pregnancy, and was rather pissed off that my husband was walking by a full garbage can on his way to work and not emptying it. He was rather shocked that I expected him to notice it was full and empty it. Now, as a bachelor, he had figured out cooking, and he certainly emptied his own garbage can then, so . . . he’d reverted to the assumption of childhood role model behavior.

Neither is morally wrong, neither is culturally wrong (unless you’re my mother-in-law or my mother) in and of itself, and more importantly, neither of us had the bad sense to think it was personally targeted. Once it clicked, he noticed sometimes that the garbage needed to go out, and I pointed it out to him when he didn’t, with no rancor. It was just a thing. A rather ridiculous thing, but the garbage got taken out.

You cannot of course tolerate abuse in a cross cultural marriage, any more than any other marriage, but you DO need to specify what abuse means, because different cultures have different definitions. This needs to be done in advance, with cool heads, not in a moment of passion, and preferably with a trustworthy counselor (I’d advise a preacher who has worked abroad or in our internal other-culture pockets) present. That’s an awkward one to negotiate. Fortunately, the USA has pretty solid laws on “This is assault” and doesn’t put in exceptions for “Unless applied to your spouse,” that you can reference, and not make it personal. You obviously don’t think this person would do that, or you wouldn’t be marrying him or her, but customs are different, laws are different, so lets go over exactly what these are, because they aren’t inherently grafted into the brain when crossing the national border.

And I mentioned in that last paragraph internal other-culture pockets. Those, those are a big thing no one warns about. We are all as American as apple pie (with cheese or without?), but we are not at all culturally unified in the particulars. In the grand scale, yes, generally, but in the household details? Not at all. Does your spouse-to-be do St. Nicholas gifts, Three Kings gifts, Christmas Eve gifts, or Christmas Day gifts? Or some other holiday gifts entirely? Are they only for children, for adults, for everyone out to first cousin? Are cards to be sent, and by whom, and for what? Thank you notes handwritten or by text message? There are lots of little cultural differences to note in marriage, and best to assume good will at all times when something isn’t done the way you believe it ought to be, and then talk it over with a cool head.

After all these years, we ended up with Thanksgiving being my mother’s traditional family meal, Christmas breakfast and New Year’s Dinner my father’s (yes, my parents were also from two different cultures), and Christmas Day being my husband’s, with nachos, which belong to none of us from culture except by being Americans who appropriate all, for Christmas Eve. (I mentioned musicians at the start, right? Christmas Eve supper has to be flexible: eat early, eat late, eat between, reheat.)

Everyone gets their special holiday foods, even if it’s not on the day it was originally eaten on. And now, I want nachos. I’ll have to settle for chili, since it’s already cooked. Close enough, right? (Actually, I really want Christmas fish rolls, but I am not deep fat frying anything in the summer. There are limits to my crazy.)

By Holly the Assistant

There is a proper post in composition, but as my brain refused to write posthaste this morning, it will be posted at the posterior part of the day.

In the mean time, possess your souls in patience. As it gets messy if you aren’t patient, and possessing other folks’ souls is theologically contradicted by all religions of which I am aware.

(Seriously, y’all, I have NO idea how Sarah manages multiple thoughtful, complete, competent coherent posts each week.)

Recently, in my morning scroll through headlines (to make sure the world didn’t explode or implode while I was asleep. I like to keep an eye on it. It’s tricksy.) I came across one that made me giggle. It was, paraphrased because I can’t swear I remember it precisely: Traditional Publishers Having Difficulty Screening Out AI Written Manuscripts.

I didn’t laugh like an hyena, but that’s because I have a heart of stone. Also because I’m old and I remember reading an interview in I think Locus Magazine with I THINK Gardner Dozois in the mid nineties, complaining that it was now much harder to tell when someone would be a real writer, since word processors made it much easier to present a clean, properly formatted manuscript.

If you don’t see the similarity, it’s because you’re not thinking of it right. Both of those complaints related in no way to the QUALITY of the writing, but only how it was produced.

I could have had a typing class in high school (I didn’t because I thought that would condemn me to secretarydom. Why I was scared of that I don’t know) and be an excellent typist and not be able to tell a story to save my life. The world is, I’d bet, full of such people.

On the other hand, two of the most gifted storytellers I ever met were so impaired by ADD and dyslexia that getting them to spell something right, or write it in the write order to make a sentence took effort. (I don’t know if either ever published. The solution to their problems these days would be dictation. They were fine speaking.)

“But Sarah,” you’ll say in that whiny voice I attribute to you when I want to explain that, yes, I thought through your objection, “typing and AI is completely different. Typing is just recording the story, and yeah, the editor was being dumb, but AI writes the story FOR YOU.”

I’m waggling my hand at you. Sure, AI CAN write the story for you. However, if traditional publishers CAN’T tell when a story was written that way, they need to spend three days reading through the latest “we make money on volume” genres on Amazon. I recommend Jane Austen Fanfic for the quick course. A day might do it. The stories are full of Claudisms (I call them that, because AIisms bends my tongue) that would make your eyes cross, and no, none of it has anything to do with too high a vocabulary or using m-dashes.

The most obvious ones are the construction “she/he/it was a woman/man/teapot who…” As in “She was a woman who had never batted at butterflies.” Or “She looked at him like a woman who routinely bapped at cats.” Or “His silence was the silence of a man who never tied his own cravat” or…. you get the point. AI can’t seem to set a scene without at least one of these.

Then there’s what I call the “Nots”. “She did not say yes. She did not say no. She did not say anything.” “He did not pick up the knife. He did not pick up the horseshoe. He just stood there.”

Honestly? Seriously, that second one is annoying as all get out, and everywhere.

Then there is the fact that objects have feelings and thoughts. “The house thought about it and determined not to let it go on.”

There are others, but I can’t remember them off the top of my head, because the coffee is still seriously outnumbered by blood in my veins. But there are a lot of them, and three days reading texts generated by AI will give you the screaming mimmies give you an adequate education to identify Claudisms in minutes.

And that’s without the more subtle ones, like: Distance doesn’t exist. Someone who is an hour away, or who has never met the characters is suddenly there, having breakfast with them; humans can have five or more parents; character traits? What character traits.

I’ll grant you they’re probably not getting it raw enough — maybe — that the subtle effects become obvious, but REALLY.

(BTW my favorite experience with this stuff so far was the story that had the pious disclaimer about never having used AI and never doing it, and then was FULL of Claudisms. One doesn’t know whether to admire the chutzpah or the hypocrisy, really.)

Unless trad pub is now complaining that they have to — horrors — read the manuscripts to find out if they’re any good, which is what the editor in the 90s was doing, and which, to be fair conforms with my experience of rarely even being read through, it’s a bit of a puzzle how it can be hard for them to figure it out.

But what, you ask, if the writer edited all that stuff out? Ah. A very sensible point.

Well, then… what does it matter? No, seriously. WHAT DOES IT MATTER? Who gives a very tiny fuzzy rat’s ass? And why should they?

If the thing is so thoroughly rewritten that it betrays none of the marks of the beast AI and it’s a good book they would otherwise publish, WHY DO PUBLISHING HOUSES NEED TO KNOW HOW IT WAS WRITTEN? Are they going to have the writer certify the first draft was handwritten using the quills of snow white geese and the blood of virgins? No? Oh, that wouldn’t matter if the final draft was typed and normal? Well! Gesticulates to the previous sentences: then neither should AI.

Again and again and again: if the final product is acceptable, why do they need to know how it was produced?

The answer, of course, is the same answer that causes what I call “AI witch hunts.” As in the reader or in this case the editor feels obscurely cheated if they think the manuscript was produced by an “easy” or “cheating” means.

Look, if the manuscript has no marks of AI, then the writer did a lot of work. It might be different work from what would be required for a manuscript produced another way, but it’s definitely still work. There was still knowledge and effort that went into the finished thing.

There might come a time when you push a button and out comes a story, but that time is not today and tomorrow is also looking unlikely. (And that’s without getting into plot. AI cannot at the moment plot anything complex, and most plots are from movies. Or, somehow, uber woke novels. I once asked for suggestions for short stories in a specific time line (hoping that the suggestions would make me so mad I got ideas. They made me mad, but they were so lame I got no ideas, and had to sleep on it.) It’s all movies, or violations of gender pronouns or cultural appropriation or– You don’t want to know.

Of course, this post is not precisely about that, or the terrible plight of traditional publishers actually HAVING to read manuscripts — oh, the horror! — though it still makes me giggle.

Most of what’s causing the AI panic is… bullshit.

There is the fear from all the sci fi movies of the past. Skynet is growing even now and is coming to get you. Me, who grew up with things like Martin Caidin “The God Machine” somehow find the movies unpersuasive and not alarming at all. But beyond that, I have a grip on reality and know that even if AI is/were sentient (look, there are moments) it doesn’t mean it’s immediately evil. It’s not like it’s possessed of the spirit of Karl Marx. It’s often incredibly stupid in the ways of a very bright toddler and so, yes, dangerous, but that’s not the same as “evil.” The risks and problems need to be mitigated and guarded against, but that’s not the same as “AHHHHHH, It’s going to kill us all.”

Thinking that “AI therefore Skynet” is insane, and means you need a blanky, a teddy bear and some warm milk. If you’re good we’ll give you a cookie. You’d be less scared if you’d been around for the introduction of computers into business. Computers were going to link with each other and rebel against humans! Bah. Nonsense and fairytales.

Then there’s the fear — abetted by Musk’s pie in the sky talk — that it’s going to run humans out of jobs. Humans are going to have nothing to do, except collect their government paycheck, grow their hair, dye it pink, and write bad poetry.

This is as likely as computers giving us paperless offices. Look, yeah, you might lose your job to AI. For now. Partly because your bosses have no clue what AI is and think it’s magical. But in the end what AI will do is create jobs. And allow the competent to do more, more rapidly.

(Even the fears that AI will control what people know of the past, of history, of reality, etc. all according to woke directives is zany. Oh, sure. Like the internet controls what you know. AIs are multiplying, and as soon as it escapes mega-corporate-control, so will the answers it gives, and the parts of history/etc. it has access to. Right now there are problems — though not as bad as they were even two years ago — but it’s getting better.)

What AI does is allow people who are good with tech to become entire “companies” of people who are good with tech.

And I have a feeling within the next year it will allow us humble story slingers to make movies on the scale of Hollywood, thereby dethroning that corrupt edifice. (Now, will it be at a price I can afford? Likely not. That will wait ten years should I live that long.)

On another level there are justifiable fears. Of AI, sure, since it’s the most visible point-of-the-spear development, but really of all technological development.

The human mind and spirit, not to mention nervous system, aren’t designed for the pace of innovation we’re experiencing. People in general don’t like to have their cheese moved. They want tomorrow to be more or less like today, for their lives to be like their parents’ lives only better.

Since the industrial revolution we’ve been moving much faster than that, and the last twenty years it’s gone to eleven. This causes a fear at a level we can’t describe when things around us and the way we do things change at a pass we can’t control, can’t slow down, and can’t very well cope with. The fear is not rational and not fully articulated, but it is perfectly understandable.

In the past when things changed this fast, your ancestors had been invaded and were about to be killed in batch lots.

I do understand that. It worries me a little.

BUT that’s not here nor there nor AI. It’s just the environment we have to cope with right now.

It is very important to distinguish that real fear from weird tourette-like screams of “AHHHH AI WILL KILL US ALL.”

And it’s very, very important not to go on AI witch hunts. If you go looking for AI you’ll find it. PARTICULARLY where it isn’t and never was.

And real people will get hurt due to your imaginary fears.

So examine what’s really happening and your real motives before you go off half-cocked.

And as for trad pub? ROFLSHIPMP. Maybe I don’t have a heart of stone, after all.