*Wrote this very late last night after a day of writing.  Equalite looked wrong but I couldn’t figure out why.  That’s because it’s egalite, of course.  Apparently my half-asleep “wrote a lot” brain is illiterate.*

People aren’t angels. No matter how oppressed they are. Not even considering if they’ve been victims or not.

I’m trying to finish Through Fire and on limited time. Oh, yeah, and the two main leads in Through Fire – I re-wrote an emotional pivot and now I have to rewrite other stuff – are trying to hose down the seacity with testosterone. It’s… uh… interesting? For a definition of interesting that starts with “if I were near you guys in real life I’d have beaned both of you with a frying pan. Or a burner. Whichever came first.” Not that the other males and females around are being particularly nice.

Like the other books in the Darkship/Earth Revolution twin series (look, ma, twins!) this book is divided in sections. The amount to which these are self contained varies. I don’t think any of the sequels have as much self-contained parts as Darkship Thieves, which is ALMOST four novellas mashed together. Anyway, the sections signal at least a shift in speed and tone of events. Kind of like a sing saying “ramp ahead” or “watch for the dip.” In this case the four sections are Liberte Fraternite Egalite and Ca Ira.

However, as far as the book is concerned, the problem of the novel is to aim for equality. Not equality of standing, not equality under the law but equality of results. Whenever you do that, the results are always streets running red with blood.

I find it interesting that it is more or less explicitly the aim of the ones who call themselves “Social justice” warriors. Not enough writers of a particular skin shade? Then there should be, even if for a variety of cultural reasons, fewer people in certain subgroups read science fiction. (And don’t sing to me of oppression. In Portugal it’s considered really odd for a girl to write ANYTHING but Romance and for anyone to write anything but historical. Or read. – or it was thirty years ago, at least. Not oppression, culture.)

If your idea of justice is to have the same results regardless of where everyone starts, the result is of course not justice but the most profound of injustices.

Take for instance the difference between male and female. If you try to change that by fiat of law you’re going to get in serious trouble. And we are. Let’s forget that the hormones do change the brain in certain ways and that, regardless of culture, women are going to have different reactions to babies than men will. (These are women in the general and collective. Individual women will be stubbornly individual. The fact remains, in the aggregate and statistically.) Let’s talk about physical differences. Physical differences are such that not only are women more likely to be raped (in the sense of forcibly penetrated) but also more likely to suffer bad consequences from such an episode. (As in, women can conceive.)

The social justice warriors solution to this is to make men and women EQUAL by fiat. This includes countering the weakness of women’s physique with the ability of any woman at any time to cry rape on any man without the man being able to defend himself. That makes him more legally vulnerable than she is physically vulnerable, and voila, equality.

This is not actually true, of course. Two wrongs actually don’t make a right. What you end up with is a number of women who are raped and for whatever reason don’t talk about it (like, fear of the rapist) and a number of women who pretend to have been raped to get back at innocent men and thereby destroy their lives.

Even giving women absolute ability to be believed without proof and regardless of contradictions in the story (what some “feminists” are suggesting in the case of UVA and Lena Dunham) you’re not going to get every woman who was raped to come forward. And you can’t say that the majority of the reports in those circumstances would be truthful. Why would they be?

I keep reading women pronouncing on how people won’t report rapes that didn’t happen, because no woman wants to humiliate herself or make herself unfit for political society by claiming to have been raped when she wasn’t.

Uh. Really? I didn’t realize we were living in the Victorian age. Nowadays, what with slut walks and no slut shaming and all that, saying you were raped has zero shame for the victim, and all the opprobrium on the accused, even when completely innocent. (As Barry One has found out.)

These women – though they are, at least allegedly, women – seem never to have met any woman of flesh and blood.

Here is a hint. Real people are human and they respond to incentives. Also, real people, male and female go through really stupid phases (we call it adolescence.) Under the influence of hormones and unrequited love, young women become the most appalling shrews and young men become almost painfully stupid. This means giving either of them power over the other is not social justice but the ultimate injustice.

Men and women are different: in their mind and in their body. For my money the best way to keep women from suffering the disadvantages of being the (physically) weaker sex is to teach them to defend themselves. Karate, other martial arts, self-defense classes and of course guns.

The social justice warriors hate that though. You see, it makes the responsibility for keeping themselves safe and equalizing (eh) their circumstances dependent upon individuals. There’s way less opportunity not just for graft and corruption, but a lot less opportunity for the “social justice” “warriors” to exert power over others and work out the unfathomable personal grudges corroding what passes for their souls.

And so they prefer to pretend that while men are evil, bestial beings, women are akin to angels and devoid of a baser nature. Even if teenage girls could take revenge on boys who ignored them with a single word, they won’t because they’re superior beings. Also, of course, the wings might get in the way of the pointing finger. It must be the way I tell them. I can’t laugh for crying.

Speaking of – I just read the most bizarre (and I mean that) – Pride and Prejudice fanfic. Having written all day a couple of days ago, I defaulted to reading something mindless, hence fanfic (though got from amazon under the KULL program.)   This book had 4.5 stars, and though it seemed to be a minor variant, it turned out to be jaw-droppingly twisted. It was sort of like watching a train wreck.

First of all let me say I have nothing against Christian fiction. I think a lot of it drops the affirmations of faith that seem necessary in the genre at the oddest places, but I skip over them as I skip over sex in normal romances. But this one… this one…

England has its own brand and movements of evangelical Christianity. I haven’t made a study of it, but just through reading autobiographies and such, I know what some of them are, and also what expressions they would use in the Regency.

The most offensive thing about this novel is the way that everyone in Pride and Prejudice is suddenly a Southern Baptist. Worse, they are Southern Baptists in the modern age. No, this is not how they are identified, but it is how they process Christianity, express themselves and talk to each other about religion and life.

Some of the other minor violations: Mr. Bennet was a preacher before inheriting Longborn (What?), Mrs. Bennet appears to be bipolar and far more despicable than Austen would ever write her, people react and act in ways no one in real life acts, unless it’s in a small, trusted faith community. For instance, if a total stranger thinks I’m depressed and comes talking to me about how they love me because Jesus told them to, they’re going to get stared blankly at. If they try to hug me forcibly they’re going to get hurt.

It reminds me of when I was a store clerk in North Carolina, and a lady asked me the time, and I told her where the clock was in the store and told her I couldn’t read it that far. (I have bad astigmatism, but at the time I didn’t have bad nearsightedness. Still, it was hard to read at THAT distance.) Instead of saying “thank you” she loudly prayed for my sight to be healed. RIGHT in the middle of the store. I didn’t know where to put my face. And it’s kind of like I’d react to a stranger saying “Jesus is telling me to come and ask you to tell me why you’re depressed.” Instead of which, the person in the novel just goes along with it and is sooo happy and responsive. It reads like a tin ear for human relations.

Leaving all that aside, I call this “the novel where everyone got raped.” Honestly, I think it’s only Lizzy and Georgiana (though I wouldn’t bet Anne and maybe even Lady Catherine weren’t. They just don’t appear in this novel.)

The point though is that these two rapes are central to the book. They are there purely for plot reasons. Both of them are fairly unlikely in the circumstances. And both of them are resolved in very odd ways.

However, relating to the post, these rapes are not considered, in any way to reflect badly on the characters: on the contrary they are what make the characters worthy of sympathy and interest.

Now, I’m not going to say the rapes should be held against the characters. Rape is always the rapist’s fault. However, more and more I’m seeing rape played for a cheap sympathy trick. Which I suspect is reflection of how it’s viewed when the “consequences” of claiming to have been raped (note, not reporting to the police, but claiming it to your friends, neighbors and acquaintances) are sympathy and unconditional belief as well as consequences heaped on whomever you choose to accuse.

Given that view, why would women be angels? Why would they not surrender to an impulse of revenge? Would you believe women are superhuman? Why?

Surely a well formed conscience wouldn’t make false accusations. But how well formed is the conscience of someone who was raised on the idea men are inherently oppressors and that the world inherently owes women compensation for the horrors of being born with a vagina?

As someone said, rape crisis centers should believe every woman unconditionally. College authorities, reporters and frankly everyone else should examine the story for holes. And the accused should have the right to defend themselves.

Everything else; everything purporting to generate perfect equality for two completely different biological forms, will end up in a gigantic game of tit for tat, in which there’s no winner.

Egalite makes for a great revolutionary cry. But when the revolution winds down, equality of results ends only in equality of death and blood.

213 responses to “Egalite!

  1. “Not oppression, culture.”

    And here you’ve hit the nail on the head. As far as the Left is concerned, whenever culture is restrictive of anything anyone does, it is oppression or the result of oppression.
    Never mind whether it is actual coercion or just simply people giving you odd looks and saying “whyever would you…?” If that happens, the people doing so are oppressive oppressors who oppress.

    • Of course, none of that applies to when the Left works to suppress what it considers wrong, e.g. opposition to gay marriage or criticism of Obama.

      • Bingo. No one should be able to oppress this list of approved things. And no one should be able to do things not on the list. That’s the approach they seem to want to take.

        • All that is not Compulsory is Forbidden. Now stay in your box!

        • Except us on the left of course, because we are above all that.

          • The anointed are incapable of sin because of their enlightenment. All those who deny the enlightenment of the anointed are tainted, favor sin and seek to prevent realization of the enlightened paradise on Earth. They must be destroyed because only then can the enlightened live lives free from sin.

            Your mileage may vary, not all definitions of sin are equal, some breakage may occur in shipping. No refunds.

            • If you are anointed with the oil of enlightenment, sin will roll off you like water off an oiled duck.

              • If you are anointed with the oil of “enlightenment”, the flamethrower of truth and reason can make a brilliant example of you.

                • Sigh, you realize that you are going to be the envy of everyone else who’s been trying to earn this accolade for months, doing this with your first comment. But it can’t be helped: You are a baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad man. In the best way.

                  • Just remember, flamethrowers were invented because someone said, “I would really like to be able to throw fire on those people over there”, and they told their friend, who was good with tools…

                    (Don’t remember where I got that, but it may have been a George Carlin skit)

    • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

      Of course, if they actually oppress somebody, it’s not really oppression because those oppressed are oppressors.

    • Unless, of course, the culture is oppressive of something they don’t like, like having the wrong colorful Hawaiian shirt.

      • yeah. They’re oppressing my GEEK people.

      • Which, ironically, has lead to a pile of similar shirts being sold to people who want to raise a middle finger to the SJW crowd.

        That really should tell them something.

        • I had the urge to buy a shirt. But I really liked the parrot one better, so that’s the one I ordered. The poor woman at that website is now totally overwhelmed. She said they got orders for 500 of that shirt and had to print up extra fabric.

          • I’ve bought fabric and as soon as Through Fire is delivered I’m on the hook for three shirts, two vests (in a more tasteful greenish mermaid pattern) and two ties for husband and various friends. Oh, and sons.

            • You’re on the hook for sons? Haven’t you contributed enough of those?

              As for ties for husband … TMI, dearie, TMI. (Although now that I consider it, bondage gear in such a fabric sounds wonderfully kinky.)

    • Count me among those who think our culture is not oppressing enough.

      Don’t give me no lines and keep your hands to yourself.

  2. “These women – though they are, at least allegedly, women – seem never to have met any woman of flesh and blood.”

    Or men. And that holds true for the Left in general. They are fighting with cardboard cutouts of men, CHristians, straights, etc. What’s worse, the cutouts are not even based on their experience, but are handed to them by their teachers and professors.

    • It’s been proven in the lab. Jonathan Haidt found that there’s a correlation between how far left you are and how delusional you are about your opponents.

      • I think a good case could be made that it’s not just their opponents that the left is delusional about.

        In my experience, the only people I’ve ever encountered that have issues processing reality are generally both liberals and Democrats. Also, beneficiaries of a college education, from “good schools”.

        The usual course of events is that I’m asked to do something a certain way. I try it, because the customer is always right, or I’m working for that person in a hierarchy. When reality doesn’t comply, I then report back. I’ve never had someone you might describe as a conservative or traditionalist Christian stamp their little feet and insist on doing things the way they instructed me to. The liberal democrat? Sheesh… They throw tantrums, accuse me of sabotage, and a demonstrate whole host of behaviors I can only describe as being both immature and delusional.

        Typically, the right-wing conservative will nod their heads, say “Huh… What do you think will work, then?”, and goes on their merry way.

        When ideology trumps reality, you have a problem. And, that, I’m afraid, pretty much describes the vast majority of our liberal community.

        • Typically, the right-wing conservative will nod their heads, say “Huh… What do you think will work, then?”, and goes on their merry way.

          Note: regardless of what one believes is the case, this is a method most likely to get a good result. In cases where there was a communication misalignment, it’s an AWESOME way to do the classic “get them to do what you want and think it’s their idea” result, and it can help you figure out how to avoid the misunderstanding in the future. (there’s seldom only one person who has issues understanding something, although sometimes the issue you identify is “does not know how to use a computer, and I can’t teach him.”)

          • The key difference between the two groups is that the right-wing Christianist isn’t usually wedded to their ideological ideas, and can adapt to change. Challenge your typical liberal with something that counters something they’re ideologically committed to, and you can count on the fact that you’ve just encountered an immovable object. Namely, the rocks in their heads.

            • It is evidence of how evil we are that we steadfastly refuse to conform to their stereotypes. Only the deeply perverse would insist on acting against our true natures in such ways.

  3. Interestingly enough, I ran across a blog post from a woman who was lamenting the fact that many young men today are making a choice to avoid dating and relationships with women. In her discussion of the reasons, she discusses social factors but never mentions the recent spate of false rape accusations and their disparate fallout as a possible cause.

    It seems to me that many women simply don’t see how much damage a false allegation of sexual abuse can do and don’t realize that the possibility of being falsely accused presents very serious disincentive to men.

    As I ended my reply to her post: “There is nothing that a woman can do for a man that is as good as what she could do to him is bad.”

    • On a similar vein, I wrote a blogpost where there is an example of truly epic psychosis and utter rejection of criticism to the level of ‘if you criticize me or try to fact check me in any way, YOU ARE HARASSING AND OPPRESSING ME!!!!!!!’ Contrast to that is an example of a woman who is truly treated as an equal – and not because her ‘boobs matter’.

      With regards to the first article and example, there is a mention of a very softball interview given, and frankly, I think it was done out of sheer terror of being vilified if the interviewer actually did his/her job correctly. The feminazi in question tore apart people who actually were doing their journalistic jobs correctly – and in the wake of the whole UVA scandal, I’m starting to wonder if integrity of any kind matters to the feminazis and SJWs – because the journalists, in the interest of having a well rounded article, interviewed other people besides the crazy bitch, who was upset that her word wasn’t taken as irrefutable Mohammadian ayahs.

      There’s a GOOD reason why I’m using that descriptor versus ‘as gospel.’

      And honestly, since her photo is included, she’s going to do a lot in dissuading even more men from approaching women.

      • The only “integrity” that matters to such as these is blind slavish support of the narrative. Any and all evil that they must do (your resistance to their perfect ideal is the reason they must do these awful things after all) is justified because their cause is pure and just.
        Which I would observe pretty much describes the justification used for most of the truly evil acts ever seen in this sorry world.

        • I am going to digress a bit with a riff on “The Narrative”. Our hostess and others make their living writing narratives. These are entertaining falsehoods that people buy (with $) for the entertainment value. When “progressives” speak of “The Narrative” they are also speaking of a false tale (or at least one whose truth is immaterial) whos purpose is to convince people to support policies and or actions that “progressives” favor. What needs to be remembered is that whenever anyone speaks of the narrative they are talking about a fictional story.

          This is why the left is adamant about controlling “The Narrative”.

          I would be very interested in reading our hostesses (or her companions’ in the Evil League of Evil) thoughts on this.

          • Well, I’m only a lowly minion in the Evil League of Evil, but I think you’re missing slightly with your definition above.

            “The Narrative,” as presented by The Left, is not particularly intended to convince anyone. It is intended as the default standard cultural baseline to which all “proper” people will follow, and anyone who strays from that line will be either hounded back onto the line, or ostracized, or, in the case of those who have left completely or never were following the line, will be destroyed publicly.

            Now, as Sarah and others have pointed out before, The Narrative is an ever-shifting line which can leave even those who are True Believers floundering on the shoals of forgotten narratives, unless they keep up with the times and shift their opinions instantly when The Narrative changes, or else simply remain silent, except for supporting whomever is the public face of The Narrative at the moment.

        • Speaking of the blind support of the narrative, they’re actually doing stupid annoying crap like this.

          You really don’t want to annoy a tech by wasting their time. Especially if they decided that ‘flooding’ was a great way to try get things ‘changed.’ Nope, not happening…

          • Patrick Chester

            …haven’t gotten a call about that before, but if I do I’m renewing my request for a device to send electric shocks down the line.

          • RealityObserver

            Love it. Reminds me of the silences I used to get way back in the days when I was a tech, mice were not standardized, and I’d tell someone they needed to get a male to female converter…

      • I don’t wonder. The answer is NO.

      • @Shadowdancer –

        I was curious to check out the blog post you mentioned. But when I went to click on it, I discovered that your link got swallowed somehow, so “blogpost” is colored link-blue but has no Web address connected to it. Mind reposting the link?

      • On that note, here’s news from the “just when you thought they couldn’t get worse” front: “A woman who says Bill Cosby sexually assaulted her in the early 1970s has filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the comedian’s public denials have defamed her.”

        If I accuse you of anything — never mind that I have ZERO evidence against you — and you deny having done it, your denial implies that I am lying; you’re defaming my character!!!

        That’s even better than “your denial proves your guilt!”

        • Yeah, no. “How dare you claim that you didn’t have sex with me?! WHY AREN’T YOU LETTING ME STEAL YOUR FAME?!!!!!!!!!!!”

          Was it the one who was claiming she was 15 years old and in the Playboy Mansion? Coz, y’know, the salacious details “need” to show that she was ‘so hot and sexy she got into the Playboy Mansion without having to show her ID – completely breaking the rules that protected Playboy from the Moral Guardians – and that she was soooooo hot that out of all the sexy, willing women there, “Cosby ‘picked’ her for raping!”

          Seriously that sounds like her… ‘bragging’.

          • I don’t know the the details of this particular accuser’s bio — I cherish that ignorance — but this story comes up near the top when you Google Cosby defamation, if you have the stomach for it.

            I heard it mentioned on the radio the other day; the lead was something about her having found a way to sidestep the Statute of Limitations: sue him for denying he did it. I only checked deeply enough to confirm that, yeah, that’s her angle.

            IANAL. I’d like to think such a thing wouldn’t have a chance of flying (even today!) because of the ridiculous precedent it would set. I’d really, really like to think that.

            • I seriously doubt it’ll go anywhere.

              In fact, I’ll be surprised if it’s not thrown out of court outright.

              • Which is probably why these crazy critters go straight for the media attention instead. There’s nothing to show as proof, so they’ll howl to everyone and sundry in classic gossip mode. This would really go as a slander and defamation suit from Cosby’s side.

                • They’re abusing their free speech rights to try and get the public behind them. They’re trying to get people to think, “Why would she do all of this if she weren’t telling the truth?”

                  It’s battle space prep.

                  • Yeah, well the thing is, people like myself who DO pay attention to the words being said – yes I’m rather inconvenient like that – do notice the subtle self-affirming, self-aggrandizing brags being very heavily implied. The holes these things poke into their story pull me out of the narrative they’re trying to spin very quickly.

                    • ^^^
                      90% of female “knowing,” right there.

                      It can break down, it can misfire, it can be fooled– but the instinctive (or, for some Odds, backwards-learned) trust/distrust based on how someone says something, and when, matters a lot.

                  • What was that saying they were throwing around a few years ago? “It’s the severity of the accusation that matters”? Or something like that.

              • Common sense would lead one to expect that. But “common sense” is an artifact of Oppressive Heteronormative Eurocentric Protestant Privilege, or something.

            • Reminds of when they had a blanket amnesty in classical Athens — and some people sidestepped that they could not prosecute for murder by charging the (alleged) murderers with polluting a temple by entering it, given the miasma attached to murderers.

            • Nah. Between Psycho Shanley, the whole idiocy with the UVA, and Cosby, I’m pretty convinced that at this point, they’ll do their best to destroy law.

      • Somebody made a hilarious I-hope-it-was-parody post with one of those chock’ful’o details heart-tugger posts, and titled it something like “you can check if this is real, or you can just read it and feel your heart melt….”

        I, of course, did NOT go read something they pretty much admitted was a total lie meant to emotionally manipulate to– given the number of details– a specific course of action.

      • … I’m starting to wonder if integrity of any kind matters to the feminazis and SJWs…

        Starting to wonder? And here I thought you had more sense than that (Just kidding. Please don’t hurt me 🙂 ).

    • The other disincentive, of course, is divorce. Under the current legal régime in the United States, if a woman decides she wants to divorce her husband, she has the ability to claim abuse that never happened* and be widely believed — and his life will be destroyed. He may well lose his job if his boss believes the false allegations, and even if he doesn’t lose his job, he will almost certainly lose access to his kids for the rest of his life. And he will be forced to hand over about half his wages to her (alimony, child support, etc.) for at least a decade, maybe even two — even if she gets remarried.

      Now, my advice to young men would not be “never get married”, because there are women of good character out there who would never do this to them. But I would say “Before you propose, make darn sure that she’s a woman of good character, who will actually mean her wedding vows. Because the laws hand her a loaded gun pointed at your head, so you’d better be certain that she’s the kind who won’t pull the trigger.”

      I’ve seen women (and some men, too) complain about how low marriage rates are among young people. I don’t think they realize just what kind of incentive structures the current laws have created.

      * I’m not claiming that all claims of abuse are false. Many, sadly, are entirely true. But just as how there is incentive to falsely claim rape, and so some women will do so, there is also incentive to falsely claim abuse (it gets the woman a much more favorable settlement in the divorce proceedings if she’s believed), and so some women with no conscience will do so.

      • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

        I’ve heard that much of the “cries of abuse” in divorce cases involved custody fights. IE the wife will claim that the husband abused the children thus making sure she keeps the children and prevents him from seeing his children again. Of course, he still has to pay child support.

        Of course, I heard this a few years back so the “cries of abuse” may have changed to charging the husband with “wife beating”.

        • The thing is, there are therapists and shelter administrators who are all too ready to believe that child abuse has happened, on the flimsiest of evidence (or no evidence at all). To make an accusation of wife beating stick, you’d actually have to show up somewhere with documentable bruises or a broken bone.

          • Which is why “emotional abuse” is the claim of choice, I’ve heard. It’s conveniently free of any evidence, which means it can only be his word against hers… and the courts are pre-disposed to believe the woman who’s sitting there sobbing her eyes out, rather than the man who’s sitting there looking angry. (He may be angry because this is a complete tissue of lies he’s hearing, but the court often thinks his anger is proof.)

        • There are lawyers who give seminars in falsely charging the husband with both. It’s a boom industry among the buzzards.

      • *gives you big googly eyes* But… but that implies that women are capable of being MERCENARY AND LIARS…! YOU MISOGYNISTIC HATERHATER YOU!

        /takes off SJW mask

        I can’t even maintain that pose without my brain going NOOOOO STOPIT. (Seriously, RES? Your mimicry of SJWs lately have me both terrified and in stitches in it’s accuracy!) Women can be and are mercenary. Anyone who says otherwise is flat out lying.

      • Weirdly, for reasons I can’t figure out, it’s the GOOD women married to scum who end up with the dirty end of the stick. I have friends whose exes routinely forget child support and they don’t press them because “I want the children to love their father. I’m not going to fight.”
        At the same time, the harpies married to good men divorce and suck them dry. The limits of the law, I guess.

        • I think the “I’m not going to press the matter” attitude, which is commendable, is probably why they end up with the short end of the stick.

          • I think it may be consideration of the possibility that the damage entailed by pressing the issue exceeds the damage resultant from letting it drop.

            In a society which exalts indecency (only, of course, from the appropriate people) decent people are doomed.

            • I think it may be consideration of the possibility that the damage entailed by pressing the issue exceeds the damage resultant from letting it drop.

              Quoth my sister: “He’s a (unprintable), but he’s still (son’s) father….”

        • There’s a certain amount of selection bias. The happy marriages do not broadcast themselves.

          • There may also be an element of misapprehending what a successful marriage actually is. Maintaining a prolonged state of bliss/infatuation is well nigh impossible, especially if you believe it is your partner’s responsibility to ensure such.

            We got married in a fever …

        • I’d guess it’s what is GOING to happen with all the false rape claims– everyone expects that it will be accused, and is cynical about it, so only those who are willing to throw themselves whole-heartedly into lying are going to be believed.

          Or those poor, brain-washed women whose abuse only comes out because they don’t leave the abuser until they’re in an ambulance, or the abuser does something extreme and public enough that it can’t be denied.

        • A thicket of law protects the guilty and claws the innocent.

      • Under the current legal régime in the United States, if a woman decides she wants to divorce her husband, she has the ability to claim abuse that never happened* and be widely believed — and his life will be destroyed.

        Not actually true.

        My sister was physically abused, had the evidence on her body, but because she did not call the police (having him arrested) and instead left the house once someone got her to believe she didn’t deserve physical abuse, Oregon does not accept it happened.

        Had she called the police and had her husband arrested, her disabled son would have lost his medical insurance, while he was undergoing several major surgeries.

        So far, all the legal agreements related to the separation, and now divorce, are about as effective as restraining orders have proven to be when the person being “restrained” is murderous.

        The system reminds me a lot of schools’ punishment systems; designed to be easily gamed by those who are trying to cheat, while screwing with the folks trying to do the right thing.

        • Consider the word “generally” inserted into my comment. I never meant to claim that this will always be true no matter what. And, as Sarah pointed out regarding child support (and as you just mentioned), it’s the people who AREN’T malicious who generally get shafted.

          • If there is an entire group that can easily be identified for whom it is not true, and that group is significant, then it is not “generally” true.

            The statement, when modified to something like “a woman who decides she wants to divorce her husband and is willing to research how to lie to do so will to be coached in how to claim abuse that never happened and be generally believed.”

            If she is not willing to research how to do so, or is not willing to lie, or even just feels any sort of restraint in harming her soon-to-be-ex, then she will generally not be believed.

            As someone mentioned with happy marriages, these cases don’t get anywhere near the attention.

            • Yes, that’s what I was trying to say. Thank you for phrasing it more explicitly. By “has the ability” I didn’t mean “knows how”, I meant “the option is available to her if she chooses to use it” — which would involve learning how to use it. And as you said, there are those who will be quite happy to coach her in how to lie believably, for a mere thirty pieces of silver.

              I do disagree with the “if there’s a significant group for whom it’s not true, then ‘generally’ doesn’t apply” statement, though. Let’s say I find something that’s true of 70% of the population. The 30% for whom it’s not true is certainly a significant number, but anything that’s true of 70% would certainly count as “generally” in my book. That’s a minor point of semantics, though, and I believe we’re generally (heh) in agreement over most of this: that the people, both women and men, who are willing to lie through their teeth in a divorce can generally benefit from doing so, while the good ones tend to get screwed over.

              • I don’t think you’re quite getting why a claim that anything like a majority of women can say “I was abused” and be believed is so very objectionable….

                There might, in crazy places like the one I live in (Seattle), be judges where this is true.

                However, I know first-hand of more cases where either there were false claims and they were not believed, or there were true claims and in spite of supporting evidence up to and including the witness that talked the spouse into leaving WITHOUT being in an ambulance, they were not believed. The standard used in those cases is “arrest for it, or it didn’t happen.”
                In one of those false claim cases, it is in Seattle, with a judge insane enough to let the mother keep custody after she enabled abuse of both of her children.

                • It’s good to hear that you know of many false claims that were not believed (and truly sad to hear of the true cases of abuse that weren’t believed), but I’ve heard far too many anecdotes the other direction myself, and I don’t think either one of us will persuade the other by citing anecdotes. Hard data is what we’d need for persuasion, and I don’t know of any numbers on abuse claims in divorce cases, so I don’t think we’ll get that hard data. (Though if you know of a study that’s got such numbers, I’d be very glad to hear about it).

                  OTOH, the numbers I do know about* — who generally gets awarded primary custody in a divorce, the father or the mother — are extremely skewed towards the woman (by about a 4-to-1 ratio, IIRC) in the US. Which was my original point, before I got sidetracked into discussing abuse claims: that men these days are shying away from marriage because if their wife turns out to be crazy enough to pull the trigger on a frivolous divorce**, they (the men) stand a lot higher chance of losing out than the women do. Hence the general disinclination to put themselves in that situation in the first place, as noted by Helen Smith (Glenn Reynolds’ wife) in her Men on Strike book. (And by many other authors and/or bloggers as well).

                  * Though I still haven’t found the cite. I used to have it, but I’m badly disorganized about keeping track of sources so I can quote them a year later.

                  ** Cases of real abuse, whether they’re believed or not, are not frivolous. I’m talking about the “Eat, Pray, Love” kind of divorce here. (That book is pure evil, by the way).


                    Rate of domestic violence, total, for separated women is less than 50 in 1000, and less than 15 in 1000 for divorced.
                    Never married is less than 7 in 1k, and currently married is less than 2 in 1k.

                    This does not work with any sort of notion of “generally” being believed, even if you assume that the statistics are purely from police reports and are thus twice higher in “real” cases.

                    • I don’t see how those statistics prove anything. The statement Robin made was regarding how often accusations of abuse are believed, which would be a subset of the number of accusations made, not related at all to the actual incidence of abuse happening.

                      So the statistic (which is probably very hard to find, if it is already compiled at all) should be: percentage of abuse claims in divorce cases which are considered true but have been shown later to have been false accusations. I was personally involved in one case, and I’m pretty sure that if the seven of us who were named as those she had been prostituted out to (one of whom is gay) had not shown up in court, she would probably have been believed.

                    • It shows they are not “generally” made, let alone believed, and that even if all of the difference between “currently married” and “divorced” or “separated” were false, then it still isn’t at even the mentioned 70% false mark; it also shows that “significant other” is more likely to be accused than “spouse,” which also does not work with the idea that false accusations which are “generally” believed are happening.

                    • And there I think you are reading what Robin said incorrectly. It seems clear to me that what he meant was that WHEN there are accusations of abuse made by the woman in a divorce, they are generally believed, not that divorces are generally due to abuse.

                    • I didn’t read it the way you seem to be interpreting it; I am pointing out that the stats don’t support “claim abuse, be believed, win” as anything like common.
                      If it had anything like “generally” working, then it would be fairly common– look at the various zero-evidence rape claims, where there is generally a pay-off even for poorly supported cases, and even horrifically false claims very seldom have any downside.

                  • Source for their stats is via survey, and lists the claims by their status at time of survey.


                  • And a sourced blogpost dealing with this and similar/related claims:

                    • Well, if a person is going to lie about abuse having happened when it didn’t, he or she is probably going to research it first and check all the legal boxes. He/she probably has plenty of time and energy.

                      A person who really is abused is probably going to be slightly out of it, have a lot of other problems, and basically not have time and energy to research the law and get the right high-powered lawyer.

                    • I must point out that that post assumes that because men don’t ask for custody, they must not want it. The possibility they aren’t asking because they know it’s useless is not considered.

                    • She does no such thing; she only points out that they are more likely to ask for it in the first place, (unquote) and that you cannot claim bias by a court system not giving someone what they did not ask for.

                      If one seriously believes that the vast majority of divorcing men don’t even ask for joint custody because they’re sure they’ll lose, then there’s even more reason to inform them that research suggests that if they ASK, they’re more likely to get it than the woman. That could be an artifact, but “maybe” is a horrible reason to not even try.

                      About the only possible weakness would be if some of the studies included cases where the fathers asked for custody and the mothers did not, but that is unlikely in a contested divorce. (If they agreed about who gets the kids, it wouldn’t be awarded via a court decision.)

                    • Whether it is true or not, there is a belief that if they ask for custody, or even shared custody, the lawyer for the woman will double down and they will wind up in worse shape than they will otherwise, and this is at least sometimes suggested to them by their lawyers.

    • BobtheRegisterredFool

      It is about trust.

      If a man sleeps with a woman, often enough that implies trusting her within arm’s length while he is sleeping, or trusting her with access to his food.

      The standard model of relations presented in American popular culture is not often one where the man knows the woman so well that he can fully evaluate her character. In many cases she is a stranger at some point.

      We know individuals as individuals, but our guesses about strangers are informed by our models of the population. I’ve speculated that the guy I sorta know who identifies as French might think my taste in food is horrible.

      Given that actions speak louder than words, what might images that feminists have approved as speaking for all women imply about the character of a woman who embraces American popular culture?

      Image the first, ‘women support abortion, including in the third trimester’. If this is murder, the claim that it is the choice of the woman alone implies that the blood is also on her hands alone, if true. A man can ask himself whether romantic or maternal love is more fragile. A man can ask himself whether the politics of the 2012 election support the idea that the stereotype has no basis in reality.

      Image the second, all the stories where the woman is smarter than the man, and maybe socially better as well. These impressions shape estimates as to whether his ability to discern character beats her ability to deceive.

      What do these imply about the wisdom of seeking out the American popular culture standard model woman? Fortunately, we live in the real world, and are not restricted to knowing only the sort of people our betters approve of.

  4. Yesterday Peter Grant had a post about research into why so many men than women qualify for Darwin Awards. Since the award is not limited to Westerners (although more Westerners get mentioned in the media and so are available for nomination), it seems a universal trait – men are more task focused (“I WILL bring this building down one way or another. Just this last beam here and . . .”) and more willing to try, ahem, adventuresome experiments. Not saying there are not women who, oh, decide to dry off a wet wood shingle roof with a leaf blower without wearing any safety equipment, in smooth soled shoes. Just a lot fewer. [sorry for the lack of link. Firefox is being a pain again]. There IS a difference in aggregate, and no amount of legislation, STEM scholarship grants, or lawsuits will change that.

    • I think you might be missing a factor, there. “The chicks dig it” is responsible for a whole slew of risky behavior.

      • I think that this one had all of the above and trainsurfing to boot.:
        This happened in my old neighborhood. Now for most of that line, you can ride on top, if you are insane and be far enough away from the overhead that you will not get any arcy sparky. But in Riverside, there is an antique bridge that pushed the overhead wires right down on top of the cars. Anything above gets arcy sparky and pretty face gets a Darwin.

      • There may also be differences of scale. There is much insane behaviour on the part of females in the name of attracting male attention (or impressing other females) which is unquestionably self-destructive without being fatally so. High heels, the things done to make hair more attractive and/or remove it from certain parts of the body. Then there is “elimination denial” in which women refuse to be observed needing to excrete bodily wastes and go to absurd lengths to prevent their male partners from knowing they have to fart, pee and/or poo.

        I’ve seen over/under figures on how long a modern women has to be in a relationship with a guy before she will use his toilet but, because they were written of in newspapersite columns I discount them as exaggerating for comic effect.

        While not endorsing the sourece ( the mere fact such articles are written indicates something is at work.

  5. Oh. Southern Baptists. Suddenly a few odd encounters I’ve had make a _lot_ more sense.

  6. There’s a controversial new mandate in the NYFD to eliminate those discriminatory physical requirements for firepersons:

    As other-worldly as this requirement may be, it is the result of our federal government’s ideology of absolute equality. That ideology justifies its every policy, from immigration, to affirmative action, to wars of liberation all over the globe. How long can we pretend everyone’s equal? Every day the bucket goes down to the well, but one day the bottom will drop out.

    • And, when people die because the firefighter there to save them was physically unable to, it won’t be the SJW’s fault. Nope. Not in the least.

      • You’re right. What matters is the nobility of their intentions.

      • I know WordPress has a “Like” button somewhere, but they’ve hidden it away where I can’t find it. So consider the “Like” button hammered on your post. (Not that I like the situation you’re describing, of course.)

      • Won’t take that long. When the firefighters start dying because they’re not in adequate condition to live through their job — they’ll blame the patriarchy.

        I’ve know quite a few firefighters, have a good friend/riding partner who’s been a long-time FF/Paramedic, and has the surgical scars to prove it. She’s likely to — um — react negatively to this article.

        So, of course, I’m going to send it to her. 😈

        • Of course you are. 🙂

        • I wonder if current firefighters could sue on the grounds that this policy represents a reckless hazard to their lives.

          • IIRC, they face being fired for discrimination if they do.

            • Fox, I want you to look at what you just wrote there. Once you have, don’t you think you were a leetle bit hasty in writing this?

              Under the current legal régime in the United States, if a woman decides she wants to divorce her husband, she has the ability to claim abuse that never happened* and be widely believed — and his life will be destroyed.

              Not actually true.

              I submit that a legal system which allows those firefighters to be fired for discrimination for pointing out the obvious is more than capable of taking claims of abuse without evidence against men and punishing them for it.

              Without a timeframe, I can’t tell if what happened to your sister was before the pendulum swung to what Robin is describing today. Neither one is justified…. but not recognizing where the SJWs have us now isn’t going to get the system balanced where it needs to be.

              • The child involved is still in grade school.

                As you say, recognizing where we are now is vital to fixing the system.

                They are not tilting it by sex, and framing it as if they are will just further their goals.

                They are tilting it by “willing to destroy the essence of marriage.” Up to and including a great deal of support to those who will act to harm the children involved, just so long as it also hurts the person they married.

          • This would be my friend’s inclination. And the first thing she asked:

            “How am I supposed to trust you to haul me out of a burning building if you can’t pass the PT?”

    • OK, I agree that not requiring some kind of physical standards fro a seriously physical and dangerous job sis nuts, HOWEVER;

      The feminuts aren’t conjuring the notion that physical requirements are made up to keep women from getting some jobs out of thin air. It has been done. And, furthermore, some requirements are based on having a large pool of large and muscular young men to choose from; a lot of the military’s old requirements held for U.S. males, while similar programs for our (not as well nourished in childhood, and therefore smaller) allies had lower requirements. Yes, the argument can be made that since we HAVE that large pool of hefty young men we should call on , and it has little to do with sexism, but then you have military types opining that amen shouldn’t be in combat because they can’t throw a grenade farther than its kill radius. I bought that one until a friends who WAS in the military told me it was hogwash of a high and fetid order; the military has a word for people who throw grenades and don’t take cover. That word is “casualties”.

      A lot of genuinely male chauvinist pigs erected a lot os spurious standards, and the feminists who went through that aren’t willing to give any standards the benefit of the doubt anymore. The younger feminists are likelier to be full-bore bats, and won’t let anything stand in the way of The Glorious Revolution ™. But the history of bullshit standards is real, and messes things up amazingly.

      • Ascher Goodrich

        I have to disagree. Yes, there are some instances where “spurious standards” were created out of purely misogynist reasons, but you make it sound like this was and is common. It is not and it was not.

        Some women are physically capable of serving in combat arms of the Military(Israel has proved this time and again) in Firefighting positions, or other physically demanding jobs. The vast majority of women can not. By degrading the standards of aforementioned jobs, you are seriously degrading performance as a whole.

        When you consider that degrading the standards of the military is degrading the ability of our Country to defend itself, and our allies, it is a frightening proposition and one that is only being considered for political reasons.

        • Was it Gloria Steinem who opined that she would be happy to be dragged (rather than carried) down several flights of stairs if it meant more women were firefighters?

          By which I conclude she never personally expected to need a firefighter’s aid.

        • Israel is a somewhat unusual case, however, as its armed forces exist primarily to defend from a threat that is perfectly happy to exterminate everyone, down to the last woman and child. Those without swords still die on them.

          The Israeli army will still conscript you even if you have significant physical disabilities including diabetes and epilepsy. Apparently, even if you are so disabled that you would normally not be obligated to serve, you can still volunteer anyways, and they’ll find something for you to do.

          • Ascher Goodrich

            You are right. Israel using women on the front line is an example of what is possible when necessary, not an example of what is a preferable or even a good idea.

      • It is what complicates things, because the history of discrimination, bigotry and exclusion is real across any number of situations.

        Which makes us hypersensitive and prone to knee-jerk as a society (because we genuinely want to improve, wish somebody would compare that to other societies).

        But handing everything over to the creaky wheels is going to have consequences, some dire.

        I’m really in favor of acknowledging history, and pointing out that it’s history so let’s move on to the now.

      • It is rare that I read a posting by anyone on Sarah’s site that is so jaw-droppingly idiotic, obtuse, and dare I say, stupid, that I have to drop what I’m doing (eating breakfast and drinking a cup of coffee whilst reading the dailies on the tablet), and hie myself off to the computer to compose a suitably scathing reply.

        You, sir, have managed such.

        From your posting, I think I can assume that you do not have the benefit of having served in the military in any sort of “combat arms context”. As such, you ought to keep your gob shut about things you think you know via third-hand reports. Your friend who relayed that little bit about the hand grenade is a f**king idiot. The point that he missed is that taking cover after throwing the hand grenade is of no benefit, when you can’t get the damn thing thrown close enough to the enemy do you any good in the first place.

        And, that, I hate to tell you, is the actual, y’know, point of throwing those grenades: To kill the enemy. It’s not some “Oh, I threw the grenade…” thing, like it’s some kind of magic talisman or game piece–You actually have to get the damn thing close enough to the enemy to kill them when it goes off, and when your range of throw is inadequate, you may just as well not have thrown the damn thing in the first place. Save it as a rape-prevention tool, when your position is overrun, as it likely will be.

        The point of excluding women from combat due to physical capabilities is not some artifact of the patriarchy, nor is it simple prejudice. It’s a reality, and the fact that most of us who actually run things in the military have this slight aversion to getting people killed unnecessarily and a very strong desire to win the battles that you lot (civilians and politicians…) keep getting us into. Putting women in general, not the particular, into combat arms units and jobs is not something that helps either cause. Particularly when there is a surplus of fit young men who start out with an exponential advantage in terms of raw physical capability.

        You want an illustration of why? Good God above, I could provide you with dozens. You allude to the fact that our standards are higher than our allies, in a lot of cases. Well, yeah, no shit–We like to win, and we’ve got the literal manpower to do it, so why the hell should we hobble ourselves down to their level? You think war is some kind of intramural sport, where we should hobble the teams to make them equal, or something?

        I’ve actually worked alongside some of those allies, doing hard physical labor. There’s a major ‘effing difference, and one that directly relates to whether or not you’re going to win at a reasonable cost in casualties. And, having been one of those potential casualties, I take it rather personally when unknowing jackasses like yourself decide to drastically up the odds of me becoming one by meddling in things of which you have not one damn whit of personal knowledge or experience.

        I’ve been there, working with those diminutive little allies you’re alluding to, and it flat-out sucks ass. They can’t do the same job as the average fit young American male, and they can’t carry the same loads. Period. You haven’t lived until you’ve been unloading or loading structural timber from a vehicle alongside KATUSA troops that average the size of an average American woman, and who’ve got about the same body strength when it comes to physical labor. Where the teams loading and unloading the trucks were American, the timbers went up and came down with two men per timber, and the work was quite safe. The KATUSA troops, on the other hand? Yeesh… I had to replace the one American I had working with me with three KATUSA troops, and they still were a huge ‘effing safety hazard to me personally because they couldn’t do the job. I’m handling one end of the damn timber, with three of them working together on the other, and they still didn’t have the physical strength to do what I was doing by myself. Know what happens when the three guys on the far end collapse under the load, and you’re left standing there, and have to try to twist the damn thing away from where they fell? I still feel the twinges from that one in my lower back, some twenty years later. Thank you very much, Douglas MacArthur, and the idiots who downsized the Army after WWII–Your legacy lives on, in a compressed disc or two in my lower back.

        On a normal jobsite, you can work around that sort of issue, but when the mission is quite literally critical, that absence of physical strength slows your work rate and production down significantly. In peacetime training, it is what it is–You deal with it. In the middle of a war, where you’re trying to accomplish a mission that may or may not result in the loss of massive numbers of troops? It’s a critical difference. One that means the difference between losing a few people to losing thousands, and maybe even the war itself.

        In the case I reference above, the mission was constructing a timber-balk roadway across a thawed rice paddy during an exercise. The roadway ran down to the only available crossing site for the river that we had most of a division on the other side of, and if there had been a real war on, the delay in getting that road constructed and running would have left massive amounts of combat power bottled up and vulnerable to artillery fire while it waited to withdraw across the river. Just a few hours delay in construction of that roadway would have equaled a massive amount of dead GIs and ROK soldiers, because they would have been trapped there in the river bend in concentration, vulnerable to all the North Korean artillery in range. All because an “insignificant number of men” was replaced by a physically inadequate minority in a “non-critical support unit”.

        Of such things are massive defeats made. And, you, blithe unknowing spirit, want to make things like that happen, in the name of “equality”. Well, thank you very much–And, since you’re not on your way down to the recruiting station to partake of the risks you’re creating for me and those who have, here’s a polite “*uck you”. This crap you’re talking is not some idle thought experiment–Real people are going to be those casualties, people I know. I’m not really fond of that idea, at all.

        And, make no damn mistake–I have witnessed so many instances where your “harmless” little ideas have resulted in people getting hurt over the years that it is no longer even the least little bit funny. The reasons the military tried putting those restrictions into place is quite simple–We know for a damn fact that you cannot predict where and when you’re going to need to rely on raw physical strength to get the job done that it’s foolish not to make sure you’ve got the strongest, biggest bastards available to do the job, and when you start off with the moronic idea that you’re going to replace those men with women that have, at most, maybe 40-60% of their size, strength, and sheer physicality, it’s just plain stupid.

        What we ask the military to do is not some game–People die, battles are lost, and the penultimate cause of that happening may well be someone who was placed in a position they never should have been in, in the first place. That old story about the horseshoe nail isn’t just a fun little nursery rhyme with which to amuse the kiddies, it’s actually a damning tale of piss-poor preparation equaling the loss of a war. Choosing to put someone who starts out at a severe disadvantage physically into the metaphoric place of that nail is a recipe for death and disaster, which people like me are going to experience personally, while you watch the results on CNN.

        So, here’s a hearty “*uck you”, again, and a suggestion that you keep your nose to things you have some slight personal knowledge and experience of. It’s pretty obviously not the military, at the nose-in-the-weed level. I have no earthly idea what motivates people like you–You want to make things “fair” in war? Are you ‘effing insane? You don’t have “fair” in that environment–You have either a “win” or a “lose”, and making your force demonstrably weaker at the individual physical level is a damn good way to see more things show up in that “lose” column.

        You want to cripple the forces, get your ass out and join them, and then you can suffer the consequences of your brilliant little ideas. Until then, kindly leave the decisions about whether or not the “unimportant physical capabilities and differences between women and men” are actually, really, truly “unimportant”. I’ve been there, and they actually do exist, and they really do matter.

        It amazes the hell out of me how people who have no background or personal knowledge feel entitled to opine or make decisions about important policy issues, ignoring the people who’ve made a career in that field. It’s the height of arrogance and idiocy, and I find it quite amazing how prevalent it is. I keep my mouth shut about things I don’t know about, and if I have the audacity to speak an opinion, I generally try to frame it as a question to those who do know about the subject. “It seems to me…” is a valuable way to start offering an opinion in an area of which I know nothing, and then I await the expert to render judgment.

        I’ve had my nose rubbed in the dirt of reality a few too many times to not develop humility on the areas where I know I’m ignorant, and I’m all too aware of what those are.

        And, here’s a tip: I once had the opinion, formed from listening to all the equal rights advocates, that there was no intrinsic difference between women and men. God, seeing that, decided to teach me a series of object lessons over the years, which quite turned my thinking around.

        I like women, in general intellectual terms, and I respect what they can do as a class. I no longer consider that direct combat, or even most military jobs that might potentially require a great deal of raw physical strength in exigency, are things that should be included in that realm of intrinsic female capabilities. It doesn’t work, period.

        And, until we’re down to our last few corn-fed farm boys, the idea of substituting the average American girl for an average American boy on the battlefield is so incredulously stupid that I can’t even begin to express the stupidity of it with mere words. Harrison Bergeron was a character in a story, not an archetype for how to arrange military affairs. You don’t achieve victory at a low cost by first crippling your forces in terms of strength and fitness for combat.

        It’s funny as hell–You lot don’t see a problem with having the NFL sexually segregated, which is, I might point out, a *cking game, but you have massive problems with having a sexual segregation policy where it means people’s lives. Say again? How’s that?

        Of course, what’s becoming increasingly obvious to me is that you simply don’t care about those lives, never having been in the military, not intending to ever take part in it, and not really giving a good Goddamn about the people who do. We’re not “your sort”, so we don’t count, and our lives simply don’t matter to your ilk.

        Which is why, I suspect, that you’re going to wake up one morning and discover that those “hard men doing unpleasant things far away, so that you can sleep safely at night” are no longer on the job. I know I’m rapidly losing enthusiasm for making sacrifices to defend your ilk, and I’m pretty sure I’m not alone.

        • Professor Badness

          Whew!! This is why I don’t comment on things of which I don’t have experience. I don’t like getting ripped a new one.
          Anyway, this does remind me of some conversations I’ve had with friends. I had planned on going into the military after high school, but I got juvenile onset diabetes my sophmore year.
          Telling friends about this, they’ve asked why the military won’t take diabetics.
          “Most of the jobs can be done by someone with an easily treated medical condition”, they will point out.
          Thinking back to some Tom Clancy novels, I will explain that a soldier, (in case of an emergency or invasion) must be able to grab a full rucksack with complete loadout and rations and hoof it into the bush.
          Most military personnel will never be asked to do this. It is not usually considered by support personnel, who are just happy to work 9-5 in a decent job.
          But it is a possibility, and the soldiers must be ready for it. You can’t parcel out the load according to ability. Everyone must carry an equal load in an emergency.
          I don’t know if this has made any sense. I keep having to stop and help customers as I type. I hate working retail…but at least I work in a used book store.

          • You are following the path of wisdom.

            I applaud your desire to serve, and your clear-eyed understanding of why you were disqualified from doing so. Too many refuse to grasp the reasons for such things, and insist that service is some kind of childish right, as though enabling self-gratification and personal fulfillment were the sole and true purpose of the military. Which is manifestly not the case.

            I’m really looking forward to watching how they manage the issues of dealing with the transexuals they’re trying to let serve. How the hell they’re going to manage to keep those poor people properly medicated and cared for while on active duty on some foreign battlefield I can’t even imagine, let alone what the hell the enemy is going to do with them once they’re captured.

            Some things you just have to shake your head at, and wonder at the moral degeneracy displayed by those advocating for them. Gee, I sure would like it if everyone of us carried the load, but the fact remains that military service is a horribly challenging calling, and not all of us are fit for answering that call. Denial of that fact is a clue our culture has lost its collective mind.

          • The cooks, clerks and drivers who got thrown into the line in the last days of the siege at Bastogne were in jobs that could be done by someone with an easily-treated medical condition… until they weren’t.

            My brother was an NYFD firefighter until he was forced into medical retirement after 9/11. He was and is, um, not good with the idea that if he broke his leg in a burning building, the “fireperson” next to him might not have been able to carry/drag him out (I say “not good” because someone up above used up all the asterisks).

            There are simple, urgent needs for brute strength in many emergency situations that simply will not respond to any number of “fairness” lectures.

            • younger son was interested in serving, but he has the same auto-immune complex I have including asthma and eczema, both of which flare to high levels with stress (If it’s finals week, it means his hands are raw flesh, for ex.) We understand completely why he couldn’t serve, though given his IQ (estimated around 180 because a precise fix is hard at that level) and its bend (he’s REALLY good at decoding patterns) he’d probably be in a basement somewhere. However, in war, sh*t happens.

            • But one thing that is often forgotten in this debate is that individuals are…individual. The proportion of women who can carry me out of a burning building is very small, but there are enough women that the absolute number of them is quite large (the number who have the ability and the desire is a different manner).

              The other one is that the fitness tests that the military impose don’t test combat ability, they measure fitness. The two are correlated, but there’s a difference between – say – the raw run time and fitness. Otherwise you wouldn’t correct for age. You can’t say that because a woman does fewer pushups she can’t throw a grenade far enough. If picking up heavy things or throwing a certain distance are necessities, then test for those.

              • Ascher Goodrich

                Mr. Gauch, you are right that there are a significant number of women who have the physical strength necessary to serve in the military. Although I believe you may be overestimating the amount of women who meet the criteria. The problem is, the military is being forced to lower their standards so that the majority of women will be able to serve in combat arms.

                As far as the fitness tests, I would first point out that it is impossible to quantify combat ability. Where as fitness can be quantified and, as you mentioned, has a direct relation to combat ability. The reason the military does tests for push-ups, sit-ups, pull-ups, and mile speed is because these exercises do a decent job of quantifying strength, endurance and speed. They don’t test for pure strength(how much a person can lift) because a male who can pass the minimum requirements for these exercises will nearly always be strong enough. The same is, generally, not true for a female. Since combat operations in the military have always been entirely male, it would be silly to base their fitness tests on the concept of an integrated-sex military.

              • Jeff, the root problem is that the SJW types refuse to do any sort of rational testing, and when such a regime has been established, they’ve either sabotaged it or had it eliminated.

                Circa 1981, when I first went to the Military Entrance Processing Station or MEPS in Spokane, Washington, the Army had a simple little test they administered as part of the enlistment physical. It consisted of a Universal Gym setup that required you to do a military press of around 80 pounds maximum. If you wanted a particular job, you had to prove you met the physical requirements of that job, and each of them had been coded by what weight you had managed to lift for a set number of repetitions. It wasn’t a perfect assessment, but it did have the virtue of being perfectly fair, and of having some relevance to the jobs you qualified for. However, this common-sense measure was anathema to the fine women serving in DACOWITS, the Defense Advisory Committee On Women In The Services, and they had it discontinued as being a back-door method of keeping women out of certain jobs. To which I can only say “WTF?”. Their influence is also why the various PT tests are all gender-normed, and do not reflect any real connection with real physical requirements. Every attempt to come up with something like that has been excoriated as being some cunning plan to keep women out of the “good jobs”, or some such bullshit. We’re approaching the final phase of this effort, right now, and not a damn bit of it actually reflects any real concern for the women and men who are going to be the final victims of this stupidity. It’s all about the career prospects for those jaded careerist c***s who feel like they’re owed a military career, and that they’re being held back by not being allowed to serve in combat arms. Actual military efficiency, and care for the lower enlisted account for nothing in their minds, it’s all about the personal aggrandizement and fulfillment.

                I actually agree with you, in that the theoretically equal woman ought to be able to serve alongside the men in combat positions. Unfortunately, those women don’t exist in meaningful numbers, and are highly unlikely to enlist in the first place. What the policy really winds up meaning is that the services are forced to put unsuitable women into positions formerly coded as “male only”, and the results are disastrously lower levels of resiliency and capability when it comes to things like that timber balk road being built on time.

                If the system was honest enough, and not so damn prone to being twisted by the politicians in and out of uniform, I’d be all about establishing a rational test. The issue is that the system/culture is not either one of those things, and the only really effective way to prevent it from putting people into situations they have no business being in is to flatly ban all women from combat arms service. Unfortunate, but true.

                • I agree. I think T.L. Knighton summed things up nicely when he observed that the SJWs don’t care how many people get killed by their other-worldly crusade; what matters is what’s “fair,” which they define as pretending all humans are equal. It’s a dangerous fantasy.

        • Feeling better?

          I don’t support a lack of standards. I simply observe that if responsible people had caught the minority of actual male chauvanist pigs and muzzled them back when this started, it would be easier now to assert that physical standards are totally founded in necessity.

          The thing is, not all the Male Patriarchy delusion is based completely on fantasy. It has a basis, and dismissing it on the grounds that it doesn’t will come back and bite us.

          • Ascher Goodrich

            The fact that politicians and feminists of the here and now are actively degrading the standards of the military is somehow the fault of Men who are mostly dead? I don’t agree.

          • I’ll feel better when thinking like yours is no longer common.

            The default explanation you come up with to explain the institutional aversion to having women in combat is “chauvinism” (do note the spelling, there, my friend–Despite the fact that I was and am still a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal who spent most of his adult life at the shittier end of the stick, I do know how to spell the great big words I use correctly), despite the fact that you would be hard-pressed to actually name specific individuals who were guilty of this heinous “crime”.

            Which I rather doubt is a crime in the first place, because they had the signal advantage of being factually correct in this regard: The majority of American women, the ones who would be put on the front lines of combat formations, are inherently unfit to serve in those positions, particularly when compared to their male counterparts. A statement of fact that you do not like does not a case of chauvinism make.

            You impugn the character of men who are far more qualified to make these determinations, and glibly describe them as chauvinistic. By doing so, you insult the entire profession of arms that has dedicated itself to protecting you and yours, and simply because you find it distasteful that we tell you that black is black, white is white, and that your fondest fantasies are factually untenable.

            And, to add insult to injury, you take offense when someone calls you on your bullshit. You have not one whit of personal experience or personally-acquired knowledge pertinent to this discussion, and yet you feel qualified to tell us that the men who do are somehow chauvinist pigs for puncturing the balloon of your fantasies. Name one of those ancient chauvinists, please–And then, please try to argue that they were wrong to hold those positions, based on some actual facts. You can’t. You just “feel” that they have to have been wrong, and that the girls are really, truly the equal of the boys in all regards. To which I reply “Bullshit.”

            Circa 1991 or so, the average KATUSA we had in the 44th Engineer Battalion averaged roughly the size and mass of your typical teenage girl here in the US. Due to some poor choices made by the ROK Army, and the fact that a rear-echelon Heavy Engineer battalion rated more KATUSA augmentation than the line Combat Engineer units, we had a bunch of former student agitator types serving with us that liked to cause “problems”. And, there were a bunch of them, like around a full third of the unit. Not all the KATUSA personnel were problem children, but there were enough of them that it became an issue worth noting. Especially since they didn’t like the idea we were converting to a more front-line Combat Engineer unit, with the accompanying changes in unit culture. The differences in mentality and ethos are quite astonishing, when you’ve only experienced the one sort of unit.

            I learned about all I needed to know about the efficiency of having a bunch of smaller, lighter and weaker people taking on grown American-average males in a fight from observing things relating to that situation. We had some frictional moments with the agitators, one incident of which revolved around the gym at Camp Mercer. The incoming Combat Engineer leadership did not believe in the policy of “special” that had heretofore been in place for the KATUSA troops, where they were allocated special, specific times for sole use of the gym and other recreational facilities. That time red-lining was dissolved in a policy letter, mostly due to the fact they weren’t actually using the gym and the Americans who did want to use it weren’t being allowed in while the place was empty.

            So, one fine Sunday during the formerly KATUSA-only period, a bunch of GIs were using the gym to play basketball. The KATUSA agitators got together a bunch of their minions, and decided to go beat up the GIs to make a point with the leadership.

            That plan did not work out so well, despite the fact that the KATUSA mob outnumbered the GIs on-scene by about five-to-one, and the KATUSA troops spent much time practicing Tae Kwon Do. The ten or fifteen GIs that were in the gym were mobbed by the KATUSA troops, and we had a bit of a situation, in that the KATUSA mob rapidly had its mutual ass kicked in by men who they’d thought they had the advantage over. Numbers don’t help when you’re exponentially smaller and weaker, and technique doesn’t do a damn thing to save your ass from a beating from someone twice your size. By the time the NCO leadership got alerted to this situation and got on-scene, it was (mostly) all over, and we had roughly a dozen KATUSA troops to put in the hospital. Most of whom had somewhat severe head-trauma and concussions. As I arrived down at the gym, I swear to God, it looked like there was a stampede of terrified Koreans coming out the doors, acting like the Mongols were behind them. Some of them were getting trampled as they tried to get away.

            When I managed to get in, to try to find out what the blue hell was going on, there was still something of a fight going on. If you could dignify the roughly three KATUSA idiots per GI, and still losing, a “fight”. Watching them get thrashed was… Interesting. Tae Kwon Do apparently doesn’t do very well against “redneck/brother streetfight” techniques. One good punch to the face or head, and all the martial arts posturing in the world won’t do you a lick of good. And, there were a lot of punches to the face going on, most of which summarily ended that particular Korean’s interest and/or ability to participate in the fight.

            Probably the funniest thing I saw during that little incident was all the broken broomsticks the KATUSA assailants were tripping over, as they flailed around trying to be effective. Seems they’d tried to introduce some “combat multipliers” by breaking them out of the cleaning closet when they realized they were losing the fight, and the result wasn’t pretty. At all. The broomsticks all wound up broken into pieces, mostly over GI heads, and the effects were not what they expected. At all. You hit a gin-and-grapefruit drinking basketball-playing redneck/brother over the head with a stick, and you’d better be ready to have that stick broken off and thrown away, after he realizes you’ve tried something that stupid. There’s a good chance that the only reason we didn’t have any fatalities that day was that the GI part of the fight was laughing too hard to really take the KATUSA idiots seriously.

            Size and strength matter in a fight, despite what you’ve been told.

            And you, genius that you are, want to stack the deck against me in a real fight by taking half or more of my strength away. Brilliant move–Shall I put weights on the remaining men I have, in order to make them “equal” to the girls you’ve so graciously saddled me with?

            What you so cavalierly label “chauvinism” is what I’d more accurately characterize as “realism”. War is not some childish intramural game, where fair play is even a concept–It’s a bloody, nasty mess, and if you go into it without taking advantage of every single “unfair” advantage you can in the name of some idiotic concept of “fairness”, you’re a complete and utter fool.

            And, one who is throwing away a bunch of lives you have no right to be risking.

          • There is also the simple biological fact that females are more important to the next generation than males are. One man can impregnate a large number of women, but a woman can only carry a limited number of children. Protecting women and children–which means keeping them out of harms way–is vital to the survival of the species.

            • I agree with you, but nobody is going to touch that argument with a ten-foot pole, these days. You try telling the average American woman that the only truly meaningful role she has in life is the kids she bears and rears, and you’re just asking for some hard knocks.

              Of course, that the corollary to that is the fact that the only really meaningful role men have is in the kids they help raise totally escapes them. Nobody is close enough to the edge, these days, to want to acknowledge that there is a potential for it all to end, and before the next generation. We’ve lost that sense of threat to our legacy, and that might be the explanation for a whole lot of survival-negative behavioral patterns that we see becoming prevalent.

              Hell, who knows? Maybe the idjits are right, and our technology has allowed us to transcend these base issues. Personally, until I can go down to the local Med-Mart and lease an artificial womb, select a suitable egg for fertilization, and have my own kid on my own time, I’m not so sure we have. The unfortunate thing is that everyone is acting as though we have already performed the transcendence, and I really don’t know where that assumption is going to take us. You look at the real fertility rates in a lot of European countries, along with the ones for our so-called intellectual elites, and you really have to wonder if the Idiocracy movie might not be a harbinger of things to come.

              • BobtheRegisterredFool

                I think there are two issues, neither decisive.

                One is that those who present as intellectual and cultural elite are in love with narratives that flatter their intelligence, some may actually be so in ways, and are unwise. It isn’t wise to cultivate a need for flattery of one’s supposed qualities, and there is other evidence of a lack of wisdom.

                The other is that popular culture may be articulate or communicate emotion, but cannot match the utility of quiet words from an adult of some decades seniority.

                Wise people do not make their lives shrines to these false idols. In my experience, many of the wise people are breeding.

      • And yet, the feminists are not agitating to require women to register for the draft before being eligible for things like federal student aid.

        • It is necessary that some be more egalite than others.

        • They’ve been doing that since I was a kid.

          Arguing for it, that is.

          Doesn’t hit the news much since ’01, for some reason…..

          • I don’t think I’ve ever heard that.

            • They put it up in Congress every couple of years, and I got a lot of it once I started the process to enlist in the Navy. Buncha folks assumed I’d “really” been one of theirs all along. Got a lecture by an activist when I was actually at boot camp, being processed, too.

              It’s an intersection of the “if women fight, there will be no more war” and “women are exactly like men, and I’m willing to get them slaughtered to show it” world views. (The latter is much louder, of late.)

              • Ascher Goodrich

                I’m curious about this. I haven’t heard anything about a female draft prop and, to the best of my knowledge, the question itself hasn’t been put to congress since 1981. Google was no help, in fact google linked me to a bunch of feminist websites who claimed that drafting women was part of the “War on Women”. If you could point me in the right direction I would appreciate it.

                • There’s a reason I dumped Google, they kept giving horrible results like that…. all the same, and not useful.

                  I used Bing and got a wide range of results, including that as of ’13 Rangel has introduced “The National Universal Service Act” six different times since the Iraq War started (everybody gets drafted for two years of gov’t service) and the “All American Select Service Act” at that time and two years earlier.

                  (other results for “female draft bill” were things like folks “drafting” this or that document, and were for a variety of countries)

                • And apparently Obama came out in ’08 that women should be registered, on one of those “but we need to do it to be FAIR” type results.


                  • Ascher Goodrich

                    Hmmm…. As far as I can tell, The National Universal Service Act was specifically a political statement against the Iraq conflict rather than a serous consideration of a female draft.

                    According to the link Obama is for drafting Women but, is against them serving in combat. Neither of these things seem to have much relation to feminism. None the less, they are relevant to a female draft and women serving in combat.

                    Thank you for the information.

                    • Like I said in the first place, there’s two groups that share the “draft women” goal– the ones that think it would end war, and the ones that insist women are identical and to heck with any damage that instances does folks.

                      Clinton was of the “women are identical” brand.

                      Neither of these things seem to have much relation to feminism.

                      “Feminism” doesn’t seem to have much relation to feminism. Didn’t stop the Clinton supporters when I was a kid, didn’t stop the crazy liberals like the one that joined the same time I did, etc.

  7. The seriously stupid thing is, RS was probably struggling HARD to regain respectability and credibility post Boston Bomber. Talk about torpedoing that!

  8. If your idea of justice is to have the same results regardless of where everyone starts, the result is of course not justice but the most profound of injustices.

    I know their standard MO is to call black white, good evil, etc– but this one really sucks.

    “Social Justice” in the actual meaning of the term is a fancy way of saying that you make the laws to promote justice– you know, that baseline assumption we have about what makes a good law.
    They take it and use it to mean “make laws that promote INJUSTICE in the direction I find useful.”

  9. Under the influence of hormones and unrequited love, young women become the most appalling shrews and young men become almost painfully stupid.

    Two objections, which someone has probably already offered:
    ALMOST painfully?
    And only males?!?

    I can’t believe most women DON’T have stuff from that phase which they squirm about….


    • Only slightly more seriously, there are major differences in our manners of being Random Onset Stupid.

      • Oh, Fox… It’s not random, not at all. Every bit of young adult male stupidity you ever heard of, I guarantee you that there was some aspect of “impress the girls”, if only at second hand. If you remove that factor, you’d be absolutely astounded at how much common sense these idiots display. Trust me–If you ever saw guys trying to nut themselves up to do something like an Australian-style rappel when it’s just the guys around to watch vice seeing the results when there is a potential female audience…

        For those not familiar with the term, an Australian rappel in the US Military is one where you put the braking system on your back, and then basically run down the cliff or rappel tower face-first. Looks really, really cool and impressive, but it has a certain element of risk. I watched one of my more cautious trainers do a demonstration for the ROTC cadets, once, and he (holding up fingers really close together) came this close to getting it right. Instead, he basically ran straight into the ground off a hundred-foot tower at about 30 miles an hour, bounced off the sawdust, and managed to make it to his feet, still semi-conscious while the rest of us bundled his stupid ass off to the sidelines and medical care. Why’d he do that, when he wouldn’t ever be that stupid by himself or with the unit? Simple: The hot chicks in the front row… All of whom were suitably impressed, and making “Ooooh…” sounds.

        The rest of us were just wincing. I’m pretty sure he’s still feeling the effects of that little bit of inattention to detail twenty-odd years later.

        Girls do the same thing, but it seems to me, from the other side of the line, that most of their risk-taking is social, which is only very rarely lethal in the short term.

      • yes. Boys are really painful. Women tend to preserve outward rationality but oh, the backstabbing.
        In my case I went stupid in male fashion and wrote 250 plus sonnets to the object of my unrequited affection. (Who is now fat and bald. CURSE you time and your effects. CURSE YOU.)

      • Professor Badness

        I’ve always maintained the equality of men and women…in their stupidity. They are equally stupid, though often in completely different ways.

  10. Moving down for space and because it doesn’t exactly respond to the rest of the thing, but seemed worth saying:

    .. not recognizing where the SJWs have us now isn’t going to get the system balanced where it needs to be.

    A lot of issues come from listening to the SJW and believing that they are pursuing what they say they are.

    There’s a trick my mom taught me for dealing with people effectively, when you are not trying to persuade them:
    figure out what they actually want, what their goals are, from what they do.

    You’re not figuring out what they “really believe,” you’re making a model that lets you most accurately model what they are going to do in various situations.

    With the SJW, if you assume that their actions are aimed at the utter destruction of whatever they are trying to make “fair,” then you get a very accurate idea of what they will actually do.

    With Islamofascists, if you assume that their actions are aimed at maximizing the ability for those higher in the system to indulge in every brutal, nasty impulse they can think of, while minimizing personal discomfort and possible threats to themselves in as much as possible, then you’re going to have a decent macro-level idea of what they will actually do.

    This is one of the tougher techniques, because if you’re one of us then you probably already act in ways you think will achieve what you believe you have as a goal.

    • This is complicated by the fact that many are in states of advanced denial about what they actually desire.

      The world is full of people who engage in acts directly contrary to achieving that which they seek … such as people who double down on bad bets.

      • How exactly can one identify the difference between being in denial of what one wants, not being willing to tell Random Questioner what they want (I know I only made the mistake of being honest about that to a teacher ONCE, back when I trusted them), following a bad assumption or twelve, having bad information, having DIFFERENT information and having different judgement.

        Part of the reason I frequently don’t tell people what I “really want” is because of the translation gap. Stats I’ve observed are through the roof on answering that question ending up being all about the asker, instead of the one asked.

        • There’s a reason “What do you want?” was the question for Mr. Morden and the Shadows in Babylon 5.

        • Not revealing differs from in denial.

          I am considering an experiment conducted by John “Dress For Success” Malloy in which he addresses the question of success with women, conducted, I would guess, in the Seventies.

          Interviews with women having revealed that they liked self-confidence in a man, Malloy employed actors coached to “act self-confident” to wear different sets of clothing so they could note women’s different responses. Finding a lack of response, Malloy then coached his actors to behave arrogantly, to which women did respond, strongly. Same actors, same clothes, different attitudes, different results.

          Malloy concluded that women were misidentifying “arrogant” as “self-confident” due to unwillingness to acknowledge their preference.

          Alternate explanations might be an inability to accurately identify male behaviour as portrayed by the actors or inability of the actors to accurately portray the behaviours they attempted, some combination of the three or none of the above.

          Subsequent studies have not, to my limited knowledge, been essayed. There have been studies which purport to show women’s attraction to more testosterone-laden males varies according to their menstrual cycles, which might corroborate Malloy’s work.

          Women, having capacity for reason and rational action (some of them, anyway, probably on a par with the similar number of men) likely overrule their hormones, but surely their capacity for self-flattering rationalization is no less than that of men.

          The point of this (hah! didn’y think there was one, didja?) being that many an action is taken for reasons the actor is not willing or able to admit, even to himself, much less to the public. SJWs may be claiming their actions beneficent more for their own perception than the public’s. Self-awareness does not seem their strongest suit.

          • The problem with the point is that it just illustrates the problem;
            the issue of selection of women (they all said they wanted confidence? Without coaching or leading?),
            the issue of what they meant (assuming they said exactly what they believe they wanted)
            the issue of what this was interpreted as them wanting
            the issue of the actors attempting to interpret yet another group’s actions and understand their motives
            and interpreting women’s responses to the actors (depending on the actors chosen, “acting arrogant” may have actually been them acting genuine, which is… confident!)

            And that’s before the interpretation of results bias. “Women really want jerks” has been a trope since… what, the 50s?

            ‘S part of why the “try to figure out what motivation most accurately, from your perspective, models what they’re going to do.”

            I like truth for the sake of truth, but it’s also important to figure out what works, even if it can’t be verified.

          • Can’t remember if I said– when someone’s first conclusion is “women don’t really want what they think!” rather than something like “maybe women don’t describe things the same way I do,” then it says a lot about the person drawing the conclusions than the folks having conclusions drawn about them. There’d have to be a LOT of routes checked before “ah-ha! Obviously, they are self deluded!” was a good answer.

            • I was afraid you would focus on the “women” part of that and miss the broader general point: people often cloak their own motivations and desires from themselves, first, and then from the general public. I used the Malloy experiment as the clearest example I knew of a tested hypothesis of people using the wrong label, even to themselves, to identify what they seek.

              I am sure that men are (at least) equally capable of self-delusion. Humans are quite clever that way.

              • *headdesk*

                RES, that women are involved has jack to do with it. I stated the issues with the researcher’s line of reasoning; essentially saying “you just think that because it’s about women” doesn’t respond to any of them.

                I’ve rephrased three different times that a major part of the issue is assuming you’ve got sufficient information to decide someone is “self-delusional,” and an example of someone doing exactly that doesn’t change the point.

                Final try:
                when liberals tell me “well, you say don’t like government, but you support the military, so clearly you’re either lying, delusional or you don’t really dislike government,” all they have done is project what they would mean on to what I say, project what they would do on what I do, and conclude that any mismatch is in what I “really” think.

                • Foxfier,
                  Perhaps if you used your head less as a desk hammer and more as a thinking device you would have fewer headaches?

                  You err in assuming my summary of an experiment about which I read thirty-odd years ago with an accurate description of the experimental methodology, thus your critique of the analysis is irrelevant.

                  Your comparison to liberal arguments similarly misses the primary point.

                  Simply put, people often first lie to themselves about their intentions. SJWs in many instances really do believe they are striving for a fairer, more just world. That the world as they want it defined would be less fair, less just is a fact they are incapable of recognizing.

                  This is why intelligent analysis of another person’s motives is usually irrelevant; what matters is what are the consequences of what they advocate. Even stipulating the integrity of SJW motivation, the effects would be catastrophic.

                  Far from “assuming [I]’ve got sufficient information to decide someone is ‘self-delusional,’ ” I am asserting the irrelevance of their self-identification.

  11. ” Instead of saying “thank you” she loudly prayed for my sight to be healed. RIGHT in the middle of the store. I didn’t know where to put my face. And it’s kind of like I’d react to a stranger saying “Jesus is telling me to come and ask you to tell me why you’re depressed.” Instead of which, the person in the novel just goes along with it and is sooo happy and responsive. It reads like a tin ear for human relations.”

    Bless her heart! This reminds me of a boss I once had. We worked in a large corporation and when performance review time was coming, my co-workers warned me that Bill would do something horrifying in my review meeting. When he began witnessing about his faith in Jesus, I was so relieved … there is horrifying and then there is horrifying. I grew up with evangelicals, so it was familiar to me, even though I wasn’t part of that culture any more. I can well imagine how it would shock someone else, though. I’m sure it was as illegal as get-out, too, but Bill didn’t seem to be worried about that.

    • I have a different response to those witnessing their faith to me. (usually with the phrase “I’m a good christian” {not capitalized for a reason})as to a person they were effing liars and/or thieves (one set were members of Jimmy Swaggart’s band) and later stabbed me in the back somehow (hence the non-capitalisation, as they used the phrase to attempt to pull the wool over folks’ eyes).
      Now those who say “I try to be a good Christian” on the other hand have tended to be good folk.

    • I had only come from Portugal a year and a half before and it was — uh… what? Lady, some people don’t see so well, it’s no reason for you to LOUDLY bother the Almighty about it!

    • Over the years, I’ve been able to establish a truism through personal experience: Anyone who tells you that they’re a Good Christian (TM)… Generally, ain’t.

      You make a loud display of something, and before the issue is ever raised, and the odds are that you’re trying to scam me. That’s just what I’ve seen, and the worst liars, cheats, and outright thieves I’ve ever dealt with have all made a point of telling me what good Christians they are before they robbed me. Come to think of it, that sonuvabitch that cheated me by selling us a bunch of bad thumb drives in Kuwait started out by telling me what a good Muslim he was, so this rule probably extends in a very ecumenical way across all religions.

      • The good Christian knows how far short of good he or she falls and gives thanks for grace.

        Interesting to consider the various adjectives that naturally accrue to religious faith: the practicing Christian, the observant Jew, the devout Muslim … I confess I am not conversant with the adjectives applying to Hindus, Buddhists, Shintos, Jains, Daoists and other non-Western creeds.

        • Y’know… When I think back on it, the most admirable men and women I know who were also devout and practicing Christians were all people whose faith I only found out about by secondary sourcing and/or having a third party tell me about their good works and participation in whatever church they went to.

          On the other hand, nearly everyone I’ve dealt with who wore their faith on their sleeve like some kind of medal has turned out to be a scoundrel, over the long haul. It’s almost like a rule of thumb: Dramatic protestations and affirmations of faith=crook.

          Interesting dichotomy, when you note it.

      • Yep, and if you read the Gospels, Jesus specifically said that was the case: the more Public Faith the less actual faith.

        • Matthew 6:5: And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

      • It extends across more than religion.

        I have a rule. The faster you are to tell me how much of a badass you are, the less I believe you. It’s much like your experiences with people talking about how they’re a good (insert religion here). They are trying to use bluster to convince you of something that isn’t true.

        For a long time, I wasn’t anything remotely intimidating. I was a skinny kid who got over that by becoming a fat man. I’m short. I’m one of the least physically imposing males I know. For some reason, this (and maybe other possible reasons) has attracted a number of people in my life to believe that they can convince me all the different ways they’re a badass. They tell me about all these fights they’ve won, or how they’re experts in X martial art, or whatever. The thing is, ever time it’s ever come down to really needing to prove it, these people are notoriously scarce. Funny how that works out.

        However, when I was in the Navy, I was stationed very close to Little Creek. For many of you, that name means nothing. For the Navy folks here, they know who calls Little Creek home, and that’s the Navy SEALs. Being a Corpsman going through a “C” school in Portsmouth, I had the opportunity to get to know some SEALs. Went drinking with them a time or two. You know what? No matter how drunk they got, they never felt the need to impress a damn soul with how badass they were.

        Going back to your dealing with religion, I’ve knows some good Christians. Part of being a good Christian is to be humble. These folks were. They merely tried their best to live their life in accordance with Christ’s teachings. Did the fall short at times? Of course. Who wouldn’t? But they did their best. The ones I’ve dealt with screaming how they’re good Christians? Those are the ones that make me want to put my hand over my wallet to keep it safe.

        • Age old though the miles gloriosus is, he still survives for good reason. (Indeed, to this day, you can surprise the reader by having him prove to be good, or even moderately competent.)

          • Mike Williamson kind of did that in one of his books.

            There’s a character with a codename of “lizard45” in one of his books (“Better to Ask Forgiveness” maybe?). People who frequent gun forums may recall a guy who went by the name “Gecko45”. If you’ve heard the term “mall ninja”, well, he’s the reason it came about.

            The thing is, Lizard45 isn’t incompetent in the book. He actually holds his own, and it tickled me to no end.

            Talked to Mike about it at Dragoncon a few years back (doubt he remembers the conversation) and I understand why completely. Still, it was amusing.

    • I am a practicing catholic with the hope that someday I’ll actually get it right.

  12. In the name of equality I suggest women should be required to urinate only in a standing position. Meanwhile, surgical explorations ought be pursued to enable mandate that men give birth. Really, if we have been able to transplant a working womb to a woman what reason is there to allow deny men to escape the experience?

  13. I propose we swipe a word, since this is English, and we’re clearly lacking a word here. Equality before the law and before God. Yes? And something that is not the same word to talk about sameness of capability and results.

  14. “The social justice warriors solution to this is to make men and women EQUAL by fiat. This includes countering the weakness of women’s physique with the ability of any woman at any time to cry rape on any man without the man being able to defend himself. That makes him more legally vulnerable than she is physically vulnerable, and voila, equality.”

    I thought Sam Colt did that almost two hundred years ago?

  15. I kind of like “Equalite” as a title.

    It’s the Lite version of Equality… now with 50% less foundation in reality!