A note about Narrative, Gaslighting, and the Patriarchy. -Synova

A note about Narrative, Gaslighting, and the Patriarchy.



“Gaslighting is the attempt of one person to overwrite another person’s reality.”   – Everyday Feminism.

“Narrative :  4.  a story that connects and explains a carefully selected set of supposedly true events, experiences, or the like, intended to support a particular viewpoint or thesis: ”   – some random online dictionary.

Note that the first definition includes the notion that a person has their own reality.  That may have been sloppiness on the part of the article writer at Everyday Feminism, or it may be an assumption of the second definition and that your reality is carefully selected to support a particular viewpoint or thesis.

The article at Everyday Feminism, shockingly, is not entirely insane.  Abusers do use gaslighting.  Many people, women and men, have experienced parents or partners who have insisted that what they knew to be true never happened or happened very differently.  Some who were subject to this as children eventually caught their parents out in their lies and proved that what they were being accused of doing or forgetting was simply made-up to torment them.

This is nasty stuff, no matter if someone is doing it to you on purpose or if, for them, it’s simply a habit of behavior and instinctive rather than malicious.

Note that the lies were provable in those cases, or at least might have been, since they were actually lies. In the 1938 play that gave us the term, the abuser who was trying to convince his wife that she was crazy would tell her lies about small daily matters to convince her that she was unable to remember the truth.

But how does that work when we can each have our own reality?

If your reality, if your carefully constructed narrative to support a thesis of patriarchy and oppression isn’t objectively true, have you gaslighted yourself?  Have you?

I look around me at the claims of patriarchy and oppression and I boggle because they approach pure fantasy.  Oh, certainly there are those who have managed to carefully construct a narrative that supports their thesis of patriarchy, mostly by excluding any broader context or comparisons to lives lived that don’t support the thesis or any modes of power and societal control that doesn’t originate with men and then, to top it off, simply defining our societal systems as “patriarchy,” QED.  After all, your PhD in Women’s Studies has to be good for something.

But lately I’ve been seeing charges and claims of gaslighting made when someone has been led to question their social and political narrative and become uncomfortable.  If your narrative is a lie, it may be uncomfortable for you to question it, but it’s not gaslighting.

If I argue that women have been almost universally encouraged in any career ambition, and given outward and constant support for at least 30 years, hand-held and helped and even had much of our educational system rearranged specifically to cater to female learning styles, and you’re led to question your reality… I am not gaslighting you.  I’m describing the truth of American life.  Not my truth.  The truth.

If I explain the negative effects on boys of all this promotion of girls, I’m describing the truth and I wish you’d listen because the situation is destructive and cruel.

If you go on a tear about how sexually abusive Trump is, how a bad joke is the worst possible offense and a clear evil and how can I possibly not be as upset as you are, and I don’t fall in line with that?  I’m not gaslighting you, you’re attempting to gaslight me.  Because I remember reports of waitress sandwiches and have seen video of Bill Clinton reach back and grab a stewardess’ crotch and, oh by the way, he was multiply accused of rape and sexual coercion and we all know that he treated the intern pool like a sexual perk of office.  So no, brushing off Trumps behavior is not gaslighting you.  Pretending that you used to care about powerful men taking sexual advantage is gaslighting me.

What about rape culture? We live in a country where only predatory criminals believe that they’ve a right to a woman’s body.  Our culture is not a rape culture, it’s so firmly and flagrantly affirming of a person’s natural autonomy over her own body that in order to create the fantasy of a rape culture it’s necessary to insist that “no means no” is proof of rape culture because no women ought to be expected to make her desires, or lack of, known in a non-ambiguous manner.  Which is just unfair to pitiful women, you know.  And rape culture.  This time you’re not even attempting to gaslight me, you’re simply beclowning yourself.

If you go on about how science fiction has long been on Old Boys Club and women now are just making amazing strides and progress, you’re an ahistorical nincompoop, but I won’t accuse you of gaslighting yourself unless you actually believe your own bull shit.

If you stick a video online of yourself having a breakdown because someone called you “sweetheart” you’ve managed to disrupt your own reality to the point that any tug toward sanity would simply be an act of love.

If I explain that the Google memo was a mild and intellectual discussion of slight variations in the distribution of traits and interests of people by gender and not a screed about how women don’t belong in tech, I can wish that you’d feel a tug at the fabric of your reality but I don’t expect it.

Because your reality is really eff’ed up.

But creating these fantasy narratives that carefully conform to a feminist thesis is most definitely gaslighting yourself.  It’s gaslighting yourself good and hard. And when you’re sufficiently shifted to this new reality, the word you use is “woke.”

My biggest question about that, though, is why?  Because there is a sense in which we do create our own realities through narratives.  So why pick the victim one?  Particularly if you’re an American woman, which has got to be the single most objectively privileged demographic on the planet itself, why pick the victim narrative?  Why pick the narrative where you’re a helpless little thing with the world against you?  Is it romanticism?  What is it?



237 thoughts on “A note about Narrative, Gaslighting, and the Patriarchy. -Synova

                1. I heard some George Gershwin performances similarly preserved. Amazing how much nuance comes through in so simple a medium.

                  George Gershwin performs Rhapsody in Blue. Duo-Art piano roll recording converted to midi and performed on the ‘The Giant’ (Klavins 370i piano). Sound engineered and produced by Michael J. Stewart.

              1. The oldest known audio recording was “Clair de la Lune”, via a device called the “phonautograph”, on April 9, 1860. de Martinville had created the device to learn about speech patterns.

                The phonautograph traced a needle across a drum covered with lampblack, leaving a visual trace. de Martinville’s machine, unfortunately, did not have the ability to play the recordings back. A hundred and fifty years later someone noticed that the phonautograph’s patterns were the same as the amplitude modulation visuals generated by some audio software… so they made a high-resolution scan and fed it into modified software, and got sound back out.

                It is, of course, available on the place of tubes…

          1. Rewatched Demolition Man the other day and winced when they mentioned that laser disc was still in use in 2032.

                1. N.B. – trivial historical note:

                  Bing Crosby is credited with introducing pre-recorded broadcasting in the US. From Wiki:

                  Crosby influenced the development of the postwar recording industry. He became the first performer to pre-record his radio shows and master his commercial recordings onto magnetic tape. Through the medium of recording, he constructed his radio programs with the same directorial tools and craftsmanship (editing, retaking, rehearsal, time shifting) used in motion picture production, a practice that became an industry standard. In addition to his work with early tape recording, he helped to finance the development of videotape.
                  During the Golden Age of Radio, performers had to create their shows live, sometimes even redoing the program a second time for the west coast time zone. Crosby’s radio career took a significant turn in 1945, when he clashed with NBC over his insistence that he be allowed to pre-record his radio shows. (The live production of radio shows was also reinforced by the musicians’ union and ASCAP, which wanted to ensure continued work for their members.) In On the Air: The Encyclopedia of Old-Time Radio, historian John Dunning wrote about German engineers having developed a tape recorder with a near-professional broadcast quality standard:

                  [Crosby saw] an enormous advantage in prerecording his radio shows. The scheduling could now be done at the star’s convenience. He could do four shows a week, if he chose, and then take a month off. But the networks and sponsors were adamantly opposed. The public wouldn’t stand for ‘canned’ radio, the networks argued. There was something magic for listeners in the fact that what they were hearing was being performed and heard everywhere, at that precise instant. Some of the best moments in comedy came when a line was blown and the star had to rely on wit to rescue a bad situation. Fred Allen, Jack Benny, Phil Harris, and also Crosby were masters at this, and the networks weren’t about to give it up easily.

                  Crosby’s insistence eventually factored into the further development of magnetic tape sound recording and the radio industry’s widespread adoption of it. He used his clout, both professional and financial, to innovate new methods of reproducing audio of his performances. But NBC (and competitor CBS) were also insistent, refusing to air prerecorded radio programs. Crosby walked away from the network and stayed off the air for seven months, creating a legal battle with Kraft, his sponsor, that was settled out of court. Crosby returned to the air for the last 13 weeks of the 1945–1946 season.

                  The Mutual network, on the other hand, had pre-recorded some of its programs as early as the 1938 run of The Shadow with Orson Welles. And the new ABC network, which had been formed out of the sale of the old NBC Blue Network in 1943 following a federal anti-trust action, was willing to join Mutual in breaking the tradition. ABC offered Crosby $30,000 per week to produce a recorded show every Wednesday that would be sponsored by Philco. He would also get an additional $40,000 from 400 independent stations for the rights to broadcast the 30-minute show, which was sent to them every Monday on three 16-inch lacquer/aluminum discs that played ten minutes per side at 33⅓ rpm.

                  Crosby wanted to change to recorded production for several reasons. The legend that has been most often told is that it would give him more time for his golf game. And he did record his first Philco program in August 1947 so he could enter the Jasper National Park Invitational Golf Tournament in September, just when the new radio season was to start. But golf was not the most important reason.

                  Though Crosby did want more time to tend to his other business and leisure activities, he also sought better quality through recording, including being able to eliminate mistakes and control the timing of his show performances. Because his own Bing Crosby Enterprises produced the show, he could purchase the latest and best sound equipment and arrange the microphones his way; the logistics of microphone placement had long been a hotly debated issue in every recording studio since the beginning of the electrical era. No longer would he have to wear the hated toupee on his head previously required by CBS and NBC for his live audience shows (he preferred a hat). He could also record short promotions for his latest investment, the world’s first frozen orange juice, sold under the brand name Minute Maid. This investment allowed Crosby to make more money by finding a loophole whereby the IRS couldn’t tax him at a 77% rate.

                  The transcription method posed problems, however. The acetate surface coating of the aluminum discs was little better than the wax that Edison had used at the turn of the 20th century, with the same limited dynamic range and frequency response.

                  However, Murdo MacKenzie of Bing Crosby Enterprises had seen a demonstration of the German Magnetophon in June 1947—the same device that Jack Mullin had brought back from Radio Frankfurt, along with 50 reels of tape, at the end of the war. It was one of the magnetic tape recorders that BASF and AEG had built in Germany starting in 1935. The 6.5mm ferric-oxide-coated tape could record 20 minutes per reel of high-quality sound. Alexander M. Poniatoff ordered his Ampex company, which he’d founded in 1944, to manufacture an improved version of the Magnetophone.

                  Crosby hired Mullin to start recording his Philco Radio Time show on his German-made machine in August 1947, using the same 50 reels of I.G. Farben magnetic tape that Mullin had found at a radio station at Bad Nauheim near Frankfurt while working for the U.S. Army Signal Corps. The crucial advantage was editing. As Crosby wrote in his autobiography:

                  By using tape, I could do a thirty-five or forty-minute show, then edit it down to the twenty-six or twenty-seven minutes the program ran. In that way, we could take out jokes, gags, or situations that didn’t play well and finish with only the prime meat of the show; the solid stuff that played big. We could also take out the songs that didn’t sound good. It gave us a chance to first try a recording of the songs in the afternoon without an audience, then another one in front of a studio audience. We’d dub the one that came off best into the final transcription. It gave us a chance to ad lib as much as we wanted, knowing that excess ad libbing could be sliced from the final product. If I made a mistake in singing a song or in the script, I could have some fun with it, then retain any of the fun that sounded amusing.

                  Mullin’s 1976 memoir of these early days of experimental recording agrees with Crosby’s account:

                  In the evening, Crosby did the whole show before an audience. If he muffed a song then, the audience loved it—thought it was very funny—but we would have to take out the show version and put in one of the rehearsal takes. Sometimes, if Crosby was having fun with a song and not really working at it, we had to make it up out of two or three parts. This ad lib way of working is commonplace in the recording studios today, but it was all new to us.

                  Crosby invested US$50,000 in Ampex with an eye towards producing more machines. In 1948, the second season of Philco shows was taped with the new Ampex Model 200 tape recorder using the new Scotch 111 tape from the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing (3M) company. Mullin explained how one new broadcasting technique was invented on the Crosby show with these machines:

                  One time Bob Burns, the hillbilly comic, was on the show, and he threw in a few of his folksy farm stories, which of course were not in Bill Morrow’s script. Today they wouldn’t seem very off-color, but things were different on radio then. They got enormous laughs, which just went on and on. We couldn’t use the jokes, but Bill asked us to save the laughs. A couple of weeks later he had a show that wasn’t very funny, and he insisted that we put in the salvaged laughs. Thus the laugh-track was born.

                  Crosby had launched the tape recorder revolution in America. In his 1950 film Mr. Music, Crosby is seen singing into one of the new Ampex tape recorders that reproduced his voice better than anything else. Also quick to adopt tape recording was his friend Bob Hope. He gave one of the first Ampex Model 300 recorders to his friend, musician Les Paul, which led directly to Paul’s invention of multitrack recording. His organization, the Crosby Research Foundation, also held various tape recording patents and developed equipment and recording techniques such as the laugh track that are still in use today.

                  And now you know who to blame for the laugh track.

      1. Don’t leave your records in the sun…

        Locally they brought Hartford in for July Fourth street fair in, IIRC, 1983 and he was a delightful performer.

  1. Foreign Affairs did a recent article covering this very phenomenon. Things went off the rails because the academy — cough, our learned betters in the Humanities, cough — decided to invent a new moral hierarchy doctrine based purely on victimhood, which itself is based almost entirely on demographics.

    The more crowns of victimhood you can wear at any given moment, the higher up on the moral ladder you can climb.

    Thus people who have no business claiming the mantle of victimhood, rush to claim the mantle. Often in silly, absurd, and downright asinine ways. Because they believe that being a victim is the key to getting ahead. And they’re right. It is the key to getting ahead.

    What a crazy world we have invented for ourselves, where pretending to be abused, downtrodden, and marginalized, is the path to getting ahead.

    1. Hey, why is that fellow at the very end of the line?
      Oh, him? Simple. He’s the most self-confident, most genuinely capable person of the lot.
      So.. you discriminate against the most qualified and capable?
      Doesn’t matter, he’s left now. Probably to go do something more worthwhile.
      Which would be anything, really.

    2. But look how suppressed actual white supremacist would be mass murderers are! Don’t you think you ought to remedy that?

  2. Ah, I see. “Woke” can then be defined as, “fully immersed in the patriarchal fantasy and completely rejecting sensible reality.” No real surprise there, just more disappointment in the rational and logical thinking abilities of the left.

            1. It’s a free country. Posner is free to continue being a moron as long as he likes. His retirement, however, suggests that he will no longer be a moron in a way that affects me.

            1. Turtles? They’re Flo & Eddie last I knew.

              Ba-ba-ba-ba ba-ba-ba-ba ba-ba-ba ba-ba-ba-ba
              Ba-ba-ba-ba ba-ba-ba-ba ba-ba-ba ba-ba-ba-ba

        1. *** second bloody try ***
          “I am woke.”
          ++ other mulls this over briefly in Genuine Helpfulness Mode ++
          “Then have you tried sleepwalking?”

          WordPress delenda est.
          Or maybe it just needs “a reprogramming you’ll never forget.”

        2. “I am woke.”

          *mom habits kick in*
          “Awake. Or ‘I have awaken.’ Possibly ‘they woke me,’ but it’s a little archaic.”
          “Meh, sorry. I’m a mom. Auto-correct grammar because…dude, I’ve got five kids under ten. You wouldn’t BELIEVE the grammar stuff they pull-“

          1. You wouldn’t BELIEVE the grammar stuff they pull

            Isn’t that primarily a problem for your (and husband’s) parents, or are you particular about them being returned from visitations with minimal necessary remedial work?

  3. > why pick the victim narrative?

    Because they’re *taught* to. In the public schools that you don’t have the option not to support.

    > our own reality

    At least a decade ago, I read an article where someone claiming to be a teacher said that she assigned grades according to how strongly a student *believed* that they answered on tests, irrespective of whether the answers matched the scoring sheet. At the time, I thought it was a fraud or a joke I didn’t quite get. But I’ve actually met, and occasionally had to work with, people who have showed signs of this.

    1. “Had to work with”? You mean someone actually hired someone who showed signs of believing that whatever they imagined hard enough was true?

      1. when you see what HR dept.s cannot ask, and what too many of them are looking for in people. . . easily possible in this ‘modern’ age.
        Explains Airbus Industries, actually.

        1. “We’re just waiting for the results of the drug test to come back.”
          “Drugs? If they’re functional, I don’t really care. But some sort of intelligence test would be a good idea.”

          Why, yes, I have had to try to explain things to turnips – or so it seemed.

          1. Turnips don’t come back with stupid rants.
            And aren’t too bad in soups or mixed with potatoes.
            A few hr types I’ve known on the other hand . . .
            You know, now that I think about it. Any HR types I’ve met who had any worth, all seem to leave the job they’re in and go elsewhere . . . into non-HR positions

            1. Twice a day, most like. The older I get, the less I know. Or rather, the more I learn, the more the shadows recede and the great depths of knowledge I do not own (or only *thought* I did) are revealed.

              Ach, no, that’s ignorance. Stupidity though, that I still do plenty.

          1. I know of a 318 that needs a full reboot every other landing it seems. (we joked that it ran Windows ME for an operating system) Every time I saw it in New Orleans, contract maintenance had to do something to the POS anyhow.
            I know folks who work for various airlines who won’t fly in their companies AB aircraft.
            I distrusted them long before they came up with the 380.

            1. More referring to the wager made with it that hub traffic would stay high enough to keep demand for it. Meanwhile Boeing builds the flameliner and newer aircraft aiming to improve the”long and thin” routes.

              Tbh I prefer AB because I don’t see the sausage being made

            2. > I know folks who work for various airlines
              > who won’t fly in their companies AB aircraft.

              A friend works for a major airline, and has worked with the FAA on crash reconstruction.

              He won’t fly on an Airbus, and can explain in lengthy detail why.

              (not applicable to me, since I won’t fly by commercial airline)

            1. All 4 major airframers do well, albeit each has quirks. Usually the dislike is for control freaks or the fact that A320 can be a bit noisy. Plus maintenance is gonna affect just as much as airframers

              1. Just after 9/11 I had to fly from the Left Coast to Munich on business. Three round trips in 7 months. Around this time, an Airbus managed to lose a tail fin in flight, so we were happy to fly Boeing most of the time*. I’m not sure if maintenance was an issue on the tail fin, but carbon fiber needs a certain level of respect.

                After all that, the 777 joined the L-1011 as favorite planes. Now, if I can’t drive, I ain’t going.

                (*) The hops from Frankfurt to Munich and back were on an Airbus, while the transAtlantics were 747 or 777. One trip was on Air France, though.

                1. The AA vstab crash (AA587) was pilot. The loads applied were beyond what should have been seen. A contributor was the actual design of the rudder system that allowed dangerous deflection at high speed.

                  Assuming the metallic lugs were sized by something other than ultimate loading they may have performed better but they were exposed to at least 50% over the ‘it broke completely’ level of ultimate loading.

                  1. yeah, AB “forgot” to tell pilots silly things like “never use the rudder at any flying speed at all” and oh yeah, btw, “rudder pedal movement on the ground is different than in flight.” Rudder lock to lock v. pedal movement on the ground was no relation to the ratio in air, so minor movement of the pedals in the air got way more rudder than it does on the ground. Then AA went with the “Pilot Error” finding, even though their training at the time had “minor pedal movement” as an acceptable control, and oh by the by, the simulator software from AB did not have the change in ratio, so the slightly faulty training the Co had, was exaggerated. In the simulator software he was trained to type on, the plane did not react that way. In the “replacement” versions it will crash the in the simulators. If I had not been working at the airport and knew a few pilots back then, most of that would have slid on by. They were not very happy with AA or AB over the situation.

                    1. Jerry Pournelle recently had the story of the B-52 that lost its tail in a low-altitude flight test. They got the plane down in one piece. “If it ain’t Boeing, I ain’t going.”

                      I’ve noticed other incidents with AB where they seem to have a lot more faith in the flight computers than might be wise. Self driving cars give me a warm feeling inside. I think it’s heartburn.

                    2. “self landing” technology works great, even if you are not trying to land, and the plane demands that you do.
                      They blamed pilot error there too, and it was one of their company test pilots who couldn’t convince the plane to stop doing the landing. They quietly made a few changes to software after that too, to make a go-around easier

                  2. Makes me think of listening to the flight crews while driving the van to and from the airport to the hotel for overnight layovers. One time I hear one of the pilots telling the other, “I found out that you CAN overboost the engines on takeoff.”

                    That really did not give me the warm fuzzies inside.

                2. L1011
                  Now there was a quirky airframe.
                  5 fuel tanks that had but 3 fuel gauges. And you have to fill the 4 with 2 gauges at the same time.
                  Ah well, F104 fighters have no gauges for filling them, when it hits the ground, your a bit over full. You can even stop before it starts pissing out and still have it spill over (we had 5 gallon buckets under the wings)

        2. Oooh yeah. HR at Flat State U managed to tick off 3/4 of the grad students and all the female grad students in one fell swoop. It seems they hired a guy for maintenance. He sexually assaulted two TAs who were working late in their offices. But they didn’t say a word and we only learned about it in Grad Student Govt meetings. The guy had a record for felony sexual assault, but HR had not asked about criminal background (!), and then Personnel swore that they couldn’t tell anyone about the assaults because “it is a personnel matter.”

            1. I’ve noticed a growing trend for HR to be in a separate building, if not on the other side of town. There might be a reason for that…

            2. Let’s just say that, I’m told, that when the chemistry, physics, engineering, and architecture departments get together with revenge on their minds, it can get really interesting really fast. Nothing overt was done to HR, as far as I know, but I rotated off the council and was careful not to inquire too closely into certain things. Need to know and all that. *uses paw to adjust halo*

              1. Chem students know how to raise a stink (indeed, many, MANY stinks), and physics and engineering students can do land mines and various traps of ingenious nature and ingenious camouflage. Don’t know about architecture students, though.

                    1. Why I initially put in for Combat Engineer when I enlisted. Learning how to build bridges and then blow them up sounded like a very interesting avocation.

                    2. I initially put in for CE, but the CE track demanded a straight-through combined Basic and Advanced Individual Training regimen which I wasn’t able to attend because I had signed for the National Guard’s ‘split’ Basic/AIT program to allow me to attend college in the meantime. So I went for Nuclear/Biological/Chemical Warfare Specialist. As such, I (unlike Saddam Hussein) attacked U.S. troops with chemical weapons. Then the unit I was in changed the NBC Warfare slot from a Specialist to an NCO slot to spot a newly-promoted Sergeant, so I went for Materials Quality Specialist. I actually attended MQS AIT at Ft. Belvoir, VA. Very cool posting; loved playing games with butterbars there. Got back from AIT on a Friday night, attended drill the next morning and the company commander came up, shook my hand, and exclaimed, “Gibson, good to see you back! You’re our new unit armorer!” Longer story cutting short, I ended my military career as a part-time aircraft electrician and full-time structural repair mechanic for the Guard.

                1. Architecture students know how to find out how the wiring, plumbing, and HVAC were designed, and what small change will wreak maximum discomfort.

            3. If it had happened to me, there would’ve been an unfortunate death. Not enough human roaches get the death penalty. Rapists with force. Not a woman who changed her mind the next day. Not retroactive withdrawal of consent. Those folks need to be judicially executed.

          1. There has been serious discussion in the last couple of years that asking about criminal records is raaaaaacist. I believe CA has actually implemented it.

            1. There was a federal case five or six years ago about a security company that was hiring people to work at Oak Ridge and doing background checks, because the Feds had specified that no one with a criminal record could work security at the facility there. And then the contractor got sued for discriminating against ex-cons by not hiring them to work at Oak Ridge. *facepaw*

              1. This is simply an expression of the assumption that our criminal justice system is racially biased against Black Folk. Because of course all crime is committed in accordance with racially balanced principles. It cannot possibly be that some cultures are inherently less law-abiding than others. Besides, they only commit crimes because this country is racist!

            2. And you know what?

              Businesses that do background checks hire proportionately MORE blacks than businesses that don’t. So literally they are saying the only blacks that count are those with criminal records.

          2. Out of curiosity, was this sometime in the last six or seven years or so? Reason I ask, is my company hired several ex cons over this particular time period. Not “couple of nights in jail for drunken brawling” or the like. A&B, B&E, assault with deadly, rape, attempted murder, and so on. Through backchannels, there was some sort of incentive to hire ex cons at the time, over and above regular folk.

            Of the couple dozen or so, two survived and remain on staff. The rest, they either self-eliminated (didn’t come back in), or failed drug tests. Turns out working for a bunch of combat vets (section leads for shipping tends that way for some reason) was not to their taste…

            1. On the one hand, we need to find ways to re-integrate felons in society once they get out of prison. (To this end, I strongly suspect that the tendency towards long prison sentences is more harmful to this goal, than helpful.)

              On the other hand, there are a *lot* of felons who are the way they are, because they don’t respect other people, and generally don’t want to start, either…sure, prison can and does destroy empathy…but there are a lot of felons who never had much empathy in the first place….

              This is something that businesses need to figure out how to balance; I do not like how government often tips the balance one way or the other, though…

                1. I may be thinking on the federal level, where there are cases where someone can get ten years for committing a crime because he crossed a State line, while the friends who committed the same crime together only got one year, because they never left the State when committing the crime…

                  To further complicate my murkiness on the matter, there’s also the case that the longer someone has been committing crimes, the more likely that their sentences are going to get longer…

                  1. That would argue against mild sentences being better, if those who keep on doing the crime keep getting them.

                    And while local courts are worse, federal courts still suck horribly even when you pad their numbers with illegals– who can’t be paroled, because they’re going to be deported when their sentences are done. And that’s after the “three strikes” fix.

                  2. the longer someone has been committing crimes, the more likely that their sentences are going to get longer

                    William Faulkner, a criminal mastermind? I long suspected as much.

  4. A culture that cherishes and celebrates victimhood will certainly wind up victim of a culture that does not.

    But that is the essential intent, after all.

    1. Because being a victim makes them *someone*; it’s a role model, or archetype, or whatever.

      A great number of people seem to have no individual self to be, so they conform to some available pattern.

      I’ve mentioned the Soviet defectors who went back to the USSR. One of them explained in detail; in the USA he was nobody. Back home, he had a place. Even if it was in a gulag…

      1. I’ve mentioned the Soviet defectors who went back to the USSR. One of them explained in detail; in the USA he was nobody. Back home, he had a place.

        Had he only known he could some day claim merit as a victim of micro-aggression:

        A New Way to Transgress: ‘Invisibility Microaggressions’
        … a recent study by two professors, Jasmine Mena, who teaches psychology at Bucknell University, and Annemarie Vaccaro of the University of Rhode Island, claim that they are the first academics to discover that “invisibility” is a form of microaggressions not previously described in feminist academia.

        “There is a growing body of literature that suggests invisibility is a common form of exclusion — or microaggression,” Mena and Vaccaro say. “However, no studies have focused deeply on the ways women faculty and staff experience invisibility microaggressions on college campuses.”

        1. Perhaps the proper response is, “It’s not that I don’t see you, it’s just that I’m disgusted by the crap that constantly spews from your mouth but am too polite to confront you about it.”

          1. Back in the day, it was like this for me:

            *someone bitching at me*
            *ten minutes later, I notice, because idiot has gotten to gesticulating. I look up, pull out my earbuds – which had been hidden in my long dark hair – and blink at them in confusion* “Sorry, what?”

            *watches them realize that they had just utterly beclowned themselves ranting and raving at someone who didn’t even notice*

            1. I had a department head start some unjustified screaming at me. Went on for about 10 minutes. When he was done, I just stood there. Said nothing until he asked, “Well, what do you have to say?” “Oh, are you done now and ready to talk?” 5 minutes of more screaming before he realized that it wasn’t doing any good at all. At one point he threatened me with court martial for refusing to obey a direct order- that I told him I would follow IF he put it in writing . Which he wouldn’t do. The court martial didn’t happen…

              Didn’t do my career any good, but I did the right thing, which is more important.

              1. It’s amazing how getting things in writing causes issues to vanish.

                My husband had to use it several times for folks who didn’t realize emails don’t vanish when you delete your copy.

                1. I love email.

                  Even now, I usually refuse to do any business over the phone. It’s all “Please email me about this issue.”

                  Because if it ain’t documented, it didn’t happen.

                  1. When coworkers tell me they need something, I always tell them to email me. The excuse I give them is that I have a brain like a steel sieve and by the time I get from the park up to my office I’ll have gotten distracted and forgotten what they wanted.

                    1. I have actually had project managers tell me not to do that because “everything you say in e-mail may hurt us later.” They’ve realized that e-mail is a real-time deposition if there’s a legal issue, so they’d rather make execution inefficient than have that trail. They can’t say that openly, which is why it happens in “one-on-one meetings”.

              2. My maternal grandmother did the same thing – she was in charge at the time of assigning work schedule rosters for a hospital; and leave slots had already been used up. A doctor came up to her screaming that there was no way that he should be working on Christmas (and had ignored the deadlines for putting in leave schedule for the season before the slots ran out.) She let him scream all the steam out, then went “Are you done?” The guy walked out, realizing throwing a tantrum and trying to intimidate a woman wasn’t going to work.

                1. I’m a big fan of the idea that tantrums ought be graded on a ten point scale for volume, duration and creativity. Extra creativity credit for avoiding curse words as they tend merely to be adjectives of nil semantic content.

      2. Because being a victim makes them *someone*; it’s a role model, or archetype, or whatever.

        “I could been a contenda!”

        1. that’s another. You don’t see it as much with Tom and Jerry because every time Jerry got too much of an advantage, things came back to haunt him.

  5. They probably don’t think of it as gaslighting themselves because they don’t really believe in a objective truth (at least in their chosen areas. They’d go insane if they applied it to everything). Especially with college age people, discussions on whether something is or isn’t often end with “Well that’s your reality/perception/opinion”. Either there is a secret evil patriarchy, a wage gap, or a rape culture, or there isn’t. Things can’t exist and not exist at the same time, but if you try to argue that with them they go full Rashomon and say that everyone has different realities.

      1. Umm Orvan I have some bad news. The answer to your question about the virtual partices is yes. They both are and ain’t. But they have measurable effects (cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect). Stuff
        gets seriously wierd at quantum levels.

        However something in logic can not be A and Not A. This basic truth the postmoderns revile and try to define away. However the Gods of the Copybook Headings have other ideas…

          1. Discovered quantum theory? They’ve been employing Handwavium from their origins. Qauntum theory originated in the Social Sciences!

            1. At the rate it’s going, the hands doing the waving should be in flames from the aerial friction. That’s assuming the gamma-ray emissions don’t get the wavers first. Hey, I can dream, can’t I?

            2. Escuze me? Real quantum theory originated in physics, involves lots of icky math, and works. Popularized quantum theory, including social science quantum theory, and in particular the recently proposed intersectional feminist quantum theory uses handwavium, and doesn’t.

              1. This. Very much this. If you try to make a microprocessor with tiny transistors, and don’t account for quantum effects like electron tunneling, you’re going to be stuck with a microprocessor that doesn’t work.

                Social sciencey stuff that uses quasi-quantum-theory terms to justify their handwavium? Not so much.

                1. The only similarity to your tiny microprocessor is, because their stuff is handwavium (and thus doesn’t take certain things into account) it also doesn’t work. Yours is different in that it CAN work.

    1. There are times when I wonder if the problem is that, in the places where most of the people who complain about this work and live (the entertainment industry and politics) those things actually exist, while those of us who live and work in less…dysfunctional…places don’t have to deal with that nonsense.
      The problem, of course, is that the people who live in the dysfunctional places insist on projecting their problems onto everyone else at least threefold, in order to maintain their moral superiority in their own minds.

      1. There is a mystery/thriller author who I read a while back who had her stories set in the South. She was obviously from the South, but the big-city South. Her protagonists were, pretty much uniformly, miserable sods—divorced, incapable of moving on from that, generally messed up folk. One time, their case took them into rural areas, and one of the characters mentally soliloquized about how miserable those sods were, primarily because of their lifestyle and political choices (the protagonists were, of course, liberal/leftist.)

        And I started laughing, because it was clear the author had no idea what she’d done in having the protagonists with such clearly bad judgement in lifestyle choices looking down their noses at folk who were, almost certainly, miles ahead in terms of lifestyle satisfaction. So they were poor? Guess what? That’s not the determinant of overalls happiness. Twerp. (I didn’t stop reading the books because of that bit but because they got too bloody violent form taste.)

      2. 60guilders, I’ve often wondered as well. This will seem random, but… at the sf convention last weekend a girl wore a very skimpy costume. I was talking (as she walked through the lobby) with a guy I know is a raving progressive (and who I will not schedule to work with anyone female or young) who didn’t see her at first. When he realized that we women were looking at someone behind him he turned and saw her walking away (think ivy leaves on her butt and nothing else much for clothes from the back) and immediately creeper-followed her into the dealer room. Does the fact that he’s a creeper have *anything* to do with the politics he finds most appealing? I don’t know. How could it? But a person has to wonder… is this insistence that “the right” are racists and sexists and generally awful people the result of logic that goes like this: “I know that I’m a racist/sexist horror. I also know that I’m more enlightened and better than those people over there. Therefore THEY must be true monsters.”

        Part of me thinks, no. The other part notices every time a progressive argues against guns by explaining that they’d murder people every time they got mad or lost their temper, and every time a highly “woke” feminist explains how racist she is, or when a progressive man says a sexist thing to me. (And the only group more likely to do that are feminist women.)

        1. There are a lot of things involved there. It includes what you’ve noted, but also the concept that supporting the proper causes makes up for the personal actions (think Bill Clinton’s support for abortion “insulated” him against sexually exploiting Monica Lewinski.) Then there is the fact that such folks generally resent the Right’s “judging” of them and turns that into accusations against conservatives in a form of whataboutism.

          I find it easy enough to judge people by their behaviour rather than their politics, although the two often coincide making it convenient to jump to a conclusion.

          1. I suspect having “supporting the proper cause” is a form of indulgence, in the pre-Reformation sense. Creepy Mc Creeper sees a target and pursues it, which he knows deep down is not right. But because he’s a Progressive and supports the correct causes, his error is (in his own mind at least) forgiven. He has purchased permission—and possibly forgiveness—in advance. Or so he assumes.

              1. There are those who say it’s redundant since we’ve already had a movie about a bunch of females on an island: Wonder Woman.

                I wish I were kidding.

            1. It’s been produced in the lab. Given the chance to buy “green” products, subjects are more likely to lie and cheat in a subsequent game. They did their good deed and are allowed to be as corrupt as they choose.

        2. Does the fact that he’s a creeper have *anything* to do with the politics he finds most appealing?

          Not exactly. The fact that he is PUBLICLY a creeper has EVERYTHING to do with the politics he finds most appealing. But, was he being a creeper, or was he providing the girl EXACTLY the reaction she wanted?

          1. It’s to the point where my first response to someone who complains about discrimination is “Well, stop working for/hanging out with Democrats.”

            Sadly (happily?) for me, I’ve only been able to use the line on the Internet.

            But I live in hope!

          1. Who’s this “He Who Shall Not be Named”? Humperdink?

            (Sorry, I know who it is, but I couldn’t resist…)

      3. “in the places where most of the people who complain about this work and live (the entertainment industry and politics) those things actually exist,”
        Yes. Examples are legion.

    2. The only reasonable response to that is something on the order of, “If we exist in different realities, how is it that I’m able to see and converse with you? I know we aren’t exchanging information, as nothing I say seems to be getting through your distortion field, but how am I able to be sensed in your alternate reality at all? Yes, I know, this idea too won’t penetrate your consciousness. But if we truly existed in different realities my (i.e., the real) reality would be a much nicer place as all you crazies wouldn’t be in it, just as yours would be a dystopian hellhole without us keeping you from going full-on insane on society.”

      1. Nuh-uhhhhh! MY Reality is WAY better than yours!

        Are you out of your mind? Clearly MY reality is better!

        You’re both nuts! My reality is OBVIOUSLY the best!

        What? You don’t have three-way arguments in your head? Or am I odd by having so few?

  6. Side note RE: “rape culture”–part of the problem with talking about this is that there are what might be called “rape subcultures” within the broader culture of the United States, and the West more generally. However, as you mentioned, these do not dominate the cultural discourse. (Seriously, if we had a “rape culture,” coercing sex would not be considered the act to establish that a character is without any redeeming qualities and may be killed off ASAP.)
    That having been said, I would argue that what has happened in the United States is that “entitlement culture” has been extended to sex, as can be seen in the whining from men and women about how people don’t want to have sex with them because (fill-in-the-blank self-serving reasons).

    1. Ah, also recall that this term is propagated by the same folks who think all PIV sexual acts are rape, (and for some, all male/female sex, as well) and hates humanity as a whole so wants us extinct.
      I say “Them first!”

      1. Some of them think that if the women overthrew patriarchy and so freed its stifling of their powers, they would use parthenogenesis or procreation with two female eggs, instead.

        Most of them merely are too myopic for belief.

          1. Yup. Of course on the other hand, I have been told there will always be enough women having babies, even if their attitudes aren’t quite what is desired. (Do you need three questions as to whose desires are being weighed?)

    2. “rape subculture”? No. There may be a “rape sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub culture” in the US and the West in general, but such a micro-sub culture is so miniscule as to be barely worth mentioning. This doesn’t mean that when actually encountered, denizens of said culture shouldn’t be treated with all the cultural approbation and criminal prosecution that their attitudes and actions demand.

      And let’s not even get into the reality twisting that must go on in the heads of all the feminists and SJWs who bought 50 Shades of Grey.

    3. The closest to a sub-culture I can think of is the one with the idea of they’re weak so they deserve whatever they get, (ie, if you can’t defend it you don’t deserve to have it) especially coupled with the various groups that view being a sex-object as a woman’s highest calling. (“A woman’s place is on her back” and such.)

      Oddly, given that the “what you can defend is really yours” phrase is Libertarian-ish, that group that I’ve actually interacted with is one of the least likely to be even subtly pro-rape– they’re more like “hey, no, you CAN defend yourself, and any time you want I’ll take you to a really great gun shop I know and get you set up so that YOU realize that!”

      1. RE: your first paragraph: Yep, that.
        And the thing is, as near as I can tell, “what you can defend is yours” is a bit more anarchist (true anarchist, not the “I should be able to do what I want and you should have to pay to shield me from the consequences” crowd) than libertarian. Libertarians tend to be more “no one should take what’s yours.”

    4. Wasn’t it Alexis de Toqueville who observed that in France, rape was barely considered a misdemeanor in a country where the death penalty was common, whereas in America, it was one of the few crimes for which you could be executed?

      That’s a funny sort of rape culture right there, if you ask me!

      1. It is not my interest in diminishing the act of rape, but the citation you offer suggests the possibility that a society which emphasizes the horrors of it exacerbates those horrors. A society, OTOH, which shrugs it off as a trivial inconvenience perhaps diminishes any trauma attendant to the act.

        In this sense it is similar to the reaction of a child with a minor boo-boo versus a child whose Mum has spotted and reacted hysterically to such a boo-boo.

        Again, because some will see this and misinterpret, I emphasize my interest is not in the crime but in the way in which society increases trauma associated with such crime. We might consider other such disparities, such as the prevalence of dueling in societies in which honour is precious but life is cheap.

  7. They pick the victim narrative because, in their life thus far, it has worked. It has gotten them benefits and perks for beyond anything they are entitled to by any objective standard. A rational society would lock them away in a home for the bewildered, for their own good. Instead they are given respectful attention and often promoted to positions of importance.

    They are despicable, manipulative, twunts. They make the condescending, sexist assholes of the Patriarchy of their imaginations look good by comparison.

    1. I wouldn’t use those exact words, but pretty much yes.

      They use the victim narrative because it lets them get away with – both in the sense of making the behavior possible, and then also in excusing it – a LOT of very bad behavior, that they seem to find convenient, pleasurable, and financially rewarding.

      1. If they ever succeed in bringing about the Islamic invasion they seem bent on abetting, it will be delcious irony to see them subjugated to REAL patriarchy. Not worth the rest of the Islamofoolishness, though.

        1. Like that wonderful scene in one of John Ringo’s novels where the hero rescues the feminists from the Real Patriarchy Advocates™.

          1. “Ghost.” I just bought a copy for a friend; I expect to hear howls of laughter from Nebraska any time now…

              1. I pointed him to an article on Tom Kratman’s page a while back. He was so impressed by the reviewers’ comments Kratman had posted he ordered a couple of Kratman’s books.

                [if you haven’t seen Kratman’s reviews, they’re ROFL]

                1. Fantastic books. (Full disclosure – he is my former commanding officer.) His nonfiction is also -well- worth a read. He pulls no punches, and spares no sensibilites.

                  Bean has several of his works in the “free” section.

              2. When I first read that review, I thought the person was highly critical of Ringo. Now that I am more familiar with the story behind the writing of “Ghost”, everything makes sense now.

                (Full disclosure: I haven’t read “Ghost”, and I’m not entirely sure if I’ll ever do so…)

    2. There’s a boy in my son’s year level who has already learned about this method of manipulation. Apparently he’ll have do-overs and ‘that doesn’t count’s if he loses ‘because I have asthma.’

      No surprise, apparently nobody wants to play with him. My son came home puzzled one afternoon and asked “how does someone steal friends?” Said boy has been going around claiming he’s a friend-stealer and thus a bad person.

      I told him “Last I checked, slavery was illegal in Australia, and thus, you can’t steal people and force them to be your friend.”

      1. He figured out the manipulation but not the consequences. It would be good if someone simply *told* the poor boy that people don’t like to be friends with someone who uses tricks to “win”.

        1. Yeah, well… that’s on his parents’ head, not mine. In my day, someone like that would’ve learned the consequences with a beating – from the other kids. Or a similar abject lesson delivered…

          My youngest brother had a similar classmate when he was attending elementary school in Paris. She used ‘being a girl’ to get away with her often physical bullying. Her victims eventually became his friends and playmates.

          One day he devised a game where he played ‘general’ and he would direct his friends to ‘attack’ an imaginary enemy by running from one end of the school yard to the other – and it was totally coincidental that the girl would get run over by a bunch of kids every single time…

  8. I think, in part, they pick the “victim” role because until very recently 1) all of society pretty much agreed that victims were innocent by definition and deserved compassion and the benefit of the doubt, and 2) victim status was temporary. Victims recovered and became survivors. Not unscarred or as innocent, but survivors who went on with life and made the best of the world.* Now victim is a permanent tag and full-time occupation for some divas and divos, while the people who really do need some space and time and mercy are shoved back into the shadows or even trampled on [insert image of Sen. Schumer sighting a camera crew].

    *For the sake of those skimming until offended: I know that some people never really recover from traumatic events, and need extra considerations for the rest of their lives. Until 20 years ago or so, they were the rare ones.

    1. Maybe we should apply some terminological jujitsu and declare ourselves (and by extension everyone not already so proclaimed by the left) to be “victims” of the leftist all-victims-all-the-time societal trope. If we’re all victims, then victimhood loses its special status. Oh, I know, they will instantly sprout gradations of victimhood, so that their anointed groups will be more victimized than everyone else…still, it would be interesting to see their faces when everyone claims to be victims just like them.

        1. Actually studies have shown that Conservatives/Libertarians are better at mimicking the positions of their opponents than Progs are. Progs can only seem to come up with strawman caricatures.

              1. I would suggest that it is to the general benefit of all if no discussions focus on what kind of ass — smart, wise or dumb — I am being, given that there seems little debate over the tail end of the construction.

                Besides, I am entirely capable of being all three (or possibly more) simultaneously.

    2. These are victims of societal forces — patriarchy, rape culture — and employ their “victimization” as a cudgel to demand societal change. They cannot “survive” nor “recover” until their oppression has been ended. Indeed, their non-survival is a necessary component of their identities.

      1. They cannot “survive” nor “recover” until their oppression has been ended.

        Ahhh, if only in the actual, real world they could not survive. Then we’d be free of their incessant whining.

        1. In the “real world”, they couldn’t.

          They only get away with it because, despite the long slide, we’re still so filthy rich that our society can support them. Just like we could support the hippie communes of the 1960s, except a few orders of magnitude more.

          Some of us are about fed up with that, though.

    3. Possibly 2a): People who’ve had bad things happen to them don’t want to be victims. They don’t want attention, by and large. They want to be normal. Just that. Not reliving the bad things over and over.

    4. So it’s another unintended consequence of “kindness”?

      That is, a victim was someone who wasn’t reasonably guilty for their own actions– and in the course of getting rid of the unreasonable expectations for “not guilty,” it somehow became “there is no possible reason.”

      So you went from “no, wearing flattering clothing isn’t asking for rape” to “a guy on a bike who is wildly violating traffic laws and gets killed doing so is a victim even when there’s no way that basic physics would allow the car to avoid him.”

      1. To further complicate matters*, if you point out that you shouldn’t dress in flattering clothing, go to a bar without trustworthy friends, get drunk, and go on to get raped, it’s “victim blaming” to point out that you probably shouldn’t be doing these kinds of things if you don’t want to be raped — even if you also say that the rapist should be tried and, upon being found guilty, executed, because no one should take advantage of someone being stupid.

        Even so, no matter how harsh the penalties, there *will* be people who will take advantage of stupidity, and so it’s a *very good* idea to try to do everything reasonable to avoid becoming a victim in the first place….it’s called “situational awareness”, not “victim blaming”, and it could mean the difference between avoiding a bad situation altogether, or being forced to use a gun in self defense, or even having friends come to your funeral.

        *And by “complicate matters”, I mean deeply annoy the people who are practical about the matter…

    5. Usually the difference between ‘victim’ and ‘broken’. They’re encouraging ‘broken’. Which was considered a highly undesirable trait even in ye-not-so-olden days.

      1. We’ll be singing
        When we’re winning
        We’ll be singing

        I get knocked down
        I won’t get up again
        You’re never going to get me up …

  9. If you’ve sufficiently imbibed the deconstructionist liquor that all reality is narrative then gaslighting is no big deal. No person has autonomy if there is no reality, and superimposing a different narrative over another’s illusions is merely debate by other means.

      1. And once you get *there* you’re almost inescapably in a bad place indeed.

        Objective reality, the unique nature and *value* of objectively-based and verifiable reaility, even the “marketplace of ideas” and its underlying principle that real debate has to be conscious and explicit and visible (not implicit and semi-conscious or even unconscious: check your privilege!) — Elvis has left the building.

        If you “round up the usual suspects” on something like that nationwide half-consensus that, almost instantly, the Confederate flag means *nothing but* unalloyed racism and racialist supremacy… it really does look like the “debate” that led to this dizzy-fast shift was a lot more sub-conscious or unconscious than conscious and reasoning (for good reasons or bad or any other kind).
        Weaponized invasive memes (in the original sense)? Easier than “real” arguments about any “real” reality, and likely more effective too, since their (ah) victims likely won’t even consciously know what hit them. Psychological nerve gas, more or less.

        One of the most subversive aspects of this is that you (the expert narrative duellist) have to deny, suppress, or undermine anything (objective or non-objective) inconsistent with it. Published SF authors like Clare Winger Harris from the Gernsback days, or even Mary Shelley? Never happened. The world’s first computer program (almost but not quite) from Ada King [Lovelace] in *1843*? Nope. Her tutor Mary Somerville? Never did any of that stuff. (Even Grace Hopper must’ve been, well, exaggerated instead of “Amazing!”)
        If “the patriarchy” never really did the hatchet job, you’ve got to finish the job for it now. In the interest of victims everywhere, of course, it’s completely different when *we* do it.

        Which leaves the rest of us reaching for ever-increasing quantities of mental activated charcoal, every time we encounter this stuff: spoonfuls to handfuls to bucketfuls to.. full blown MOP suits??

  10. “Why pick the victim narrative?”

    Because a victim isn’t responsible for what happens to victimize them. The bigger a victim you are, the less responsibility you have. The goal is a totally hedonistic and responsibility-free existence – and it’s all someone else’s fault.

    It’s lotus eating, but claiming someone else is force feeding you the flowers.

  11. Not entirely unrelated, this addendum from NRO’s Morning Jolt newsletter:

    Planned Parenthood asked its Twitter followers to “Fill in the blank: The person I’m going out with can never ______. Tell us your dating dealbreakers.” Unsurprisingly, it backfired on them, with comments ranging from “Think abortion is acceptable” to “Sell kids for spare parts.”

  12. We’re opening up a performance of the Gilbert & Sullivan operetta Patience this Friday. The women in the show are aping aestheticism, and think it’s fashionable to droop about despairingly.

    In a doleful train
    Two and two we walk all day
    For we love in vain
    None so sorrowful as they
    Who can only sigh and say,
    “Woe is me! Alackaday.”

    Seriously, they’re reveling in it.

    1. Men do it too. In the 1700s, Goethe’s The Sorrows of Young Werther launched an international fad for being a sensitive, suffering soul.

      1. Oh G-d, Werther and the Romantics. I had a music teacher define Romanticism once as “pursuit of the unattainable” and pointed out Hector Berlioz as what happens if you suddenly attain that which you couldn’t formerly have. *Short version for those who don’t know: His Symphonie Fantastique is a fictionalized account of meeting the love his life (movements I-III) and being unable to have her, taking opium in an attempt to kill himself, and then having hallucinations that he’s killed her and is going off to be executed (movement IV) and then goes to Hell, where she’s dancing with the witches (movement V). After his unsuccessful suicide attempt, her family relented and he married her… and apparently lost a good deal of interest.

        Anyway. I despise fashionable despair. There are enough people struggling with depression etc. out there that making it “cool” is a horrible idea.

  13. (Grr, Errors.)

    Why? It is and isn’t complicated.

    It’s calls for unearned empathy and pampering. It’s lazy attention seeking and begging in the hopes that someone else will make a paradise of life for you under the narcissistic delusion of deserving it.

    Sorry ladies, but it’s also an inevitable distortion of our hyper-feminized society. Woman are wired to respond positively to the distress of infants, and so the path to social gain (primarily, but also all the usual resources) is to pretend to be a distressed infant in today’s America. Roughly the same with those poor illegal aliens/cheap labor/self-made ‘refugees’.

    More or less.

    But speaking of narratives and gas-lighting, Mark Steyn has a very good roundup of the examples of the moment – https://www.steynonline.com/8063/the-coming-terror

    I do particularly like this bit in the beginning of that post: “…the violence on American streets derives from today’s paramilitary wing of the Democrat Party – antifa – working itself up over yesterday’s paramilitary wing of the Democrat Party – the Ku Klux Klan.”

    Puts a lot of things into perspective very quickly.

    1. I do particularly like this bit in the beginning of that post: “…the violence on American streets derives from today’s paramilitary wing of the Democrat Party – antifa – working itself up over yesterday’s paramilitary wing of the Democrat Party – the Ku Klux Klan.”

      Hey, they’re just sticking with the age old Jacobin/Leninist/Stalinist/Nazi/Maoist playbook.

      Once in power, raise up new thugs to liquidate as many of the old thugs who got you there as possible. Circumstances and time can force some adjustments to the playbook, so instead of ACTUALLY liquidating REAL KKK members, who are now all either dead or utterly impotent, they have to gin up “old thugs” to make their bones.

      1. There’s one important difference between antifa and the Klan, though.

        The Klan doesn’t bother anyone…

        For that matter, same for the “Nazis.”

        Or the White Pride people.

        Funny, that…

        1. These days those groups don’t bother people. But there are plenty of people still alive from when the Klan *did* bother people (the people who were alive when the Nazis were an actual threat are rapidly dying off). In fact, our current Attorney General was loosely involved in a case that ended up with the relatives of the victim of a local Klan affiliate being awarded all of the property owned by that affiliate as the result of a court verdict (which I, personally, find to be hilarious).

    2. Sort of disagree, while somewhat supporting your theory– women are wired to take care of the weak.

      Thing is, it’s in both ways– if they’re “our” weak, we try to heal.

      If they’re NOT our weak, well…those get “taken care of,” too.

      At various times, even a woman’s own infant wasn’t one of “ours.” (part of that is a defensive measure, as Sarah has pointed out– loss cuts deep)


      Mr. Steyn does have an awesome way with words, no?

      1. I may have overstated it a bit, but it’s not exactly my idea: https://youtu.be/HcEJr8h_yGM?t=16m53s (something close to ‘appear to be wired to respond to infants’ is a phrase Dr. Peterson used elsewhere, but this is as close as I could find quick-like)

        Maybe a better way of saying it is that women have a strong biological predisposition toward maternal instinct, which evolutionary theory mostly puts down to adapting to the conditions of raising very vulnerable and very helpless human infants.

        And more to the point, politics, particularly left-wing politics, is exploiting the maternal instinct and elevating the importance of its socially expressed forms to pathological levels.

        The way I look at it is society is training women to live down to their base, blind biologic imperatives in order to exploit them, their influence on men, and their votes in order to further statist agendas.

        But to be fair, there’s a lot of that going on – people being trained to live down to their biology.

    3. “…the violence on American streets derives from today’s paramilitary wing of the Democrat Party – antifa – working itself up over yesterday’s paramilitary wing of the Democrat Party – the Ku Klux Klan.”
      Puts a lot of things into perspective very quickly.

      Puts a lot of things into perspective very quickly, too. :]

  14. Ran across someone fumming about the ignorance and arrogance of redoing The Lord fo the Flies with girls.

    Problem? We have already had it as this summer’s blockbuster, namely — Wonder Woman.

    1. I saw several comments along the lines of “it would be a utopia,” which misses the point, and also several comments of “we already have that; it was called Mean Girls,” which is rather more accurate.

  15. I’ve just realized how I could be convinced that, in hindsight, Trump is the only candidate who could save America.

    I was rethinking the ‘fine people’ on ‘both sides’ comment. I find it equally reprehensible applied to antifa as to “Unify the Right”.

    But why would Trump say that, shouldn’t he realize that antifa is simply an artifact of the outraged Clinton machine, same as the Federal officials that he is obviously scared of?

    Only Trump could beat Hillary /and/ fail to realize what he had gotten himself into. Only Trump would be too blind to see what other might escalate in response to. Only Trump could thereby avoid setting a harmful precedent.

  16. “Why pick the narrative where you’re a helpless little thing with the world against you?”


    1. Then watch them come unstuck when someone doesn’t care about their victimhood…

      “Life’s hard all over.”

      1. Mr. I’mAlwaysWorseOff was fun to watch when I mentioned the gas-fired toilet. You could almost see the gears grind and the mental lurch as he tried to process that and figure out a way to out-something that.

  17. The victim narrative is chosen because it’s the only one that can work against a true Christian ethos. If the people are virtuous, which as a nation far too many aren’t, we’d recognize those playing the victim are first the victim of their own sins.

  18. Hot news: the Pink Guard continues their redefining of words, especially around something they routinely do.
    Oh, right, that’s non-news – they routinely do this, too.

Comments are closed.