About that Matriarchy

Look, I grew up in a patriarchy.  No ifs, ands or buts.  You can tell by things like the seating precedence in a car.  It about broke my then 16 year old son’s head that when getting in a car with me and his grandparents, he was the one sitting next to his grandfather (the driver) because penis.  This gave him precedence over me and even over his grandmother, whom he assumed would sit next to her husband, of course.

Between that, and women backing to let him go through doors first, or just in general behaving like he was more important than older females, he ended up composing a satirical song called “My d*ck gives me primacy” which he sang EVERYWHERE much to the bemusement of those relatives who spoke English.  (Hey, he was 16.  At least the song interrupted his other schtick which was talking about how he was the king of the untidy streets.  Don’t go there.)

I’m typing this and wondering if my brother chances to read it (despite our divergent political paths, he reads my posts about every other time.  Hey, it’s good for him.  I hear it increases his heart rate, so surely it’s the same as exercise, right?) whether he’ll be upset by that description (truthful though it is) or laugh and say of course men take primacy in Portugal, because they’re not p*ssy whipped like Americans.  I rather assume the second.  It’s the Arab influence remaining in the culture, you see.  Oh, maybe the Roman, too, because you know, Romans weren’t exactly egalitarian in their treatment of the sexes, though all things considered, they weren’t bad for the ancient world.  However, you can see the band of countries occupied by moors for any considerable period of time, and the length of time being proportional to how deep the patriarchy is in those countries.

Yesterday on facebook, in reply to this Quick, to the Victim-Mobile!  a bright girl who must be about ten years older than I came to enlighten me about how important it was for women to tell their stories of abuse (rolls eyes) and about how some woman or other she worked with in 77, when they were both very young had been pressured into sex by the boss or she wouldn’t keep the job after the three months trial.  (As with forcing a reluctant baker to bake you a cake, why would you want to continue working for that asshat in those circumstances, unless, as I noted above it is one of the fields with many aspirants and stringent gate keeping, all of which are taken over by liberal asshats, who can get away with this.  Oh, she also told me it had nothing to do with liberal and conservative.  Rolls eyes.)  Among her pithy remarks, though, she said something about being so glad I was attractive and got lots of offers.  Implying of course that I’d never known anything but offers I didn’t want.  (Puts thumb on forefinger on either side of the bridge of her nose in the sinal salute.)

You know, she has been around my page long enough that you’d think she’d know where I grew up.  Maybe she does.  Maybe she’s so blinkered she thinks that the US is a patriarchy and any land where people tan is more enlightened.

You know that example above?  That’s just what my kid got to see on a two week visit.

Used to be from the age of twelve to about sixty, no woman could step outside without being hit with a barrage of sexual suggestions.  There was some bruahah not long ago of women complaining about getting cat calls from construction workers in big cities.  Since most construction workers in the US are Hispanic, I believed them.  I also wished they’d walk a mile in my country and time (it SEEMS better now, though to be honest I don’t go anywhere alone when I’m there, because family and not having a job/classes) of origin.  The one that sticks in my mind is when I got a group of men shouting felatio instructions at me, as I walked out of a store with a Popsicle.  I was twelve.  That one sticks in mind because it was one of the first times I went out on my own; because I didn’t understand half the words; and because I hadn’t learned to ignore them. Because it’s not just construction workers, but probably half the men.  Sure, it’s the uneducated/lower class males, mostly.  (Though I wouldn’t put it past students doing the same if out where their family can’t hear.)

After a while it becomes background noise.  Offensive, sure.  But it’s just words.

It was much worse riding public transport.  The moment I started having to take bus or train to the city for school, my older cousin gave me a hat pin and showed me the trick of putting it on the edge of a folder which I kept under my arm.  Not only could I then stick the guys trying to rub off on me, but I could do it and still act the innocent, because, you know, if you actually turned around and stuck them in the nadders with a pin, people would scream AT YOU.  After all, he wasn’t taking a piece off you. He was just having some fun.  Why couldn’t you pretend to ignore it, like all the other women did?

There were other things more material, which didn’t hold me back and rather amused me because I’m of a contrary disposition.  Like, the fact that in any mixed class the teacher would assume on the first day that the best students would be boys, and pass over you, while you had your hand in the air.  It amused me because after the first test, the teacher would hold the high-scoring one and scan the class in confusion wondering what kind of creative name this was, before calling out my name.  And nine times out of ten they’d say “This is amazing for a girl.  I never thought…”.

And yes, of course it influenced what women chose to do and how they acted.  By late high school unless you were a particularly contrary type of girl, even if you were going into a higher degree, like Medicine or Languages, you cultivated “womanly gifts” like crochet, and tried to appear dim in public.  I never had patience to pretend much.

So, do I approve of growing up like that?  Shrug.  In the panoply of human cultures, Portugal was and probably still is undoubtedly a patriarchy.  A lot of the experiences this leads to for a young female are less than pleasant and sure, of course, it can discourage women who would otherwise achieve… more than they do.  (There are other limits set by the culture.)

If America were like that, I too would be making remarks about the patriarchy and certainly teaching my kids to treat THEIR women better than average.  Not to mention lobbying for a patrol to clean up the “three guys leaning on the wall making lewd suggestions” that seem obligatory in any public thoroughfare in Portugal (or did thirty years ago.)

But America isn’t like that, and the chasm between what these people are talking about and even mild patriarchy like Portugal — let’s face it, it’s not Saudi Arabia — is so immense that when I hear heart-rending stories of clumsy passes or read the men now blackmailed into posting #Ihave I just want to cry.

If you have raped or sexually extorted women in the past, by all means, turn yourself into the police.  If you have made clumsy passes or, like a bright boy in a group yesterday THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE please stop it.  All you’re doing is encouraging the idiot feminists to think that all men are rapists, and providing cover for the real rapists like Weinstein or for that matter Bill Clinton.

I knew the US was a matriarchy from the moment in the airport when I was waiting for my plane to come over and get married and watched a very overweight, inappropriately dressed middle aged woman boss her husband and sons around.  (It occurred to me the other day that I probably now resemble her.  Eh.)

Only in a matriarchy are all men shown as idiots in every commercial; is every boss on tv a woman; are women treated like they have special and holy insight.

ONLY in a matriarchy can a bunch of women suddenly deciding that events thirty years ago still apply today (77 is not now, and now any guy saying sleep with me or else will be taken to court.  Unless he’s in Hollywood, publishing, the news or politics, and, oh, yeah, leftist) have men scurrying to come up with #Ihave.  When they OBVIOUSLY and painfully not only haven’t but couldn’t being to.

I disapprove of both matriarchy and patriarchy.  I believe in individuals.  I’m also aware I live in the real world.  And in the real world, a slight patriarchy — say the US before the present dispensation — is better than a matriarchy any day.  Why?  Because the matriarchy don’t STOP.

Women, being smaller and slighter and weaker than men have no built in brakes.  If we go to war, we go to war till the enemy is pieces.

The feminists who convinced American women that men were the enemy, at least as far back as I’ve been in the country, unleashed a monster that most of them didn’t anticipate or understand.

Ain’t momma happy ain’t nobody happy.  And momma knows that she can’t hold her men by force, so she must berate them and berate them and berate them, until they confess to things they wouldn’t dream of doing.

The problem is that in so doing they give cover to the real predators.  In the midst of the chorus of #Ihave the ones who really have will be assumed to just be guilty of the male gaze or something equally stupid.  Even when they’re really serial rapists.

The world is not going to ever be comfortable for anyone.  Not really.  All of us suffer aggravation and annoyance and disparagement.  It’s part of being human.

I want a world in which I and my sons, and my grandsons and granddaughters are all treated as people and not forced to confess to the sins of OTHERS.

Right now the danger to that world isn’t from the vaunted patriarchy but from the very real matriarchy.  Mother should take an aspirin and go to bed, and big sister in particular (she’s a bitter spinster, even if she’s married.  She never got over the envy of not being able to pee standing up) should shut up already.  And dad and brothers should know that no #theyhavenot.

And then we can start, sensibly, trying to figure out what problems still exist for women (if any) and what new problems there are for men.

And behave like grown ups.  Any American woman who thinks that she lives in a patriarchy should be dropped in Spain for three months without an escort or help.  (And that’s because I’m kind.  Notice I didn’t say Saudi Arabia.)  Any American man who thinks he might deserve to post #Ihave should call his local police station and confess, or see a decent therapist not known for implanting false memories.

We should adult already, and, btw, stop laying guilt trips on innocent children just because they were born with a penis.  They don’t need special treatment, either.  Boys and girls just need to know #allhumans. And #victimsaren’tspecial.

880 thoughts on “About that Matriarchy

  1. Thus proving that you are in fact a white, male, Mormon, misogynist.
    Glad to hear you broke down and got a replacement inhaler. After the chitstorm this one brings out you’ll likely need it.
    Have I mentioned lately how very proud I am of you niece of my heart?

    1. Why on Earth would I think that? In the US we have a ton of matriarchal roles without a patriarchal system.
      I simply don’t think either should be given full rein. I neither want to live in Saudi-Arabia (or the Portugal of my youth) or what the US is becoming where men are guilty by virtue of being born with a penis.

        1. Your reading comprehension is lacking. I never said anything about holding the door open for women. Go back and read what I said. In Portugal women scurry out of the way to let men pass through FIRST.

          1. “Between that, and women backing to let him go through doors first” – is an allusion to men letting women go first, isn’t it? That’s why I said *implied* example. How’s your reading comprehension doing at this point?

            1. No, it’s not an allusion to anything. It’s a straight up description of what happens in a crowd.
              My reading comprehension is fine in all the languages I speak. How about you read what I wrote and not what you want it to say?
              In a crowd in Portugal women back off and let men go in first. Portugal is a patriarchy. I don’t know what the heck you want it to say, but read what I SAID.

              1. It wasn’t that difficult to understand. There are many behaviours that may seem to favour women, but may still have a role in a patriarchal system. Who gets to go through a door first is one of those things.
                A country can still be systematically patriarchal despite first dibs on passing through doors.

                1. Head>desk, head>desk, Head>desk. No, it’s not difficult to understand. What it is is Off Topic. I know you’d want me to discuss that, but that’s not what this post is about. Sure, people have made that case. HOWEVER in the patriarchal society I grew up in, it wasn’t like that.
                  Anyone here with experience in Asian and or Muslim countries know if women go through doors first? It’s not the point of the post but apparently someone is utterly fascinated with this.

                  1. I served as an adviser to an Iraqi Army unit, so I know a bit about patriarchy in a Moslem country, even though there were few Iraqi women in our day to day lives. Having Iraqi’s serve as interpreters also gave some insight to differences in our cultures.
                    In their culture, not only do the men take precedence, the head man also takes precedence. As an example, our team was invited to a celebration of the anniversary of the original founding of the Iraqi Army. The meal was a variety of rice and chicken served on a platter with bread to four to five people (no plates or utensils), As the honored guests, we ate with the officers at the first seating, picking up the rice and chicken with our fingers which meant that a lot was falling back onto the platter. When we were finished, the platters were then taken to the NCOs to eat in the same manner we ate. When the NCOs were done, the junior enlisted got the leftovers. If women had been involved they would have gotten whatever was left after being picked over by three different groups.
                    Another example is the holding the door custom. When we ate on the American base as a team there was always a race between the interpreters and one of our captains. The captain usually got to the door first and ensured that the interpreters entered first. They asked me once why we did things like that. My explanation was that our way was that leaders put their soldiers first and in families the parents put their children first. They had an extremely hard time grasping that concept.
                    As far as how they treat their women it was very evident anytime we were outside the wire. Women were ranked slightly above beasts of burden and if they were by themselves they were fair game for any male to harass. One day one of the Iraqi privates who was not familiar with us saw one of our female captains outside our hooch and kissed her on the head. One of the interpreters grabbed him and was reading him the riot act while pointing at me (I came along after the incident). Turns out that he was warning the guy, as he was beating on him, that I would shoot him if he ever did it again. Why did he feel it was OK to kiss the officer? In his culture a female not accompanied by a male was essentially a whore. Except they don’t have prostitution, but they do have some “holy men” who will preform a marriage ceremony between random guys and women that are with the so-called holy man for a certain fee. And a short time later the man tells the woman three times “I divorce you” and she waits for the next marriage.

                2. In a patriarchal society there will be a lot of behaviors that favor women because the men consider themselves responsible for the women, at least in a culture informed by chivalry. The Birkenhead drill is an extreme example of this.

                  1. Precisely. America has its own whole set of patriarchal customs. The treatment of women in the south is a very good example. The expectation of them being lady-like and so forth as well.

                    1. I can only surmise that you’ve never lived in or visited the US southern states. If any part of the US is a matriarchy, they are. Son, you really don’t have any idea what you’re talking about.

                    2. So which sector of society do you think is responsible for establishing the backbone of the social narrative?
                      During the 20th century, Franco and Salazar set the tone on gender roles in Iberia. Who would you say defines or defined the structure in North America? And what would you say is the structure?

                    3. Try to keep up, son. You want to shift the discussion to your leftist view of how societies function. We reject your entire premise. Start over, try to actually think rather than reciting dogma.

                    4. Oh, the ideas you support are uniformly leftist and extreme. Parties aren’t part of this social and cultural discussion. You seem to be the only one who doesn’t get that.

                    5. Only your voice, son, only your voice. Just because you can’t hear what you’re saying doesn’t mean the rest of us are similarly deaf.

                    6. Very nearly none of the Euros do. Individualism and personal responsibility seem unimaginable to the great majority of them.

                    7. I don’t support parties

                      As he uncritically repeats leftist dogma as though it were the revealed wisdom from on high.

                      when there’s good evidence.

                      The voices in your head aren’t good evidence. They lie to you a lot.

                    8. You might want to try actually WATCHING some classic westerns.

                      You appear to have swallowed whole the ridiculous parody of a simplification that is popular, but still wrong and foolish.

                    9. You haven’t provided any evidence at all for your ludicrous assertions. So now we shall mock you, point, and make duck noises until you cease to be an entertaining chew toy.

                    10. So, if you label it patriarchy then everything is just proof of patriarchy.

                      Sounds about right because the idea of “patriarchy” in the US is raw conspiracy theory and thus the “lack of evidence or counter evidence is proof” that rules in the conspiracy theory world would apply here.

                    11. Approach it from the other end. What pressures do you believe are faced by men (and boys) in North America?
                      The pressure to compete? To succeed? How is worth measured? Partly through wealth? Social status? Appearance?
                      I’ve lived on three continents and in all I saw the presence of huge pressures on men. And I have the impression those pressures are the result of a patriarchal structure of expectations.

                    12. Actually, today in the US boys are not pressured to compete or succeed. They are pressured to be kind and quiet and still. Yet when they fulfill those, historically feminine, virtues they are rejected by women in favor of social status and wealth.

                      I would argue a society that encourages boys to embrace what are seen as feminine virtues and that essentially preaches boys are defective girls only to have many of those boys, when they become adults, to be rejected by men who were boys who did not strive to become better girls is anything but a patriarchy.

                    13. He is also, although he can’t see it, a male supremacist. If any culture with men is a patriarchy, which is what his claims reduce down to, then men are arguably inherently superior.

                    14. Alternative hypothesis: He is a female supremacist:

                      Women are naturally cooperative, it is only men who compete for dominance and it this competition which produces patriarchal societies. Matriarchy denies female cooperativeness and imposes a male-oriented social structure, thus even matriarchies are patriarchal.

                    15. Looks down to verify certain physical facts. Looks up. COOPERATIVE RES? My first grade grade was “knows more than needed, doesn’t play well with others.”

                    16. “knows more than needed”?!
                      Absolutely fantastic description! You should print up a button to wear with that one! 🙂

                    17. I wasn’t asserting it as fact, I was asserting it as feminist narrative.

                      Personally, I feel about that the way Mr. Bumble feels about the Law.

                    18. If matriarchy can’t assert itself to stop patriarchy isn’t matriarchy inherently inferior? That has been my take on the whole “we used to live in a peaceful matriarchy until evil patriarchist came and destroyed it.”

                      Darwin would tell me the matriarchy wasn’t able to adapt and survive.

                    19. Matriarchy is merely the obverse face of patriarchy because only males engage in social dominance behaviours. Thus if females are socially dominant it is because male have forced them to be that way, therefore the power drivers are still male.

                      Look, it is actually quite simple: if there is a problem it is because males have done something or failed to do something or have attempted to do something but done it improperly. Males are to blame for all the evils in the world, including falsifying the Bible tale to make it seem as if Eve ate the fruit from that tree.

                    20. Bah, real feminists know that Eve was just the replacement stupid bimbo created to replace that strong, independent woman Lilith.

                      Actually, I like the idea of Lilith being the mother of Elves which also explains why half-elven is a think but half-dwarven is not.

                    21. I’m curious. What brought you to our neck of the woods? Since you’re new here, something must have attracted you to us. What was it? The scintillating wit? The sparkling repartee? The devilishly delightful bon mots?

                    22. And I have the impression those pressures are the result of a patriarchal structure of expectations.
                      That’s because you’ve been indoctrinated into the idea that everything must be “patriarchal” or “matriarchal” in its origin. Some things are built upon the idea of “reality“. Expecting men to provide for their families, for example, is NOT a patriarchal concept, but one based in the reality of what men and women generally are like/capable of. Your argumentation shows a strong indoctrination in the mythology of the progressives.

                    23. Women, given a choice, choose to raise their own children, which limits their professional choices. I should know. Made the choice, paid the price. But looking at the boys, I can’t regret it.
                      Patriarchal? Bull shit. My sons. I’ll raise them.

                    24. But looking at the boys, I can’t regret it.
                      That’s a fantastic feeling, ain’t it? 🙂
                      And there are a couple of women who don’t/won’t regret your work, either.

                    25. A lot of the “rules” that are imposed on women are not imposed by men but by other women. Case in point a recent complaint over on FB where a woman, as evidence of “male privilege” that men could wear the same outfit multiple times but a woman could only wear a cute dress once. Response was “I guarantee that not a single straight man out there will care if you wear a cute dress more than once, the negative comments will come from other women.”

                    26. “A lot of the “rules” that are imposed on women are not imposed by men but by other women.”

                      This * 1000. There’s a reason why “Sister Bertha BetterThanYou” resonates in this song:

                    27. Got it.



                      3) Men treat women like anyone else, ignoring their supposed “special needs” -> PAAAAATRIAAAARCHY! MISOOOOOGYNYY!!!!!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! TRIGGGGGGGERRREEEEED!

                      4) Men pay extra attention to women’s supposed “special needs” -> PAAAAATRIAAAARCHY! MISOOOOOGYNYY!!!!!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! TRIGGGGGGGERRREEEEED!

                      You people are cartoon characters.

                      By the way, you appear to be a white man in your profile picture. What gives you the right to speak for women, anyway?

                    28. It is because they imagine that a lack of self-interest (they’re not trying for nooky) makes their efforts altruistic and noble. In reality it is just another form of white-knighting, seeking ego-boo from signalling their virtue.

                      Well, that and the fervent hope their mothers will forgive them.

                    29. Argument, my hostess– they feel the need to rescue women who DO WHAT THEY THINK WOMEN SHOULD.

                      I can’t say I’ve ever run into one who feels the need to rescue me, other than “from myself.”

                    30. In my Momma’s family there are women who became doctors … in the deep south … generations back … I have great great aunts who practiced medicine. I admit that this is not something common, but it happened in other families as well.

                      To quote Yakov Smirnoff — America! What a country!

                      Then there Momma’s Momma — a true southern grand dame as well as an officer in the WAVES, who was known to make admirals jump on her command. She believed in being a lady , but that whole patriarchy thing was something up with which she never put.

                      Your assumptions of how life is in the American south indicates a lack of familiarity with the complexity of the matter.

                    31. “So which sector of society do you think is responsible for establishing the backbone of the social narrative?”

                      Is this even intended to mean anything?

                    32. “So which sector of society do you think is responsible for establishing the backbone of the social narrative?”

                      Oh, is this about who my/our “betters” are?
                      They ain’t any.
                      Them as claims to be… tree or lamppost, some rope. Problem SOLVED.

                    33. It’s about identifying how society works, because only from there can we improve conditions. That’s how many diseases and poverty levels have been successfully tackled for most of the post-war (WWII) era.

                    34. poverty levels have been successfully tackled
                      Successfully tackled?!? Ha! Where?
                      If you mean that our poor (the West’s) are better off than other places, then you need to understand that has been despite all the attempts to “tackle poverty”, rather than because of them. Freedom and capitalism are what have made “fat poor” a thing. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with “identifying how society works”. And, of course, poverty STILL exists.

                    35. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with “identifying how society works”.

                      Well, it can if you understand that one of the ways that society works is that absolutely nothing does more for the benefit of the average human than the creative energies that are unleashed via the exercise of the free market.

                    36. Tackled in much of the world, especially in the past 50 years. Life has been completely transformed in many places. And don-t take my word for it, check the figures from the US government, World Bank, or even private groups.

                    37. You seem unable to grasp the distinction between “in spite of” and “because of.” Correlation is not causation. That a problem has “been solved” does not mean that anybody “solved” it.

                    38. Your “top down” analysis is premised on multiple unproven assumptions.

                      Many hear would claim that problems of poverty and disease have been successfully addressed in spite of, not due to, “identifying how society works.” Notably, those societies which have been driven by such methods as you assert have notably failed to deliver more than short term success due to adopting processes developed in more dynamic cultures (following a path is far easier than blazing one) and have racked up vastly higher death tolls.

                    39. a) you sound like a robot. b) improve conditions to WHAT? All the engineered attempts at “improving conditions” of the twentieth century put a hundred and six million people in their graves, and only the six million was Hitler, the rest was “enlightened” socialists and communists. That not counting the kids not being born because socialism is more effective than contraception. c) for a man who thinks gender roles in iberia changed in the 20th century due to two men and that cultures are that plastic, you’re very cocksure. d) THE narrative in Europe is set by the media, and you’ve swallowed it hook line and sinker, so much you sound like a robot.

                      ADVICE: Go away little boy. It’s unlikely someone of your intellectual caliber can understand or engage enough to change your mind, but if you do it will destroy your job prospects in the oligarch set in which you move. Leave while you can. You’ve been warned.

                    40. You mean, as in 32 books traditionally published and making a living from it?
                      Thanks. Have been doing that for years. Are you really that stupid? Or are you pretending?

                    41. No, asshole. The donate money button is because I give away these posts for nothing, and people INSISTED they wanted to donate, and a laborer is worthy of his pay.

                    42. are you serious? Even Kevin J. Anderson has a donate button.
                      You know what’s amazing? You return despite my calling you names. The only people who do that are paid to troll.
                      So, buffing knobs for Russian oligarchs not paying enough, and you took a side job, did you?

                    43. You may or may not have ever heard of an author named Jerry Pournelle, who sadly passed away.

                      He not only had a donate button, but offered “subscriptions” for his page.

                    44. Some people display their ignorance but you manage to flaunt yours.

                      Award-winning, best-selling authors do not give their writing away except as “free samples.” The “donate” button is a tool common to a majority of blogs, and your mocking of it conveys far more about your Eurotrash callowness than it does about Mrs. Hoyt’s book sales.

                      No need to even engage in discussion over what constitutes “success” for an author; many sell vast numbers of books that influence nobody, others sell small numbers that move great powers, and neither metric is sufficient to determine the success of an author. Das Kapital, Vol. 1 took five years to sell a thousand copies in Germany yet few would deny its influence although many would debate whether that influence is malign or benign.

                    45. Yesterday I wrote you a message saying that I respect you, because although you have some incorrect ideas, you are at least honest.

                      But now you walk into Sarah Hoyt’s virtual living room, and insult your hostess to her face, implying that the “Donate” button that she put up there means that she cannot have had any success as an author. The fact that this insult is contrary to the facts, which you could have found out with a cursory glance at Amazon’s web site, is almost beside the point. (It implies intellectual laziness, but I’d be willing to forgive that given that you are dashing these comments off. One cannot do one’s homework properly when the comment takes less than a minute to write). The greater offense against good manners, though, and the thing that has lost you my respect, was insulting your hostess in her virtual living room. That is not behavior worthy of a guest. You should either apologize, or leave.

                    46. You should either apologize, or leave.

                      He said yesterday that he was leaving. I think he may be incapable of finding the door.

                      You have to give him credit for his classless denunciation of Sarah as “Classy!”

                    47. He’s really very rude, but that’s typical of European “Aristocrats” (His husband is titled.)
                      Which is why we call them “Eurotrash”
                      I cut him the slack one has to cut such barbarians.
                      It was only his absolute refusal to engage and continuous every minute posting, which almost always is the mark of a paid troll, that got him banned.

                    48. In defense of his relative idiocy: donations on this blog kept me going the year I was too ill to finish books. It wasn’t much — this is more on the order of tips than a salary, partly because I don’t rattle the donation can anymore — but it kept us from having to borrow money during the move.
                      And now I can finish books and write articles, and eh. Once the boys are done with their educations (two years and a bit) we’ll be doing very well indeed.
                      But just because it helped me when I was ill doesn’t negate that I’m a successful, professional author. It’s just we don’t have job benefits.
                      Oh, and all this probably means he thinks we’re the plebe, since again he was born rich and married a titled gentleman. Sigh. Entitled and dumb is no way to go through life, but it’s his lot.

                    49. But just because it helped me when I was ill doesn’t negate that I’m a successful, professional author.

                      My understanding is that even some of the most successful authors have occasional slow/dead periods. I’m just hoping to get all mine out of the way at the start. 😉

                    50. If such authors as Theodore Sturgeon can suffer dry spells (see tale of the origin of his “And Now The News …”) I think “lesser” writers can, too.

                      OTOH, Louis L’Amour claims to have never suffered such, so …

                    51. …its seems the concept may be foreign to you, but some people have a sense of honor which causes them to wish to someone that provides a good or service which they enjoy, when and if they can.

                      It is, indeed, a classy move that she made to put up the tip jar after years of people asking that she do so.

                    52. The donate button that’s there because we demanded the ability to pay Sarah for her blog, over and above what we pay for her books?

                      Do you think we would not wish to pay her for her labour?

                      Are you calling us thieves, sir?

                    53. You went there. Seriously?

                      This blog provides enough value for money to us that we are happy to compensate Sarah for the time she spends on it. I wouldn’t pay for the powder to blow you to hell, you supercilious swine.

                    54. Nit: Hitler liquidated 12 million, of which half were Jews.

                      Let’s not understate his performance.

                    55. Sorry. I counted Jews, because the rest gets really fuzzy after a while. If you include all who died of diseases and malnutrition in his damned war, probably more like 15 million.

                    56. IIRC, the other 6 million were gypsies, gays, disabled, and other “undesireables” that were killed outside of the war.

                    57. Apologies – being Jewish, I grew up with the 6 million figure, and now it annoys me when people use it, because it’s so incomplete.

                      One of my buttons, I guess.

                    58. Hitler tally was six million Jews, once you add Slavs, Roma, Catholics, Dissidents and Homosexuals, the tally at least doubles.

                    59. This pretentious idiot and Lord of the Non-Argument should be introduced to Clamps, the other pretentious idiot and Master of Projection and No Brain. They can have lovely circular arguments which will either have them end up in bed together, or the latter threatening to kill the former when he eventually loses his temper. Either way, they’d leave us alone for a while… and we can have delightful actually intelligent discussions again.

                    60. I banned him Matthew. At any rate, he’d not answer you, just call you stupid, LOL and declare you failed “aristotelean logic.”
                      It was like playing chess with a pigeon, so he’s gone.

                  2. The Birkenhead drill is an extreme example of a weak patriarchy heavily impinged on by a growing matriarchy.

                    The more patriarchal, the more likely the women are to be let drown.

                  3. Correction, in a Christian patriarchy.

                    You’ve got to have a culture that doesn’t have the “being weaker means you’re a valid victim” mentality.

                3. Good sir, *I* understood it was about the relative (to the USA) strangeness of the behavior at the door in Portugal. Note my species – not exactly thought of as all that swift.

                  And yes, there is some historical reason for a Lady to have doors held open – hoopskirts. But simply highlight how strange the behavior is to an outsider who grew up with “holding the door for the lady is the polite thing to do.”

                  Are there aspects of both patri- and matri- archy? Of course. Proportion varies. In an ideal world they would be merely balanced, but would be unnoticed and un-cared about. But we live in a non-ideal world, with various -archies to go along with frictional pulleys and mass-having ropes, etc. That superconductors exist at all here is probably some sort of design flaw.

                  1. That, I think, is the interesting aspect of this discussion. How does it break down in practice.
                    The author cited patriarchy in Portugal which I know well, and completely agree with her thoughts. But not far from Portugal is France, where I live, and here we have our own variety. I imagine much of the world saw the video of what happened when a female congresswoman went to parliament wearing a dress…

                    1. We shouldn’t have given the GIs condoms in WWII. The french REALLY needed better gene lines.

                    2. I think those had less to do with avoiding pregnancy (although, world-round, the US military has exhibited a consistent concern over gals latching on to an American GI, Gyrene or Swabbie as her route out of whatever hellhole we sent our troops to) than it was for fear of catching the French Disease.

                  2. the polite thing to do
                    I miss “polite”. The progs turned “polite” into PC, and thereby ruined it.

                    1. Actually, it seems the progs turned polite into non-PC. Hold the door for a ladyfemale snowflake and watch the head explode.

                    2. Yep, had one to that, so i released the door and walked away, and her complaints turned to “HOW DARE YOU LET THE DOOR HIT ME AND WALK AWAY!!!”

                    3. I’ve had a few variations on that…where the main reason I didn’t get my tail maimed is because I’m tiny, and female, and folks were already bristling at the other person for the FIRST half of the exchange…..

                      Not that I figured that out for years. /idiot

                    4. It was the newest subversion of “polite.”

                      The prior one was screaming at people who you KNOW will not scream back, and assaulting folks you know won’t. (ie, spitting at soldiers, formalizing the “my annoying cousin, don’t mind him” for public interaction.)

                4. It wasn’t that difficult to understand.

                  *curious* Then how on earth did you manage to read white and say black?

                  Or are you oddly claiming you understood, and then turned it inside out on purpose?

                  Or are you thinking in shorthand or something…..?

                  About the only relation I can figure is that the “hold a door for a lady” thing is what happens when you had a tradition of “men go through first” and then they start working to display a graceful deference– but it’s even more lovely because if a guy goes up to hold open the door, he’s looked through it first, so he knows it is safe, and it’s a sort of lovely, silent complement.

                  1. Then how on earth did you manage to read white and say black?

                    If I felt like giving benefit of the doubt (I don’t, but let’s presume for a moment) I’d note that thinking you understand and actually understanding have no necessary relationship with each other. It’s one of the effects of being deep in Dunning-Krueger.

                    1. Eh, point– especially since if I try to repeat back what someone said, and they say that isn’t right, I ask them to explain it in a different way– rather than insisting that it’s simple, and I just don’t know what I say.

                5. Not only does your reading comprehension suck, it sucks along with your grasp of English, well partnered with your total inability to grasp a clue. I am quite astounded that you are managing to use a keyboard to spew your idiocy all over this discussion.

            2. Son, you really need to read what’s written, not what you imagine, and then think a bit before posting. Your comments here are laughable.

              1. Your comment is an interesting example in and of itself of social structures and slants. What’s the intention of calling someone you don’t know “son”? Not once but twice.

                1. Nope, you’re definitely not from the South. Your own “social structures and slants” are so obvious to all of us who don’t share them; you probably don’t even realize you have them (fish don’t notice the water they swim in, after all…). I’ll just end with, “Bless your heart.” You probably won’t get that either. 🙂

                    1. For some reason, can’t reply to the proper thread but isn’t it interesting how the left has evolved past left/right arguments. Rather arrogant.

                    2. Well, that illuminates a lot. He’s probably never been exposed to anything remotely like US southern society. Poor child…

                    3. Well, actually there are aspects of French society that are similar to Southern US society. Cooking, mostly. But if you watch Chef Pepin, he’s always bringing up things about his rural childhood in France that rural Southern Americans can understand, and vice versa. I think it’s one of his hidden secrets to success.

                    4. Going off of the food and dribs/drabs I’ve picked up, the RURAL part of the French thing there might be the relevant part, there.

                      City thinking vs country thinking is really a thing.

                    5. banshee, The parts of southern cooking that are similar to French cooking basically ARE French cooking brought down from Canada by French Acadians when they settled the Louisiana area after being forced out of Canada when it changed hands from the French to the English in the 1700.

                  1. “Bless your heart” – not being from the South myself, I’m confident I miss the nuance, but I’m pretty sure I’m right in thinking it doesn’t mean what the words say individually. I suspect it’s in the same category as my Aunt (God bless her) who would express her contempt by smiling beatifically and intoning “How… nice.”

                    1. Yeah, that’s pretty close. It means essentially, “I’m about to insult you, but I’m preemptively forgiving myself for it.”

                    2. Quote
                      Auntie Em Gale: Almira Gulch, just because you own half the county doesn’t mean that you have the power to run the rest of us. For twenty-three years, I’ve been dying to tell you what I thought of you! And now… well, being a Christian woman, I can’t say it!

                    3. There are two, depending on context:

                      1. An actual blessing. uttered when sincerely touched by someone’s thoughtfulness.

                      2. A put-down, uttered to indicate someone is in some way deficit. It implies that someone’s effort is their best, but cannot measure up to standard. Think of a parent heartily praising a young child’s stick figure drawing. A variation is “That’s precious.”

              2. As I noted above (in a snarky fashion), he’s attempting to use a strawman fallacy in his “argument”. Rather than argue the point written, he argues a point he constructed all on his own that is only tangentially related to the actual point.

              1. Real patriarchy isn’t limited to cliches. It’s about a power structure. A generalised power structure. One where a particular group dominates, say, the legal system, the political system, the system of higher education and so forth.

                  1. At first I thought The Pink Agendist was just misunderstanding, but reading more comments, I realize The Pink Agendist chose the name well. Obviously, your words must be retrofitted to fit the Agenda. Carry on, well-named Agendist, but with the understanding you are adding NOTHING to this conversation.

                    1. And therefore he’s winning! Did you see that scathing reply to what someone should have said? It was epic.

                    2. Is that not the classic leftist approach?
                      Create a strawman superficially similar to the real issue, but built with embedded flaws that allow one to pick it to pieces. Works wonderfully well just so long as you refuse to allow reality to pierce your bubble universe.
                      Of course we on the other side of the bubble are free to mock and point fingers at the highly entertaining display inside.

                1. Quick test question: is there anything governing societies other than power structures? Are there any other structures in existence? If so, can you provide examples?

                  1. Aristocracy was the main social structure until the late 18th century. It went hand in hand with patriarchy and the divine rights of nobles. Now we’ve got various imperfect forms of meritocracy being attempted (some with, others without patriarchy and class-ism playing a role.)
                    Mrs. Thatcher, for example, thought the British system was more patriarchal and classist than meritocratic, and that’s why she had such a hard time making a place for herself in the Tory party.

                    1. Do you know what words mean? Aristocracy is not a social structure and if somehow it was and was the main social structure then we would lack the grand history of “bloody peasants” much less “guildmen” or “yeomanry” (the later of which was Jefferson’s hope for America).

                      I think you mean class in some form was the main social structure.

                      Regardless, I see you dodged my question. If there any governing social structure that is not a power structure? Are their hierarchies in any society not based on power?

                    2. I see you’re not a fan of Plato 🙂 I’m referring to aristocracy as described in Republic. A state composed of castes and ruled by the elite. This was the case in Europe in most if not all areas of life until the late 18th century. In certain parts it remained the case until reasonably recently. Spain had a monarchy replaced with a dictatorship, but the aristocratic system remained. Some argue it still remains today.
                      Of course governing structures are based on power – so the only real question here is who holds the controlling interest? I think most of the evidence points to it being men of European lineage. We are the heirs to the pre-revolutionary gentlemen/gentilshommes.
                      Do you really feel boys in America are no longer pressured to compete or succeed at all? In Europe there was an incredible spike in male suicides (across the board on ages) during the financial crisis. In Greece it was at shocking rates while female suicides barely fluctuated. At the time psychiatrist after psychiatrist proposed the idea this was due to the pressure on males to achieve, to “provide”. Being judged on accomplishment. Do you really think those pressures have evaporated from US society?

                    3. so the only real question here is who holds the controlling interest?
                      Except that is NOT the only real question. Society is much more than mere power structures. That is part of the progressive (particularly ‘intersectionality’) indoctrination, though – the idea that everything is based in power and power “structures”. If you move beyond that reductionist ideology, the world makes much more sense (though it’s no less crazy).

                    4. No, I’m disagreeing with your progressive indoctrination that everything is related to power structures.
                      Nowhere does Sarah state that, that I read. As a matter of fact, you’re the first one to use “power” in this thread, as relates “power structure” or anything of the sort.

                      I’ve posted several comments related to non-power ‘structures’ already and won’t repeat myself.

                    5. You’re certainly trying to have it both ways.
                      The point is that not everything derives from patriarchy v matriarchy. Several of your attempted arguments have tried to use things that are NOT derived from power structures, to argue ABOUT power structures.

                      Do try to keep up.

                2. The power structure is not determined by who owns what, nor by who slaves away at what jobs. The power structure is determined by who decides. In the United States most decisions, particularly the spending decisions, are made by women.

                  CONSUMER | 04-02-2013
                  Women have tremendous spending power in America today—and it’s growing. Market estimates about their total purchasing power varies, ranging anywhere from $5 trillion to $15 trillion annually. And the scope of that spending is notably vast. Fleishman-Hillard Inc. estimates that women will control two-thirds of the consumer wealth in the U.S. over the next decade and be the beneficiaries of the largest transference of wealth in our country’s history—compelling insight for anyone curious about who’s keeping the U.S. economy going these days.

                  Emphasis added.

                  Men work in the legal system (a system that is extremely demanding of its workers time and energies) legal system (ditto), system of higher education (well, in America that one is dominated by females and eunuchs) and so forth in order to command the attention and respect of women.

                  You are missing the forest for the trees, Pinky.

                  1. “The secret to my 50 years of happy marriage is that all the big decisions, I had the last word; all the little ones, she had the last word..and in 50 years, do you know we never had a single big decision?”


                    More seriously, in a normal, happy family the woman will usually “control financial decisions,” because she’s more likely to be home, doing “mail” stuff, especially if he doesn’t have an office job.

                    This can lead to some really funny things in ages/groups where of course the husband’s name is on everything, and where guys’ signature on a check is turned down because it “doesn’t match the one on file.” (in a couple of cases, the lady had been signing for him for at least 40 years!)

                    1. In that sense, I’m glad my bank doesn’t check signatures, because I’m pretty sure I have three distinct families of signatures, depending on circumstance.

                3. No, no. This is really funny. Ask him:

                  1. who holds the most uni degrees and whether this number is rising or falling?
                  2. Whose learning style is privileged from grammar school on?
                  3. Whose learning challenges are addressed, with both local and national government, private corporate, and non-profit sectors contributing millions?
                  4. Whose learning challenges are completely ignored?
                  5. Which group can safely mock and / or publically insult the other without social, institutional or legal consequence?
                  6. Which group gets arrested, convicted, and received the most severe punishments for the same crime?

                  And finally, because I really could use a good laugh, ask him what evidence would falsify his claim?

                  1. Disagreement on #6, mostly because of tainted evidence– there IS a difference between a bigger person slapping a smaller person, and a smaller person slapping a bigger one, but they’re all reported the same. What’s why judges are supposed to judge.

                    I think it is LIKELY that there is unjust treatment in equal crimes, on balance, but the sample is so madly different it’s hard to figure.

                4. “It’s about a power structure.”

                  Such as the one that entitles a privileged white male like yourself to “speak for” women, “people of color”, etc.? Is that the kind of “power structure” you’re talking about?

                    1. Well, of course, it’s clearly obvious that he, like all leftists, don’t consider the women who dare have an opposing opinion / doesn’t agree with is world view, ‘human’; thus, he will have already discarded the very basic rules of civility which he oh so loudly demands that we uphold. Because after all, ‘the lesser folk must bow to their betters’ no matter what false egalitarismus he pretends to wave around.

                      Thus his “Huh? What women? What people of color are you speaking of?” with the implied “I see none here!” (Because only the obedient mind-slaves get the ‘consideration’ we grant them!)

                5. So, let’s say we can divide a country into two groups elam and emmef. Let’s say we research the legal system, specifically the criminal side, in a given culture and find that elam are more likely to be convicted of criminal charge for a given crime and when convicted face longer sentences on average for a given crime.

                  Would you consider that culture an elamarchy where the elam have generalized power?

            3. Pink Agendist, please reread. The men are supposed to go first, and the women are actively getting out of the way to make sure that happens. That’s the example.

            4. “Between that, and women backing to let him go through doors first” – is an allusion to men letting women go first, isn’t it?

              Not even close. For women to have to back up, they’d have to have gotten there first, and then retreated.

        2. Some of your implied examples (holding the door open for women) have a function within a classical patriarchal system.

          According to whom, and how did you determine they knew what they were talking about?

          1. According to the function of the behaviour; As someone mentioned below the women and children first custom is a patriarchal concept. Captain is the last to leave the vessel is also a patriarchal custom. That means it doesn’t begin or end with perceived advantages.

            1. Actually, not necessarily. That is your own narrow definition within your own narrow perspective and you don’t even realize it

            2. You really have no clue whatsoever on the reasons for social behaviors, do you? Holding doors open for women and the elderly is a sign of respect, as is voluntarily giving up your seat on public transportation for the same. For many of us, those behaviors are extended to anyone we meet who isn’t actively belligerent. But I’m sure you’ve never considered respect for others as a social behavior. Bless your heart.

              1. *nod*

                “I may be strong…but I am willingly giving you this. It’s a matter of respect. Respect granted, not demanded, not forced.”

                See all the cheesy cards about true strength being willing to be weak– or, maybe, just spend a bit of time with good theology.


                1. I’m here to listen

                  Except you haven’t actually listened to anything anybody has said. And your idea of “debate” seems to not recognize that “The Argument Clinic” is a comedy sketch, not a how-to.

                  1. While you’re busy attempting personal attacks, I’m trying to discuss the actual topic. How’s that for debate technique? If you don’t want to discuss the topic with me, why not move along?

                    1. Oh son, you don’t get to come into our house and tell us to move along because we don’t behave as you’d prefer. That’s fairly rude of you, that is…

                    2. I’m wondering if he thinks naming his place of residence and profession is an attack? If he does, I wonder why?
                      Also, he’s all stompy-foot because we won’t argue what he wants in his own terms. It’s all strawman/attack/strawman/attack, and we won’t play. I bet he’s pouty-lipped too.

                    3. I’m trying to discuss the actual topic.

                      You think that was a personal attack? You’re cute.

                      You aren’t attempting to discuss anything. You’re making pronouncements from on high and getting offended that people aren’t falling all over themselves, swooning at your insight.

                      You started, your very first comment, by attempting to change the topic from what Sarah actually said to things that you “inferred” that came purely from your imagination. Your entire “argument” has been to make pronouncements and expect them to be accepted simply because you say them. How women in the south are treated? Why don’t you relate to us your actual experience with how women in the south are treated. How about provide any actual evidence for anything you’ve said so far because until you do, Hitchen’s Rule applies.

                    4. “That’s not how this works; That’s not how any of this works.”

                      It’s not all about you.

                    5. Here is what you consider a “personal attack”:

                      “You haven’t actually listened to anything anybody has said.” – Subject is your ability to debate reasonably.

                      “Your idea of “debate” seems to not recognize that “The Argument Clinic” is a comedy sketch, not a how-to.” – Subject is your ability to debate reasonably.

                      Both of these are completely impersonal, and are only attacking your debate style, not you personally. And your response is to claim that these are “personal attacks”. Ha! You are proving thewriterinblack’s point for him: that you do not understand how to debate.

                      I’ll say this much in your favor: though you are utterly confused about how to debate properly (including what constitutes a “personal attack”), at least you seem honest. We’ve seen several people show up who were flat-out liars, and were eventually proven to be so. You are not acting like a liar, and in that much, at least, you have my respect. I can respect someone who honestly believes wrong ideas. And once you learn the difference between attacking someone’s bad debating style and attacking that person, and learn how to listen to what the other person is actually saying (as opposed to what you think they’re saying), you’ll probably be worth having a conversation with.

                      In the meantime, though, I’m afraid it’s not currently worth our time to talk to you. You’re not learning anything from it, and the fact that you’re totally missing the point of what people are telling you means that you’re never going to succeed in changing our minds about anything either. So since neither party has the remotest chance of persuading the other one, it’s not worth continuing this conversation.

                      But once you’ve figured out what people were actually saying to you, and learned to distinguish that from your pre-conceived ideas about what you think they’re going to say, then do come back. At that point, it will probably be interesting to talk to you. You’re someone whose ideas are so fundamentally at odds with most of mine (and probably the same is true of most of the other regulars around here), so if you can listen to what we’re saying, THEN we could have an interesting debate.

                      For now, though, au revoir.

                    6. It’s fascinating how many comments just questioning group “convention” generates here 🙂 I suppose this is what people mean when they say *snowflakes*. How many of you have felt the need to message me?

                    7. Now he’s nattering about group convention. Does anyone have Larry’s check list? Are we at “you sound angry” yet?
                      Young man, you got a lot of comments because people couldn’t understand why you were responding to things no one said, and shouting your ill informed opinions to all and sundry, to try to get us to terrain you ARE comfortable in.
                      Now you’ve self identified as a persistent troll, you will be left to molder under the fridge.
                      I’m just sorry you have Portuguese ancestry.

                    8. Actually, I barely got started on a Masters. Unless you count my pilot ‘tickets’.
                      (But I also learned a LOT outside of any formal training/education. I just don’t have any sheepskins on my wall for that.)

                    9. I only have a four-year degree (Data Processing Major) but I read a lot and I’m willing to listen to people with more knowledge than me (on whatever the subject being discussed).

                    10. Haven’t you been railing against measuring a lad’s worth by their success?

                      As for your success, I’ve seen no demonstration of it therefore it is merely rumored.

                      Sometimes success is indicative of no greater attribute than a knack for sucking up ingratiating yourself to the right people. See: Weinstein, H.

                    11. This reminds me of a recent discussion about how Americans ought have the “finger dipped in ink” rule for elections. But I wouldn’t dip the index finger, nor the ring nor the pinkie or thumb. My way, when asked, “Have you voted?” we could not only offer evidence of doing so we could express our view of the candidates offered.

                    12. Just out of curiosity, what’s the average education level here?

                      College to graduate degress. I, personally, have my degree in physics and have been working for the past twenty years in Nanotechnology and Surface Science.

                      How about you?

                      Mind you, I also recognize that people with high school diplomas or even GED’s or, frankly, not even that, can have thoughts that are worth listening too and considering. It’s the ideas and arguments that matter, not who presents or holds them. Worrying about the latter is considered “argument ad…” Come on, you can finish that. Right?

                    13. And people here tend to have more education than they have. If you know what I mean. Or as Alex Pournelle’s calls us “Hoyt’s home for the tragically gifted.”

                    14. To be fair, the guy’s French.

                      Credentialism as a substitute for actual knowledge and skills seems to be a cultural thing over there.

                    15. Speaking of, I got to hit Tombstone.

                      The entire FREAKING TOWN is one big infotainment unit– although I wanted to hug the guy with a modern 9mm who gracefully and kindly handled a lady asking him where XYZ was, assuming he was a cosplayer.
                      “Actually, ma’am, I just live here, but the BEST show is every couple of hours a few doors down that way, and the funniest one is down this road to the right– if you ask the gentleman at the crosswalk, he can tell you all the stuff and change it depending on who you’ve got with you.” *significant look at the baby next to grandma*

                      We were at the ice cream shop, if anybody knows the area. ^.^ He was right, too.

                    16. Can’t speak for the average, Pinky – final exam and thesis short of an MA in Public Administration, here. My heart wasn’t really in the degree, I just took the classes because I was single and bored.

                    17. Hi, Celia
                      Excellent. Individual perspectives make for interesting discussions. Did you feel pressures in the academic world which you think may have been based on how the system is organised?
                      Or even before that, pressure to conform to certain roles or ideals?

                    18. I bailed on the academic world as soon as I could after getting a BA, Pinky. And I felt no particular pressure to conform to any academic/intellectual roles or ideals. I went into the military, and a male-dominated military specialty … which for the academic/intellectual sphere is about as nonconformist as one can be and still reside on the same planet. The Administration classes were offered as part of continuing education for active-duty military members at the base where I was assigned.
                      At the time (mid-1970s), women were being encouraged to be all that they could be. So in answer to your final question – nope.

                    19. No, it was fantastic – got to see the world, meet new and interesting people and …
                      Retire with a small pension and turn to writing historical novels.

                    20. Ditto.

                      I ran into a lot more folks who were sexist because I didn’t act like they supposed women were supposed to act than I did folks who were against me because I’m a woman.

                      Most of the sexist folks were female…..

                    21. I suppose that you do not realize that intrusive personal questions are considered rude?

                      A bit patronizing, as well.

                    22. No, RES, here I must intervene. It’s an European thing. Yes, they come across as really rude, but they don’t realize it. It’s the way they treat each other, too.

                    23. Their inability to realize they’re rude is no excuse, it is an expression of their arrogance in presuming to treat others as children.

                    24. I’m at the low end around here – a master’s degree in engineering..

                      I’m pretty sure we have at least a few “herr Doktor Doktor” types around.

                    25. That is kind of an ignorant question, Pinky, as if all degrees were comparable. By all evidence, a Baccalaureate from a state school forty years ago represents a higher attainment than a contemporary Master’s degree from an Ivy League school.

                      Beyond that, you are conflating certification with intellectual capacity, a tendentiously tautological argument.

                      Additionally, Rules of Evidence dictate that expertise, as demonstrated by educational attainment, is only relevant if applicable to specific subject matter. A Doctor of Philosophy may well have less relevant knowledge than a plumber’s apprentice if the subject at hand is sinks.

                    26. felt the need to message me

                      Wow, that’s breathtaking. Do you not understand what “open forum” means or are you talking about all those email notifications that come to you because you click “notify me about new comments” checkbox sends when folk post comments in which case you do not understand how WordPress works?

                    27. Apparently.
                      Look, he’s pretty, his life partner is ALMOST famous, and they make a living polishing Southern French castles for Russian olygarchs. I don’t think brains are a requirement.
                      This will be called a personal attack, but in view of the stunning lack of understanding of how comments in wordpress work… well…
                      I mean, even the one of you who researched him (yes, you know who. It’s a sick hobby) doesn’t have his email, but lookitthat.

                    28. How many people have actually messaged him? As opposed to just replying? Anyone? Bueller?

                      This post only has about 250 replies. Compared to some of our threads, this is nothing.

                    29. I don’t think ANYONE messaged him. As I said, the guy who got me his particulars (yes, he does this for a hobby, and it’s not hard, since this critter has his website on his comment) doesn’t have his email. So, how would anyone else?

                    30. On the “messaged me” thing, this one I’m willing to chalk up to miscommunication due to speaking a second language. I thought that what he meant was not “sent me a private message”, but “replied (publicly) to my comment”. But he didn’t know the right word, so he used one that, unbeknownst to him, had other connotations than he intended.

                      I have no evidence for this — I don’t know what the current French word is for “replying on a public forum” — but my gut feeling is that that’s all he meant.

                    31. It’s not the questioning that’s the issue– I’ve done that at least a dozen times, and I’m a relative newb.

                      The issue is questioning the group consensus on the basis of basically your own judgement plus objectively unsupported claims.

                    32. While you’re busy attempting personal attacks, I’m trying to discuss the actual topic.

                      Only in the sense that you’re arguing that the “actual topic” is something other than what it is, not that you’re arguing inside of the actual topic.

                    33. Just out of curiosity, what’s the average education level here?

                      Son, in my day we showed it to our own division before showing off around the whole boat. They would worn us if we were going to embarrass ourselves.

                      Average level? Probably graduate degree on top of a dual major undergraduate with most people having some kind of STEM.

                      Personally I have a BS in Mathematics with a Minor in Computer Science and most of a Minor in both History and Economics…it was to be a double major/double minor but I was itching to get out of college after two years back (and one year prior to nine years in the military).

                      In addition I have everything for an AS in Nuclear Engineering (if I want do the paperwork and the fees and I have it) and attended graduate school in both CS and Mathematics.

                      I was also a qualified nuclear power plant operator and radiological worker so I have the schooling but haven’t been in the field in a while so appropriate permission slips are not present. The former also means I’m a steam plant operator.

                      I am also a welder who at his peak could pull a consumable insert on a 1″ schedule 80 pipe and have no occlusions on X-Ray greater than 1/64″.

                      I make my living at the intersection of finance, mathematics, and computer programming. I’m working on a career transition to writer of fiction.

                      I am one of the least skilled and least educated people here.

                      What you done with your life, Sparky?

                    34. Heh. You remind me of a guy I know who had been a nuclear tech in a sub before mustering out and earning* his degree in what he already new better than his teachers. Poor schmuck couldn’t even correct instructor errors because his knowledge was classified.

                      *I think he earned it by not screaming at instructors when they spouted nonsense to the class.

                    35. *gets curious about how many credits are needed for a Master’s*


                      ….30? Freaking THIRTY?

                      I got over 60, some Master’s level, just for doing my job in the Navy. Suddenly I understand why colleges required you get at least half of your credits from them!

                    36. I think that is in addition to the Bachelors’ degree, which premises 120, so 150 hours, total. And thesis, of course, the oral examination for which permits any with impure thoughts to be struck down.

                    37. Just out of curiosity, what’s the average education level here?


                      Now, then: Why did you say we should take you seriously? That is relevant, for, in not presenting cites in support of your conjecture, you are presenting an argument by assertion.

                    38. Sorting through information and identifying the patterns which indicate what groups have greater or lesser control in societies is fairly straightforward.
                      If I wanted to, for example, identify which Rwandan ethnic group has the most power/control in that country, I’d choose the factors that best correlate to power in society, and then attempt to discern who scores highest in each category.
                      The Hutu’s would come out on top in most categories, from political power to financial influence, to media presence.

                      Of course an argument can be made that the traditional measures are insufficient to paint a complete picture, but that doesn’t mean they don’t paint a very important part of the picture.

                    39. I’m not asserting, I’m proposing a measurement to identify a pattern. Do you have a scale that you feel better measures who controls power?

                      An argument by assertion would involve dismissing evidence that contradicts the existence of the pattern. The thing is a pattern can exist with exceptions, as long as the exceptions don’t outnumber the incidence of the pattern. Again, fairly straightforward mathematically.

                    40. An argument by assertion would involve dismissing evidence that contradicts the existence of the pattern.

                      No. An argument by assertion is to put forth a claim of fact absent any evidentiary or logical support.

                      An example would be: “An argument by assertion would involve dismissing evidence that contradicts the existence of the pattern.”

                      In rebuttal:

                      Argument by assertion – RationalWiki:
                      Argument by assertion is the logical fallacy where someone tries to argue a point by merely asserting that it is true, regardless of contradiction.

                      assertion – Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary[DOT]com:
                      An assertion is a declaration that’s made emphatically, especially as part of an argument or as if it’s to be understood as a statement of fact.

                      As for your claim that you are “I’m proposing a measurement to identify a pattern.” …

                      Again, No. You are asserting a single particular simplistic mode which is inadequate to the task assigned, as if you were proposing measuring volume to determine mass. Having earned undergraduate minors* in Cultural Anthropology and Sociology I find your proposed scale to be woefully naive and inadequate. People spend years analysing the formal, informal and sub-formal patterns of cultures to make precisely the power structures you so glibly toss off. Your analysis is superficial at best, and lacks any rigor or analysis.

                      *N.B., this is an appropriate demonstration of argument from authority, establishing a relevant authority which is clearly related to the topic under discussion.

                    41. You talk about Aristotelian logic a lot; then go on to base multiple arguments on logical fallacies (strawman arguments, appeals to authority, arguments by assertion).

                      To paraphrase a certain movie: You keep using those words, I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

                    42. I’m 6 credits shy of my Bachelor’s in History, and about 18 to 20 hours short of a Bachelor’s in Theater Arts, why does the level of education matter?

                    43. Double major in history and political science.
                      Master’s degree in International Affairs.
                      TL:DR summary: My credentials say I know more about how the world works than you do, and you’re wrong.
                      Unless, of course, you’d prefer to argue based on knowledge instead of credentials, in which case most of the people you’re lecturing have you beat all hollow.

                    44. Again, No. You are asserting a single particular simplistic mode which is inadequate to the task assigned, as if you were proposing measuring volume to determine mass. Having earned undergraduate minors* in Cultural Anthropology and Sociology I find your proposed scale to be woefully naive and inadequate. People spend years analysing the formal, informal and sub-formal patterns of cultures to make precisely the power structures you so glibly toss off. Your analysis is superficial at best, and lacks any rigor or analysis.

                      What leaped out at me was the word “feel.” What we feel is irrelevant to what is.

                    45. That’s amusing. So is your point that we shouldn’t try to measure who controls society, or that it simply can’t be measured? Neither sounds like a serious argument.

                    46. Okay, guys, he’s a robot who won’t engage. At any rate engaging would be bad for him, because then he would lose his wealthy patrons. Also I’m tired of unearned superiority from someone too dumb to understand wordpress and too indoctrinated to understand history.
                      I don’t know how he got here so quickly after the post went up, or what the hell he’s doing posting every five minutes, but everything screams troll.
                      Ban hammer? What say you?

                    47. Neither sounds like a serious argument.

                      ….Right, because you’ve displayed any sort of ability to make an argument, much less judge their quality.

                    48. Do you purchase your straw men singly or in gross lots?

                      I cannot decide whether your reading comprehension is simply inadequate to the task attempted or whether you are being deliberately obtuse. The assertion put forward has been that your reductio ad absurdum of analysis of cultural power is too flimsy a structure for the task you’ve assigned it.

                      The question of who controls society is far vaster than the single dimensional measure you (and others who rant about patriarchy, matriarchy and power structures in general) want to apply. The question is sufficiently complex that it exceeds any reasonable boundary of discussion in a venue such as this; it is the stuff of doctoral theses, not blog posts, and bringing you up to the level of comprehension required for such discussion seems improbable.

                      Have you never looked up Dunning-Kruger Effect, nor in a mirror?

                    49. So is your point that we shouldn’t try to measure who controls society

                      I don’t know why I try, but I essay:

                      This statement here shows such a profound ignorance that you can’t even ask meaningful questions. It’s a null statement. There is no answer to it as worded. It assumes a strict hierarchy that totalitarian regimes may approach but that never actually achieve.

                      Consider the barnyard example of a “pecking order”. Anyone who actually knows chickens knows that this is laughable. It’s not a hierarchical order but a collection of interacting relationships. Likewise with canids. I’m a “dog person”. When I acquire a new dog, the dogs among them will establish their own internal dominance structures. However, despite the fact that I am “alpha” to all the previous dogs (I have to be since the dogs have to exist in mutual safety in human society) I still have to establish my individual dominance over the new dog even if it is subordinate to the other dogs. Individual relationships, not a fixed hierarchy. “Hachi” is subordinate to me. We get “Trunks”. Trunks is subordinate to Hachi. (Hachi’s got real attitude–the Pit Bull twice her weight is subordinate to her.) This does not mean that Trunks will automatically be subordinate to me. I have to establish that separately. And, incidentally, were I to fail to do so (purely a hypothetical in this case) that would not mean that Hachi, dominant over Trunks, would automatically become dominant over me. “Dominance loops” can, and in fact, do, exist.

                      Thus, the whole idea of “who controls society” does not, and indeed cannot have an answer. It’s like asking “how high is up”, or asking a person not affected with synesthesia what the color blue smells like (not a blue object, but the color itself).

                      Consider for instance the case of fashion. In China for a long time foot binding was a fashion. A horrible, horrible fashion. This is often described as being something imposed by men on women to force subervience on them. However, the book “Wild Swans”, which tells the tale of three generations of Chinese women spanning pretty much the 20th century (and was used as a text in the “China” class in World Civilizations in college) describes the last generation to practice foot binding (while Manchuria, which did not practice foot binding ruled over the rest of China). It wasn’t the men imposing it. It was imposed by other women.

                      Likewise with more mundane fashion choices. Men pretty much don’t care. At most men will be interested in whether or not the fashion shows off the female form because, for evolutionary reasons, men tend to highly approve of the female form. No, fashion choices and the impositions thereof are driven almost entirely by pressure between and among women. (Yes, many fashion designers are men–but much of that crap they go down the runway with is never actually worn in public. It’s more “performance art” than actual fashion.)

                      Most of the pressure placed on women in modern Western society are placed their by other women for the ostensible benefit of those other women. Men don’t control that. They may try to grab hold for the ride, but the control is firmly in women’s hands.

                      Indeed, one can also argue that many of the pressures on men are put on them by women for the benefit of women and children.

                      Consider the various mating rituals in the animal kingdom. The brilliant plumage and mating dances of male birds. The “fights” of rutting bucks. These things are designed to impress the female becuase it’s. the. female. that. chooses. While the male activity is more visible the actual power lies with the female.

                      Likewise with many of the things that people claim are “patriarchal” in American society. They are actually aspects of female power and female choice. And even there, it’s a matter of individual issues with multiple subgroups.

                      Consider, I’m Goth (well, perhaps “Goth-lite”). Among many folk that would automatically make me lower in their personal heirarchy simply from my choices of style, appreciation of the dark, and liking for music with dissonant tones and dark subject matter. On the other hand, I can show up at a major business, deal with businessmen in their three-piece suites and short, parted on the left hair while I’m dressed in black T’s and jeans, long black hair with a purple streak pulled into a pony tail, and black painted nails and they don’t say “boo”. Because I bring something to them that they can’t do and they know it. (BTW: if you have a Blu-Ray player, you’re welcome.)

                      There is no one who “controls society”. It’s a lot of individual interconnections and relationships that are always changing, a chaotic system at best.

                    50. There is no one who “controls society”. It’s a lot of individual interconnections and relationships that are always changing, a chaotic system at best.

                      Nicely expressed, and illuminating the basic failure of understanding expressed in virtually all Pinky wrote here. He failed to recognize that “social control” is often an illusion, as King John was forced to concede at Runnymede.

                      In fact, sometimes the greatest “social control” is that being exercised by the cat lying in the sun, allowing an other cat to “run” things.

                      Poor Pinky resembles Ralph Wiggum in a fight, windmilling his little arms wholly unaware that his opponent’s hand on his forehead is rendering every swing of his ineffectual.

                    51. Damn. I write that long, long comment and between the time I start it and the time I post it, he gets blocked so he’ll never see it. Well, hope someone else finds it interesting.

                    52. I’m 6 credits shy of my Bachelor’s in History, and about 18 to 20 hours short of a Bachelor’s in Theater Arts, why does the level of education matter?

                      It shifts the argument to the other person while simultaneously changing the subject. It’s an off-balancing technique,

                    53. My Pappy don’t hold with no book-learnin’. We’s learn from paddlin’ an’ whippin’, mostly.

                    54. yeah. That’s what he thinks. What a moron! But you know, he and his hubby buff palaces on the riviera for Russian holigarchs, so I’d think they’d make pretty good money. Apparently not, since he’s trolling for pay, as it’s self-evident.

                    55. No. This is what they consider “success” because they’re as rock bottom stupid. Hence the continuous barking for safe rooms, etc.
                      He’s probably right now reporting his success and “bravery”.
                      Bah. He’s lucky I’m not Larry. Larry would have gone to “insults” about a day ago.

                    56. Well, alright, I think I actually opened with a bit of an insult… but it seemed to have been ignored.

                      I suppose he can “look down his nose” at me… but all I see is some snot.

                2. Disagree. Your actions do not support “listen and debate.” The former is in quite short supply. The latter is not intelligently applied.

                  What you sound like is someone who has altogether too much “education” in the form of indoctrination and all too little practical experience. Viz: You have quite a lot of Socratic-style questions, but also lapse into pedantic “teaching.” Many young men who are impressed with their own intellect and eloquence fall into this trap, you aren’t unique in this. It isn’t cute, and it surely is not interesting.

                  To put it bluntly, you’ve stepped on your Richard, here. If you want to engage with people (have an actual debate instead of a b*tch and listen), learn your intended interlocutors. The fact that the people here aren’t engaging with you but are in the main mocking you is because you failed to do this. If you’re at all interested in “power structures” and sociology, how the heck could you miss the ones blazingly obvious in this community? And in the OP itself?

                  A hint, because I’m sure you believe you already know the answer: Because the things you believe to be true so deeply you’ve hardly even questioned them, if ever, are likely *wildly* different than the ones we believe. Your methods are deeply flawed, if you truly want to “listen and debate,” that is. Start with trying to understand what people here are saying. Take it from an old anthroplogist. You get two ears and only one tongue for a reason.

                  1. When I wrote my first question/comment, I didn’t know what sort of group this was; or that questioning was taken as an act of aggression. I try to engage with people from different camps (including the person who pointed me to this post) because I find the exchange interesting. This can of course be done in a benign and intellectually honest way.

                    1. Nope, you charged in here and tried to mansplain the patriarchy to women. You did not “engage”, you lectured, you made up straw men, you even tried a credentials challenge.
                      In short, you failed.

                    2. Arrogance and snobbery for the most part.

                      A soupcon of presumption, as well, by conflating academic achievement with intellectual capability. Back a decade or two ago it was noted that, in the main, people getting degrees in computer science knew less about computing than those who left school after a couple years to take jobs in the computer industry.

                      Academic achievement is primarily a signifier of a willingness to jump through academic hoops. It is achieved by mastering the conventional wisdom and telling one’s “superiors” what they want to hear.

                    3. The credentials challenge was even funnier than his thinking we were emailing him. This one is comedy gold guys. I think it has a little buzzer if you hit him hard enough.

                    4. It’s obvious you don’t know, because you wouldn’t have failed as hard as you did in that part up above, would you?

                    5. It can be. But tone is difficult to apply in text, and again, see above, we’ve seen this sort of thing before.

                      *anthropologist hat on* If you want to actually engage and have a conversation with people who come from a different culture than you (this one applies), do your homework. Listen a lot more than you speak. Do your own research. Try and understand, then apply (translate if you must) it to your own culture/language.

                      Your own words betray you here. When this culture hears “power structures” and “sociology” that doesn’t say to me “I want to have a conversation.” Or learn. Your comment on Plato was telling as well. Not what. *How.*

                      Nobody likes being lectured to. I know, I do it, too. Once again, with felling, if you want to engage with people, try to understand them first.

                      At the risk of sounding pedantic again, and apologies for the rant, what and who you are attempting to engage with are folks who value a few things highly, those being things like liberty, personal responsibility, dignity, honor, justice (NOT social justice, this is an abomination), etc. These can be found in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Anti-leftist is another decent descriptor.

                      If you really want that intellectual honesty and conversation, some humility *will* help. Figure out what you did wrong, apologise to who you wronged (if any) and make good on it. Eating crow sucks. Trust me, I’ve had to do it often enough when I stick my foot in my mouth. But it will make you a better man. Good luck.

                    6. Well, it was worth meeting a few interesting people, including you and Celia. But at this point I’m leaning towards thinking that an exchange where ideas develop isn’t really the function of the discussion. It seems to have more of an idea confirmation dynamic. Which is absolutely totally fine, and valid – but I’m personally more into the testing dynamic. I find it both more interesting and productive.
                      So I shall bow out and leave all to continue doing their thing 🙂

                    7. Exchange where ideas develop isn’t really the function of the discussion? Oy vey, lad. Our host is a writer, and a good few of the folks in the comments are as well. This particular thread you are in isn’t going to get many ideas because for many of the folks you are commenting with, this is a form of advertisement we’ve seen many, many times.

                      Ideas on things that *would* relate tangentially to “power structures” and sociology do come up quite often around here, don’t get me wrong. Politics is often in our conversations as well. Even meme-ified (example: ‘Posner is a moron’ comes up irregularly, as the man’s idiocy surfaces like a toad in a bog). Powerful ideas, like how to change an entire culture, bit by bit.

                      Bow out if you feel you must, or lurk about and read. But for the sake of understanding, do consider other viewpoints, and consider them seriously and critically. Ask how many of the folks here have read the Communist Manifesto, or Mein Kampf, etc. We *do* consider ideas outside the things we talk about here. We have to. Sometimes you learn more about what you really believe by looking at it from the outside, rather than the inside.

                    8. For ideas to develop doesn’t there have to be more flexibility?
                      I had a similar discussion recently where Melenchon supporters insisted his refusal to condemn the Venezuelan regime was “not up for discussion”. How does one move forward if ideas can’t be challenged?

                    9. For ideas to develop doesn’t there have to be more flexibility?

                      Well, since you don’t have any….

                      When you start my misrepresenting our hostess’s statements, and when called on it double down it’s hypocritical in the extreme to talk about flexibility.

                    10. *raises eyebrows* That’s an interesting question. Without any better definition than “more flexibility” I’m going to have to go back to research, as in lack of.

                      If you’ve not noticed, there has been quite a bit of challenge going on here. But here’s some flexibility, and it is pertinent to both the folks here and your implied question.

                      I, and many others here, believe that both the blessing and curse of freedom is the inextricable responsibility bound to it. In concrete terms, you are responsible for your own actions (each and every one of us). If I were to posit by “flexibility” you mean acquiescence to your chosen form of communication and exchange, I’d respond “not your house, not your rules.”

                      Certain things are *not* flexible, nor should they be. Principles. Things by which a man damns himself, should he transgress, even if no one else is around to see. Things like, oh, if you give your word, keep it. Keeping promises is one way people in this culture judge others. If your word is worthless, you are. Courtesy is extended where it is merited (and those limits are very broad), but when one acts discourteously, expecting courtesy in return is utter foolishness.

                      Put is plain. What ideas are you trying to challenge here? There’s been a lot of fluff and not much substance.

                      Side note. The whole patriarchy/matriarchy thing *is* rather hilarious sometimes. Because at *no* time in recent memory have I heard the terms used in things I’d dignify as worthy of the high honor of fatherhood/motherhood (from the roots of those words). And really, both sexes lose when we value one to the utter exclusion of the other. Men want women who want to be wives, generally speaking. Women want men who want to be husbands, the same. We gain more by cooperation than ever we can by selectively advantaging one or the other through government program. *shakes head*

                    11. Men want women who want to be wives, generally speaking. Women want men who want to be husbands, the same.

                      No other reasoning would explain why I’m married!

                    12. Had Pinky been interested in an exchange where ideas develop, doesn’t it seem as if he would have attempted to contribute to their development rather than driving them into a ditch?

                      I suppose in <I<some circles it is considered “development” to completely invert a person’s argument and then attack others for correcting that initial mistake, but I try to stay out of such circles so as to not rub shoulders with my buttocks.

                    13. But at this point I’m leaning towards thinking that an exchange where ideas develop isn’t really the function of the discussion.

                      If by “develop” you mean “we suddenly agree with you because you said,” you’re quite right.

                      This is one of the most friendly places I’ve ever been, for genuine disagreement– there are several points,from philosophy to theology, where the hostess and I disagree… but even AFTER I argue with her, and don’t give in, she sent my kids blankets and similar hand-crafted gifts.

                      RES and I fight often enough that it’s a running joke, but a funny one. (…when I’m not yelling, anyways)

                      There’s several other folks I argue with, but it doesn’t matter because it’s honest. I seem to remember I yelled at one of the newer gals, with a kitty icon (horrible with names, sorry….) and yet we’re even mostly on the same side once we beat out the differences. (Amounted to violent agreement, IIRC.)

                      If you genuinely wanna have solid conversations, where sharp elbows are forgiven, stay here. If you want adulation for lecturing, you will be sad here. Even Sarah doesn’t get that.

                    14. RES and I fight often enough that it’s a running joke, but a funny one.

                      I would challenge the frequency f such fights but that would necessitate changing the “# of Days Since RES and Foxfier Last Fought” sign.

                    15. Funny thing is, I wouldn’t really notice it as a pattern if folks didn’t mention it– you’re not an ass, and the arguments are fair, so….

                    16. Dang right I’m not an ass, I’m a wallaby, mate!

                      Neither of us has quite mastered the art of backing down nor of walking away, and we did have a few epic hammer & tongs engagements back a ways. We now seem to generally accept where the other is coming from and don’t push certain buttons.

                      At least, don’t push too hard.

                    17. Recognizing honesty is a big part of that, at least on my side.

                      It’s kinda refreshing, to have fights with folks who are really trying to say what they mean.

                    18. What is your degree in? History, Fine Arts, or the History of Fine Arts?
                      And what kind of a degree do you have? From what school?
                      Trying to lay down that your some sort of credentialed historian only works if you have an actual PHD in actual History type History. Not classes in interior design.

                    19. The degree is called Art History (grado de historia del arte, Universidad de Malaga). The M.A. is history of art which I did in the UK.
                      In the early days I was a specialist for an auction house in London, then Madrid. In my free time I developed homes in Sotogrande as the owner of http://www.sotogrande.us
                      None of that included classes in interior design, rather my interest in design began as how art could be incorporated in domestic settings. If you have a look at the pictures on our website you’ll see what I mean. Rooms are designed around art works, rather than paintings bought to match the colour of the sofas. It’s a very interesting process to use art as the “soul” or owner of a space.

                    20. One of those types that take a tediously long time to get their coat and walk out the door.

                    21. Sotogrande, eh? One of my publishing clients was a very close and dear friend of the Filipino developers who started that particular upscale development. Small world, eh?

                    22. Indeed – my client, his wife and some friends even got invited to a near-royal wedding, back when Sotogrande was just getting off the ground. An interesting person; we’ve worked a character based on him into the latest book series.

                    23. Back in the day it was amazing – paradise. When we were first there, we were less than 200 homes. Now 40,000 people go through there in summer. I loved the place, and it kind of broke my heart to leave, but I just couldn’t deal with the changes.

                    24. That is rather a cool idea, although for a home, as a house-maker, I object to the inversion of purpose– but then again, for display rooms? The whole POINT is to be pretty– like how some folks build a room around the TV.

                    25. You seem to have confused patronizing and condescending for benign and intellectually honest. Here’s a protip: “intellectually honest” does not initiate a discussion by completely inverting a person’s examples. Nor does it entail doubling down on an initial error rather than acknowledging and correcting it.

                    26. Res, I suspect we caught him out trying to stretch a degree in the History of Fine Arts into a position where he could make Argument from Authority.

                    27. No doubt. But a six-week certified nursing assistant certificate is of greater value than a Doctorate in Fine Arts when trying to determine cause of death. Authority only adds weight to an argument when it is germane to the argument, elsewise it simply warmly inflates it.

                    28. My question on education was because of thinking method. Of the mathematical variety, to be precise.
                      The math in the original post doesn’t add up. The structure used is:
                      Portugal is a patriarchy (X=Y)
                      And in Portugal there is (B)
                      Therefor if (B) is missing from the US, then it’s not Y. The problem is a missing (B) doesn’t prove the non-existence of a patriarchy, because there are other factors that may determine/cause that existence. Sometimes points are easier to understand when laid out in variables.

                    29. As Pinky has stated his intention to depart these halls I will not correct his invalid presentation of Mrs. Hoyt’s original argument. Pinky having previously displayed a notable absence of reading comprehension would undoubtedly not comprehend his multiple errors (nor, based on his supercilious approach to development of ideas, is it likely he would recognize that he is in error.)

                    30. That argument in itself is irrational.

                      If the logic applied is false, then the education by the one applying it is irrelevant.

                      If the logic applied is true, then the education of the one applying it is irrelevant.

                      If the logic is true, it’s true.
                      If the logic is false, it’s false.

                    31. “What does that entail?”

                      Pretending that a degree in Art History makes your opinion on unrelated subjects somehow more valid.

                      As long as we’re having an academic dick contest, though: I have an advanced degree and did research, published, and taught classes in the graduate school of an R1 university for some years (I got better). I’ve also worked in that field in the private sector, both before and after my time at the Big U. So…I know an awful lot about that one thing.

                      The difference between me and you is that I don’t pretend that my opinion on, say, 16th Century French pottery is somehow made more valid by the fact that I have degrees (and vast amounts of experience) in an unrelated subject.

                      This reminds me of the time John Scalzi attempted to flaunt his mighty bachelor’s degree in the “philosophy of language” (a bullshit made-up major if there ever was one).

                    32. This inability to comprehend and use Aristotelian logic is less common in engineering, computer, accounting, math and hard science degrees than in identity studies, social sciences and art history programs.

                      And since, as you note, not all curricula teach that, of what purpose does possession of a degree serve?

                      I would think any person conversant with the use of Aristotelian logic might have spotted that right away.

                    33. “October 18, 2017 at 5:39 pm |
                      Wow! Even a credentials change! Yippee 😀 What does that entail?”

                      What you did right here, about 55 minutes before:
                      “October 18, 2017 at 4:44 pm |
                      Just out of curiosity, what’s the average education level here?”

                      Son*, the thing is that any idiot can have a degree, or a diploma, or certificate or whatever else. It doesn’t mean that person can think. Conversely, a lack of post-secondary education doesn’t mean someone is an untutored savage. Just means they’ve been doing other things with their life.

                      * Since you raised the point earlier, I’m addressing you as ‘son’ because – assuming your WordPress icon is actually you and relatively recent – I figure I’ve got about thirty years on you, and you come across to me like a whole lot of my young officer candidates – book-smart and world-dumb.

                    34. Son*, the thing is that any idiot can have a degree, or a diploma, or certificate or whatever else.

                      “A doctorate is a union card to get a tenured job. It does not mean that the holder thereof is wise or learned.” Jake Burrough’s “The Number of the Beast”.

                    35. Another Heinlein quote!

                      Since it has been mentioned several times about knowing your debate opponent…
                      One of the things that Pink might have done, would be to explore a few posts here. If he had done so, he might have noticed an overabundance of mentions of “RAH” or “Heinlein”. This might have given him a clearer perspective (or at least a question to ask that would help him understand the place). Heinlein’s philosophies are a big part of the intellectual flavor of this place (though not entirely uncritically).

                    36. Keep in mind, always, that one does not get a degree by giving correct answers, one gets that degree by giving expected answers.

                      Were a modern surgeon to travel back in time to 1800 she would not be able to get a medical license, especially if she went on about “germs.”

                    37. I’m a fine arts specialist(historian) with a focus on the baroque period. How is that confusing for you?

                      So … if it’s not baroque, why are you trying to fix it?

                    38. @thewriterinblack – thank you! I knew I’d seen the general sense of it somewhere before and I was cudgeling my brain (not a recommended practice, by the way; leaves cudgel marks on your brain) trying to recall the exact words.

                    39. …idea confirmation dynamic…

                      You mean confirmation bias? Right?

                      Adding extra words doesn’t make you seem any smarter.

                    40. /me stares slack-jawed at our multi-lingual hostess for a moment… then erupts in laughter, rolling on the floor.
                      Nicely skewered, madam! 🙂

                    41. Oh, yeah, and on Franco and Salazar setting gender roles which I somehow missed and I’m NOT going back to that comment… you’re supposedly Spanish born and you think this shit? ARE YOU FOR REAL NOW? WE HAVE BOOKS AND FAMILY PAPERS that show that gender roles were WAY WORSE and patriarchy WAY more offensive before the twentieth century.
                      There are no words for your level of deluded idiocy.

                    42. @Orvan Taurus
                      >> “I think it has a little buzzer if you hit him hard enough.”
                      >> “But will a sign light up [TILT!]?”

                      Is it wrong that I want to see you charge him like a bull so we can find out? ‘Cause I’m loving the mental image here. 😛

                    43. Is it wrong that I want to see you charge him like a bull so we can find out? ‘Cause I’m loving the mental image here.

                      It probably is wrong. It is certainly an amusing image, however.

                    44. When I wrote my first question/comment first demonstrated my serious lack of understanding of the post, I didn’t know what sort of group this was…
                      There, fixed it for ya.

                      Every negative reaction to you stems from that, followed by a lot of academic-sounding, prog-leaning folderol.

                      Now, some of the reaction has not been as engaging on the merits (of which there are few to your arguments/assertions) as others. However, the “act of aggression” was seen not from your mere questioning, but from your mis-representation of what was said. (OK, some of it was just because you sound like a prog.) Then you followed it up with… well, aggressive asinine assertions that just weren’t what was said.

            3. the women and children first custom is a patriarchal concept

              Funny, I would suggest that a structure which demands men subordinate their lives to those of women and children to be anything but patriarchy. You keep using that word but I do not think it means what you think it means.

              As for captain being last to leave the vessel being a patriarchal custom, you are stereotyping captains as male. You need to root out your own bias.

              1. If men sacrifice themselves for women that’s patriarchy.
                If men take care of themselves first that’s patriarchy.

                Once you analyze it enough you realize it amounts to “if men then patriarchy”.

                1. That line of thinking seems identical to that practiced by the anthropogenic global warming climate change alarmists. Main difference seems to be the greater ease with which one can monetize Gorebull Warming alarmism, but I’m feeling naive tonight.

                2. Yup.

                  Once ran across a woman who was maintaining that if a story showed characters going to avenge a woman’s death under circumstances where they would not have avenged a man’s, that shows that women’s lives are less valuable.

              2. Regardless of the gender/sex of the captain, the captain is the last to leave because he’s still in charge of the friggin’ ship! Since he has the prestige of command, he also has the responsibility to hang around until everything is done that can be done.
                That’s not patriarchy, that’s responsibility.

                Now, not letting anyone but a man ever command a ship… that might very well be patriarchy. But it ain’t even the same argument.

                (Not aimed at you RES. 🙂 )

                1. Sometimes I like to tee up a hanging curve for others to whack, so nothing taken personally. I’ve been “reading” the Hornblower books of late (thanks Audible!) and found Pinky’s understanding of the Captain’s duties so ludicrous as to warrant restraint on my part to avoid a rant.

              3. As to sacrifice….
                Funny, but most would consider a Christian society to be a patriarchal one because “man is head of the household” expanded to all of society.
                But, like many people who hate the “submission” passage in Ephesians (5:22-24), they don’t read far enough:
                Ephesians 5:25, 28
                “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her… In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies.”
                Men are told they must love their own wives so much that they must die for her. And not just “die so she might live”, either.

                Pile on top of that the Judeo-Christian biblical command to take care of those weaker than you/unable to care for themselves, and there’s a pretty near certainty that women and children are coming first in the lifeboats. And a real man is strong enough to deal with that.

                This is what Western Civilization was founded on (imperfectly, yes). And in America, I think we – loving freedom as our Founding Fathers did – came closest to that idea. Not patriarchy, directly. But an idea that order prevail, while allowing maximum liberty.
                It was working out pretty well, too, until the progs started messing with things in the early 20th.

              4. Captains went down with their ship because the alternative was court-martial and / or paying for it.

            4. “The captain is the last to leave the ship” – okay, I was going to stay out of it up to this point, but since I’m actually in a position to comment – No. This is not patriarchal. This is because the captain is responsible in law for everyone on the ship. Dates way, WAY back to even before the days of sail; back to the days of oar power; the caputus (head) of the ship left last; the corpus or crew left before him. Was the caputus male more often than not? Definitely. But it wasn’t because he was male; it was because he was responsible and could be held to answer in law, one of the earliest and most fundamental principles upon which modern admiralty law is still based, as well as naval discipline and tradition in pretty much every navy around the world.

              1. And do you think there’s no correlation to patriarchy in a system where a male leader bears maximum responsibility? No correlation with the patriarchal religious structure or those of certain political regimes?

                1. But they mostly had dark hair, and not blue eyes!


                  ….or, possibly, it’s a matter of no power without RESPONSIBILITY.

                2. Do you believe that it constitutes a patriarchal structure for the head is a ship, who is coincidentally but not necessarily male, to bear ultimate accountability for that ship?

                  If that captain is female is it still patriarchy?

                  Or might patriarchy be an invalid measurement of that structure?

                  1. Damn, beat me to it. I thought I’d included a rider to address that in my post, but apparently not – or else WordPress hates me today; also not outside the realm of possibility.

                    1. Word Press Delenda Est

                      I perceive your knowledge in the specific area as superior to mine, although the question might be taken as an exercise in logic rather than maritime policies.

                      Do you know of any cultures in which females routinely served as captains of vessels? I can think of a few pirate queens — Grace O’Malley, Anne Bonny, and Mary Read* come to mind — but that doesn’t necessarily address the cultural issues (for that matter, neither does the Captain being last to leave the ship address Teh Patriarchy, except in Pinky’s fevered imaginings.

                      *Wikipedia offers a table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_piracyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_piracy

                      Interestingly there seem to be a plethora of Norwegian pirate queens in the period before the 16th Century.

                    2. @RES – My knowledge in this area I would say is probably no more than equal to your own, and quite possibly less; mine is largely rooted in knowledge of naval discipline relating to such matters; specifically, drawing from Queen’s Regulations & Orders as well as other material. To address your question – I don’t know specifically of any cultures where women were known to be masters (mistresses?) of vessels on any scale even remotely approaching parity with men. There were several cultures in which women did routinely exercise power in business, law, etc., but I am, I admit, woefully ignorant of whether or not that extended to maritime pursuits. Thank you, though; now I have a research project to keep my evenings occupied. I do know there are some specific examples of women in command of ships at various times throughout history, in various cultures, but I can’t say with any assurance if they represent any demographic trend.

                    3. As my knowledge on the topic is (essentially) consequent to having read a half dozen Horatio Hornblower* books I would demur, but there remains certain basic logic and understanding of human behaviour.

                      I noticed some references to Chinese pirates of vaginatude in finding the Wikipedia page (and I suppose I must amend my earlier statement about the source of my knowledge by adding Terry and the Pirates to the reading list) and it seems likely the Polynesian cultures offer an interesting research area as being significant sea-faring folk.

                      *If ever I can find where the house’s copy of Master & Commander has gotten to, it is my intent to read it and likely all subsequent novels in that series.

                    4. “If ever I can find where the house’s copy of Master & Commander has gotten to, it is my intent to read it and likely all subsequent novels in that series.”

                      Wow, are you in for a treat. I can think of no better proof than the Aubrey-Maturin series that a literary writing style and an entertaining story aren’t mutually exclusive.

                      I’ve read that entire series at least a dozen times. There is some fine, fine writing in those.

                    5. I gather it is a LIKE IT or DON’T work, not a lot of lukewarm enthusiasts. I’m thinking I may break down and Audible it, something I don’t typically do for books I haven’t already read in dead tree form. But looking for a single mislaid book in this house is like looking for a specific red maple leaf in Vermont in October.

                    6. I wish I could afford that series! 😦
                      (I got Hornblower second-hand from someone at church. Much enjoyed that.)

                3. Apparently you missed the part where I said “it wasn’t because he was male”. Women who were in command of ships – admittedly rare – were just as liable. If they were not, then I might be inclined to agree “the captain is last to leave / the captain goes down with the ship” is based in patriarchy.

                  1. Okay, I suppose we have to get back to Aristotelian logic. Causality isn’t alone as the determining factor in a patriarchy. The Catholic church, for example, is an admitted patriarchy. But cardinals don’t become cardinals *because* they’re men, they do so on merit. Being male is the factor that facilitates/opens the door to the process. The same was true of being a judge, doctor, lawyer and so forth.

                    1. Yet knowing there is a thing called Aristotelian logic is not the same as knowing how to apply it. What kicked this all of is that you made an assertion about men holding doors open for women as stemming from a patriarchal society and made no attempt to demonstrate your assumption is correct.

                    2. Historically I believe it was a custom that began in the upper classes based on wardrobe and then caught on as part of the chivalry movement. The patriarchal notion behind the chivalry movement is one where men are the “protectors” of women. I presume you knew this already.

                    3. “Believe” is the point of beginning a hypothesis. That in itself does not confirm that the hypothesis is correct.

                      There is an actual hypothesis based on a very practical reason that has nothing to do with wardrobe. I’m rather amused you haven’t seemed to have encountered it.

                      That said, you still have not demonstrated why this stems from a patriarchal society, and you are left with a glaring contradiction: if opening doors stems from a patriarchal society, why isn’t this a practice in demonstrably patriarchal societies?

                    4. Aha! Another clear point of prog indoctrination.

                      “Protecting” women – because they are the bearers of your children, empirically weaker in general, and you think highly of them – must be “patriarchy”.

                      THIS would be one of our prime points of departure. And no attempt at Aristotelian logic on your part will likely convert anyone here, as our answer will be “Your conclusion can never be because your premise is false.”

                    5. When and where for “judge, doctor, lawyer and so forth”

                      Because you’re certainly not talking about North America any time in the last couple of centuries.

                    6. @Pink Absurdist – I’m well aware that the Cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church are, without exception, men. Again, however, you miss the point. The flaw in trying to equate Cardinals of the Church with masters of ships is that the former were/are male, without exception*; whereas masters of ships, while predominantly men (depending on when/where), were not EXCLUSIVELY men.
                      * More accurately, were always presumed to be male; see such figures as Pope Joan.

                    7. Pinky is no longer here but here’s the thing. Had he said “The fact that ship’s captains have almost always been men is result of patriarchal thinking” he would have had a viable point. Instead he went with “That captains are the last ones off the ship”, however, was not.

                    8. Well, he would have had a viable point if viability included ignoring the biology behind “Being a sailor involves a lot of manual labor and upper body strength which 90% of women neither have nor can develop, and leads to injury and death if you don’t.”

                      Ignoring biology = non-viable in my book. YMMV.

                    9. “Viable” in that it could be defensibly argued. Indeed your points don’t make it not “patriarchy” (at least not from a certain perspective) they simply show that there are good reasons or it to be so.

                4. head>desk, head>desk, head>desk, head>desk
                  It’s only patriarchy if the leaders can only be male – and doesn’t relate at all to the responsibility of the leader, unless it applies differently to the leaders based on their gender. (I.e., male captains are NOT required to go down with their ships, but female captains ARE, could be considered patriarchal.)

                  And, the “religious structure”… oy vey, are we talking a church’s human organization or the religious precepts, themselves? Because I answered the “Christianity is patriarchy” silliness in another comment.

                5. Except that no mention of male as an absolute requirement for the position was mentioned. The problem isn’t that you’re either stupid or uneducated,it’s that you’re persistently pathologically dishonest.


    2. Pinky, you do know that a man whiteknighting for a female cause is itself patriarchal.
      And mansplaining to a woman that her experiences don’t count is a feminist sin.

            1. Oh, and French teeth, as I learned in a piano bar in Toulon one fine February (or late January…it’s fuzzy) evening two decades plus ago (is it that long since I was in my 20s)

              1. Ah. Single payer. Some day ask me about my experiences with impacted wisdom teeth under single payer at 21. If I hadn’t been in infernal pain that kept me awake at night, I’d have given up.

                    1. I wonder if the store in the next town over will still have that bottle of Whistlepig rye by the time I might afford it. Meanwhile, there’s others. And today… today there is water – by choice.

            1. I am under the impression that burning a car is a criminal offense only in certain neighborhoods. In others it is not even a misdemeanor.

      1. I really, really hate the appropriation of “white knight” to mean “evil enabling and/or promoting scumbag with added passive aggressive.”

    3. “So which sector of society do you think is responsible for establishing the backbone of the social narrative?”

      The ones that tell stories to their children. Who are generally women.

      Yeah, there’s power imbalances. On both sides, on many axes. Women have more power in some areas, men in others; I’d by far rather have a man angry at me than a woman any day. (As a rule and in my experience) Men get over it; women not only hold grudges but get their buddies to hold them too.

      And seconding the “have you ever LOOKED at the American South”? question. Sometimes there is condescension. Frequently there is flirting (yay flirting! My second-favorite sport.) You want something *done*? Meemaw is the one who’ll make it happen.

      1. I’d by far rather have a man angry at me than a woman any day. (As a rule and in my experience) Men get over it; women not only hold grudges but get their buddies to hold them too.

        I’ve noticed (just recently – pretty slow on the uptake) that this seems to be one of those items which Hollywood understands without realizing it. It came up in a recent NCIS episode, where one of the female agents had held onto her hatred of a high school acquaintance to the point where she was continuously antagonistic to him until she had her nose rubbed in the fact that he wasn’t guilty. And this is just an example. The trope runs strong through TV plots when women meet people they have a “history” with.

        1. I have a relative who treated me shabbily in a crisis situation. I don’t much like him. I have four female friends who really, REALLY don’t like him because they had to put up with me while the shabbiness was going on. I have not noticed menpeople reacting to their friends’ relationships like that, but maybe it goes on and I haven’t perceived it. Just an observation that interested me. 🙂

  2. I can’t help but wonder if the current Matriarchy is a poisonous (MORE poisonous) mutation of ‘Momism’, as described in Phillip Wylie’s GENERATION OF VIPERS. It’s been some years. Maybe I should go back and read it again.

      1. Tried Gor once. Got more thrills from actual porn. I felt it suffered from most of the defects of E. R. Burroughs writing with poorer storytelling chops.

        1. How darest thou blaspheme against the mighty Burroughs! I shall smite thee! *picks up axe and sword*

          *cough* Pardon me. *smooths clothing demurely* I was overcome for a moment.

          1. Best description of Burroughs I ever saw was, I think, from Orson Scott Card. To paraphrase: the man is a terrible, terrible writer…but he tells a DAMN good story.

            (I adore Burroughs. But holy purple prose, Batman!)

  3. So, don’t ascribe the actions of individual jerks to the whole group? Especially when the whole group is half the population? Shocking idea.

    1. I know. How radical. Tsk, tsk. Someone ought to report her to the, um, er, what are the People In Authority!!!!!!! called this week? I misplaced my list.

      1. Checking… checking…

        Well, the actual box is currently occupied by a black and white tabby, so I’ll go with “the cats” because everybody else cleared off as soon as they saw “responsibilities” and realized that would cut in to reading time…

  4. I am not expert in world culture but I have done some traveling and my impression is that pater familias way of life still exists in most cultures other than anglo countries and a few northern european countries. Evangelical protestants of northern europe were committed to egalitarian ideas, two of england’s best monarchs were female.

    Photos from barcelona independence kerfuffle a couple of weeks ago shocked me, grannies were bleeding from head after riot police knocked them around, I remember thinking I was glad that I don’t live in a country like that.

    I had matriachy childhood, my mother and two grandmothers raised me, I had one male teacher during elementary school years, young males are socialized a lot by older females in North America, Britain and a few others.

    1. Hrmm.. I don’t recall any male teachers until Jr. High *except* for religious stuff where “Women _teaching_” (the Word…) was a big no-no for some… which make the current list of church leaders of that very church (same building, same everything else…) very interesting indeed.

      1. I had exactly one, Mr. Box, in third grade. My mother specifically worked to get me in the class because she thought the male influence would be good for me.

        1. Had we continued to live in town, it might have been different. But we move to the country and the country school was all female-lead/managed, save one custodian.

        2. My grade school principal taught half-days in 6th grade. Only male teacher I had in the first 6 grades.

        3. I’m 65, and in K-6 I had 2 male teachers for the basics. There was a man for boy’s Phys Ed and a woman for the girls in all those years, if memory serves.

          From junior high and high school, the subject matter usually drove the makeup. English teachers frequently were female (4/6), history/social studies mixed(3/6), while science was strictly male. Math was usually (5/6) male. OTOH the vendor-supplied senior analyst from NCR was a woman. (Our school was the first major installation of NCR’s business machine in that area. Oh, the bugs we found!)

          This differentiation was stronger in college, largely because of my major. Electrical engineering was primarily male dominated, while the women usually drifted to the (world-class) computer science area.

          The MSEE program at a regional Jesuit school was male taught. 80% of these were done by part time people, and the hardware/software gender divide still held true in the late 1980s. OTOH, the students were about 10-20% female.

      2. Hmm – I think the same here. As I recall there was exactly one male elementary school teacher during my time at that school, and I never was in his class.

        Junior high faculty was heavily biased female, but I know I had male teachers there for some subjects. I think HS was closer to 50/50 for faculty. I suppose I could dig out JHS and HS yearbooks and look in the faculty section for details, but I think my recollection is pretty close.

        1. High School… male teachers for math, physics, general science, but not for chemistry. Oh and anything even remotely “shop”-ish. Some of which was quite remote indeed[1]. There was a male teacher for an English course… and an alleged creative writing course had something looking like a male human, but I suspect was really the Personification of Boredom. Well, one of the manifestations of such.

          [1] One such class was obviously a “dumping ground” for some. I had hopes of learning something new, but after endless re-hashes of how to do math with fractions (elementary school stuff! Even for ox!) I decided that it was study hall and any learning was by self-direction. With just enough cycles spared to answer the (unlikely) questions. Unlikely as why ask the creature (alright, ONE of the creatures…) who ISN’T being a Problem of some sort?

          1. Egad… just realized one of the other creatures… not sure which universe he’s really from/belongs in. And I know I am NOT the one to figure out the synthesis of Middle Earth meets Star Wars to have it both ways.

          2. Re: your “dumping ground” – Gr. 13 Physics was much the same for me. My buddy and I learned out of the textbook as we spent class time playing Dungeons and Dragons. 🙂

            1. Freshman biology (not really my interest) was supposed to be hard, but my lab partner and I had the infuriating habit of forgetting to study for a quiz and forcing the top end of the curve.

              High school chem and physics were more challenging and fun. I skipped AP chem in favor of computing (lucky choice in 1969), but then I was the only college-bound kid to browbeat the advisor into approving drafting and metal shop classes in sophomore year. Didn’t get hassled by the other guys; I knew the dirty jokes better than they did. I couldn’t arc weld worth a damn, but was pretty good on the lathe. This all* came in handy after I retired…

              *save the dirty jokes.

            2. Grade 13? Took you a little long to graduate, eh?
              I presume that was an age bracket in your childhood, rather than a year-th* of schooling? The ways of labeling school levels around the world is an interesting bit of “culture-watching”. (It’s like people-watching, but a lot slower…….)

              (* “year-th” = 1st year of schooling is 1st grade, etc. Seemed the easiest way to describe it, without a long parenthetical.)
              (Wait…. Something… Damn.)

              1. Nope – Grade 13 was an extra year after Grade 12 and was basically extra credit senior classes / university prep. I took it mainly so I could get more STEM subjects in, then joined the Navy. Ontario was the last province to have Gr 13.

        2. Much the same mix in my small midwestern town. It was my good fortune that the majority of my teachers were WWII vets or their spouses. Graduated HS class of 1969. As is typical they did not talk much about their experiences, but a great deal of their tone came through.

          1. I had one Social Studies teacher in HS that had gone across the beach on D-Day. In our Infinite High School Wisdom we thought him very, very old – if he was ~19 in 1944, he was ~53 when he was putting up with my teenaged self in 1978. Which is two years younger than I am now.

            I have a feeling if a technology were invented that let us send texts back to our high school selves, most of the messages would start off along the lines of “You are a moron…”

              1. I doubt I would manage to be as polite as either FlyingMike or Joe in PNG. My texts might cause the devices in question to melt…

            1. an old Teacher is when your year younger sister comes home from middle school (8th grade) and complains that “We had Fisher as a substitute today” and my grandmother quips “When we had him in school, we girls thought he was so handsome!”
              iirc the last time I had him, he was 75

              1. One of my better teachers, an aunt had him for high school.

                ….don’t really remember much he taught, but he didn’t annoy me, and he did have a total collection of the Harvey Boys and half of Nancy Drew from the 60s or earlier.

                Was as good as scifi.

                  1. “This sad little lizard told me that he was a brontosaurus on his mother’s side. I did not laugh; people who boast of ancestry often have little else to sustain them. Humoring them costs nothing and adds to happiness in a world in which happiness is always in short supply.” — RAH

                    1. Ahh, but he didn’t brag on it so…
                      I think someone gave him a hard time for being named Conan and claimed it was because of Howard’s stories because they were crappy at math (Mr Fisher being a goodly bit older than the original stories). He informed them he was named after the relative and from then on kids used it to try and get him side tracked from lessons. By the time I had him he would simply reply “Yes” to any query to whether it was true and only once, after everyone finished a test early did he continue on with explaining how his mother was the one who insisted on the name. Looking back I think he was humoring his mother like RAH was the lizard.

                    2. FWIW, part of why I can’t stand those stories is because the guy speaking that quote is a first place ass, and not of the useful sort.

                      It’s got a hint of a point, but not much beyond that– and it stinks of catty girl like it’s a blessed litter box.

                      In rude language, one of those F*ing rude SOBs who goes “oh, hey, you think this is cool? Let me shit on it to show you how much you suck.”

                    3. Incidentally, I have a cousin named Conan for the barbarian, although they say it a bit differently than the author, so it’s a bit of a spot of interest.

                    4. Last I heard, he was recovering from being a sacrificial lamb in Obama’s Marine Corps.

                      Someone with a more favorable Victim Count violated the law, and…well….

                    5. *wry* He’d probably enjoy being in Goldport, all told…. but I dont’ think he’s live further east than Nevada if not in the Marines.

                    6. Inferring his likely age, he was born at a time when few people chose their names, so any mockery of him for that was undeserved. That would also have been at a time when a mother’s “glory” was mostly reflected and women of a certain temperament prone to bask in such family fame as was available. She apparently did a fine job of not crippling her son with foolishness nor neuroses, which is about as much as can be asked of any parent.

          2. I had one Husband/wife team as teachers. When I got him for American History, he said “My wife warned me about you!”
            um, I had her for one class period in First Grade!
            She was right though, i drove him a bit batty with my inattention, lack of notes and homework, but “passed” all but one test. I was sick the day everything was covered and of course didn’t study on my own, so I knew to answer to “Why’d the smartest person in the class get the lowest score on my test?” Two of the “smarty teacher’s pets” girls gasped, I laconically replied “Because I didn’t read the chapter it covered before the test.” He asked two more questions about it and I answered right, having sorta looked over it after turning the test in, so he passed me anyhow. Heck, he handed out the answers to the tests the day before.
            just the answers, mind, not the questions.

      3. Other than coaches, I had only one male teacher during my 6 years of K-4. Highschool was pretty much 50/50, with a decent mix of good teachers and utter dingbats in both genders.

        1. At my main elementary school the first guy was 4th grade (last I saw also the Varsity Football coach), both teachers for 5th (one was also a Football coach), and 6th/7th shared 4 teachers split half and half. Both males there were lacking, though one was age related issues that caused him to be less than a great teacher (his narcolepsy and palsy got worse with age) the other once made the mistake of humiliating a cousin in class. This got him visits from her brothers in the parking lot, and a full dressing down in front of the class by my Aunt. All 4 feet and 8 or so inches if that. Apparently he showed more fear of my aunt than the tough cousins. So he had at least some brain, somewhere.
          He also had a very short run in with my dad.
          Some people shouldn’t be allowed to teach.
          The other elementary I went to (what? You live less than a mile from school? You get bussed to the old one out 8 miles away) only 6th and 7th had men, but of the 4 teachers sharing those grades, 3 were men.

      4. My 5th & 6th grade Social Studies teacher was a man, and my 5th & 6th grade math teacher was a man. IIRC, gym was two teachers, one male and one female, for grades 1-6. After that, one female math teacher in 8th grade, and one male history teacher in grades 9-12 were the outliers, plus the psychology teacher was female.

        Music teacher in grades 1-6 was a man, who stereotypically turned out to be gay, and many years later got accused of some kind of inappropriate behavior with a child, but in my opinion, it was either an overreaction or else the man had gotten ill in some fashion, because I would have bet money that he would not have done anything harmful.

  5. “Women, being smaller and slighter and weaker than men have no built in brakes. If we go to war, we go to war till the enemy is pieces.”

    There is a story in the first volume of Battlefields (Garth Ennis, Dynamite 2011). The story is titled Dear Billy and tells the tale of a nurse in WW2 and her love of a British Pilot. Powerful stuff that shows a big difference in how we handle difficult situations as men and women.

  6. I had to slap down a colleague many years ago when he thought it appropriate to whistle at my wife to summon her at an office party. She’d already torn him into shreds, so all I had to do was inform him that if he repeated that behaviour to any of our female staff within my hearing he;d be making a rapid exit through the nearest window. He was a lot more polite to our women afterwards – but still an idiot.

    1. *curious* What kind of whistle?

      From context, I’m guessing the “wolf whistle” type– but my family and sub-culture has what amounts to making a freaking coach whistle with your fingers anytime you really need to get folks’ attention. (I can’t do it. /sad)

      That said, you wouldn’t use it to get ONE person’s attention– it’s basically like yelling “HEY YOU GUYS!!!!” at the top of your lungs; the only time it’d be used for summoning would be for kids, who need a special noise, especially if they’re out of yelling range.

        1. Before we moved into center city Philadelphia we lived in the suburbs. We children ranged a bit when we were out playing. Each mother in the neighborhood had their own way of signaling their offspring it was time to come home. Momma used a cow bell to call me in.

  7. There’s definite precedent for using the idea of “I have” as a cover for the real nasties. I remember during the Clinton scandals the most common defense was, “Everybody does it.” I remember thinking, “Really? Everybody? It’s too much to ask that a married man not go around groping various subordinates and having an affair with a woman young enough to be his daughter?” I also remember thinking that it was a good thing I didn’t really believe that or I’d end up a bitter lesbian Feminazi.

    1. Yep And no, everybody doesn’t do it. You know how I know? I don’t have a collection of desiccated male organ on my wall, which I would if every man were Clinton.

    2. “Everybody does it.”

      “Dear Sir, if we stipulate that world census is roughly accurate, ‘everybody’ is approximately 7 billion persons. I can assure you that, even as fat as I am, I am NOT a 7 billion persons. I do not engage this behavior. I have many flaw, granted, but I at least try – and on this one, I have even succeeded! Good Day, Sir!”

    3. Now in fairness to Billy Jeff, were I married to Hillary I would be tempted to seek some sort of human contact elsewhere.
      My apologies for the sarcasm or any unpleasant mental images my remark may have caused you good readers.

      1. The best response to Bill’s marriage to Hillary was given in the now (officially, anyway) pulled text of The Salvation War where (former) Pres. Clinton deals with a succubis… to the astonishment of those who had been trying to protect him. his reply, in that work, was (as I recall) well worth the read even if nothing else had been (and quite a lot had been, really).

    4. At the time I was under the delusion I was a feminist.

      Being able to keep my own pants zipped (admittingly very gifted at that, but didn’t realize it at the time), I had scant regard for anyone who couldn’t master such a basic task.

      The was the start of my realization that the Feminists had always been far too pro rape for my comfort.

      1. I always found it incredibly easy to keep my pants zipped over my high school and university career — largely because I could count the invitations to un-zip them on one hand with more fingers left over than not.

        A man browbeaten into never making advances unless he’s absolutely sure they’ll be welcomed is a man who will make very few advances in his life, and will most likely leave at least one woman very puzzled and disappointed.

        1. And browbeating men who don’t really make inappropriate advances actually insures women are more likely to receive such advances.

          Why, because you have driven a subset of the men who won’t make inappropriate advances out of the pool of men who make any (by convincing those men all advances are inappropriate) making the proportion of that pool made up of creeps larger.

          And I’m over here laughing at how feminists have insured the creeps are the guys most likely to be out there.

          1. True. The older I get the more astonished I continue to be at how the Law of Unintended Consequences applies to everything.

            1. Given feminists clear preference for bad men (when they prefer men) I am not convinced it is untended. If nothing else the PUA crowd might be correct that it is a culture wide shit test.

              1. I don’t know that I would attribute that much coherent, purposeful strategizing to it. For one thing, said preference for bad boys seems to come in two very distinct modes: the classic conviction that the woman can and will change the dude for the better, and the more recent stance that what is really desired is a sexual-service provider one can use or discard with a clear conscience. The effects are much the same but the fallout takes entirely different shapes.

            2. the Law of Unintended Consequences applies to everything.

              It wasn’t supposed to be that way.

          2. I’ve actually found it in my heart to be a little bit more understanding of and charitable towards those feminists who think that every man wants to kill and dismember women.

            How many man willing to sleep with a filicide likely to kill his children are going to be that interested in keeping sexual partners alive over the long term.

        2. Who are you, and when did you live my life?

          More seriously, the situation described in your last paragraph is a big problem, and, I suspect, is a large part of the reason why women find themselves asking why they can’t find a good man. Well, lady, you didn’t seem interested, and I wasn’t going to force the issue on you.
          (Pause) I also suspect that some of those women are the same kind of person as the men who say “I’d never marry a Western woman, because they’ll just unman you. I’m’a gonna marry a foreign woman, because they know their place.” Yeah, I think your problem looks at you in the mirror.

          1. Agreed. On a broader scale I think this goes to a big problem in modern technological society/culture generally, which can also be seen in the now out-of-fashion “ladder” theory: the character traits that convey short-term sexual desirability and the character traits that connote long-term domestic viability have undergone serious divergence — for both sexes. When the very act of expressing sexual interest is predefined as a disqualification from being worthy of having that interest taken seriously, something is definitely wrong.

    5. Oh, gads, the “either everyone says they’ve done it or they’re lying” baloney.

      Never worked on me because the stuff I was exposed to early on was all things where I not only hadn’t done it, I couldn’t see any reason to WANT to do it. So I didn’t accept when folks later on claimed “everyone else” did things I WAS tempted towards, but had decided were wrong.

      I think it’s Mary who keeps quoting the “he who accuses all convicts only one” thing…..

      1. Fortunately, I never ran into anyone who believed that “everyone has tried weed” when i was younger, because first, I get ill at the thought of smoking anything. Not because I tried and it made me sick, but somehow I just picked up a complete aversion to the subject, which I can’t even figure out how it came about, but it’s real nonetheless. And second, because if they truly believed that and so didn’t believe me if I told them that I never had, I would have lost my shit and tried to beat them half to death (also can’t stand being called a liar, though I have since managed to curb the murderous tendencies) with their own arm after ripping it off.

        1. I never tried weed. I had a friend who smoked it in my presence, and when I was offered some, declined because I didn’t like the smell of it from what he was already smoking.

          When asked why I don’t want to try drugs or such, I reply with “Books are an expensive enough hobby that I don’t need another addiction.” It was polite enough that the person asking wouldn’t be insulted and accepted it.

    6. “Since 44 of the 120 rapists admitted to only a single rape, the 76 repeat rapists actually accounted for 439 of the rapes, averaging 5.8 each (SD = 7.7), significantly more than the single-act rapists (t = -4.1 (118), p < .001). The median number of rapes for the repeat rapists was three. Figure 1 shows the frequency of rapists who committed single and multiple numbers of rapes.
      The data also revealed that these 120 rapists did not confine their violence either to the sexual realm, or in many cases, to adults. Table 2 shows the numbers, percentages, and total number of acts of different forms of interpersonal violence committed by these men. A majority of these men, 70 of the 120 (58.3%), admitted to other acts of interpersonal violence, including battery, physical abuse and/or sexual abuse of children, and sexual assault short of rape or attempted rape. Including their 483 acts of rape, these 120 individuals admitted to a total of 1,225 different acts of interpersonal violence.

      More from Dave Laskin’s research (pdf here): http://www.davidlisak.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/RepeatRapeinUndetectedRapists.pdf (emphasis added by me)

      Or in other words, a very many socially awkward men are used as cover by a very few predators – but those predators commit a lot of acts between them. So no, Not All Men. Just a very few, very destructive ones.

      1. This brings to mind something I’ve seen on Facebook, often posted by the same people promoting the “metoo” hashtag: why do we track the number of girls who became pregnant in (state) rather than the number of boys who impregnatest girls? Why do we say x number of women were raped instead of Y number of men committed rape?

        Well, gee, I don’t know. Maybe because in the case of the first, the statistic being tracked is teen pregnancy, not teen impregnation rates? (Which assumes that all of the impregnators fall into the same cohort, which is unlikely).
        And in the second case, for two reasons. One, given above, is because one individual maybe responsible for multiple crimes. The other is that the statistic in question is the number of crime VICTIMS, just as with every other states about crime victims. We track burglary and theft victims, too, not the perpetrator of these crimes (who may be unknown anyway). But I’m sorry, I forgot, rape is such an egregious and terrible crime that it should be treated differently and discussed differently, and even telling women to take basic precautions against violence is “blaming the victim.”

        Which ia ridiculous. My car was stolen over Columbus Day weekend. You know the first question my insurance company and the cops asked me? “Was it locked?” Even the simplest question like that can’t be asked of a woman reporting rape, though.

        1. My standard comment on this:

          (1) It doesn’t matter what a woman was wearing, how drunk she was, where she was walking, etc. Nothing justifies her being raped.

          (2) If you don’t want to be the “her” in the previous sentence, there are some precautions you can take to make it less likely.

          The fact that I believe (2) as well as (1) does not make me a “victim blamer.”

          1. Exactly. If a car runs me over, it’s the fault of the driver. I still look both ways before I cross the street.

        2. Except that we DO track the perpetrators of other crimes. We most certainly do (look at Dorothy’s comment to which you replied) track who does what sort of crimes, how many of them are in prison, etc.

          But you are right in that rape is treated under the current cultural paradigm as somehow different from all other crimes. (It *is* a little different, in that it is generally an assault based on a feature that only 1/2 the population has. And in that it can sometimes result in a child being conceived. But you can only execute a man so many times…….)

          1. … it is generally an assault based on a feature that only 1/2 the population has.

            Bugger that.

    7. This brings to mind John Ringo’s explanation of the connection between Hollywood’s latest (published) scandal and the Left-vs-Right chasm.

      “So do liberal actresses and models and all the rest really think conservative men are the worst human beings in the world?
      Yes. Yes, they do. Because they have to work every day with some of the ACTUALLY worst human beings in the world. And they have to believe conservative men are worse. Otherwise, there’s no point to being on the ‘good’ side.”

      1. I’ve long thought that the reason liberal woman think all men are chauvinist pigs is that far too man liberal men actually are chauvinist pigs.

    8. Sorry to bring back an old thread, but saw this and had to bring it in:

      ‘“There’s truly no such thing as a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ guy,” writes Leah Fessler at Quartz. “This binary, which is inherently juvenile and oversimplified, evades the reality that our culture raises all men with toxic ideals about masculinity, and that we all share responsibility for ending the misogyny that makes so-called ‘bad’ guys do ‘bad’ things.”‘

      Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452922/metoo-train-wreck-calls-all-women-victims-all-men-toxic-abusers

      So, yup, looks like there’s a movement afoot to excuse Harvey and those like him using precisely this. They’re not really bad guys, they’re just doing what our culture tells them to, if we blame them, we must blame all men.

      1. yet another woman (and yes, likely a feminizt) who bases her opinion of all men on her preference for bad boys.

  8. This self abasement and confession-circle hashtag-of-the-day for men is simply smokescreen and cover fire for all the hordes of Weinsteins that infest Hollywood (as well as Academia, and I’ve seen the same stuff go on in parts of Silicon Valley): If everyone with dangly genitals did it, then Harvey is really not such an astonishingly horrible creep of historical proportions, and Our Hollywood Betters are not especially corrupt and venal and cowardly and despicable and so on for letting Harvey have his way with the interns and ingenues for lo these many decades as long as he cast them for his next flick. When Everybody F-ing Knew, then Everybody Is F-ing Responsible.

    Can’t have that. Lets start a hashtag.

    The entertainment industry deserves everything it’s getting. I just hope there’s some good stuff found in the ashes after the fire burns out.

    1. Actually, what Weinstein did does seem to have been common in entertainment, going all the way back to the days of vaudeville. The abrupt sudden outrage has me thinking of Captain Renault “Shocked, just shocked,” at gambling at Rick’s.

      1. As seen somewhere on Twitter, the company, etc. didn’t do anything re: H. Weinstein because THEY found out about it. They acted because WE found out about it.

        1. His contract apparently contained a clause that so long as he paid the settlement claims for any sex-related offenses out of his own pocket, he couldn’t be fired.

          Yeah, they knew.

      2. I read a story yesterday by a random female then-intern who was sent up to The Harvert’s hotel room to get a pile of checks signed, so The Harvert dropped his towel and signed checks nakos. And asked for a massage. The young lady maintained her distance, and said basically “No matter what happens, I am not ever touching you,” got the checks signed, and got away.

        She struck me from the story as a very level headed young lady, escaping from a massive pervert. I hope it has not impacted the rest of her life.

        It also struck me, given the massive power of the rumor mill and the secretary-net at the places I’ve worked, that the entire damn company, and especially the intern-wrangler who sent that young intern up to the Harvert’s room, knew damn well exactly what was going to happen. And they did it anyway, over and over and over again for decades.

        And as more and more and more women have finally gone public with worse stories, it’s also obvious that it was not just the Weinstein Company – the entire industry knew, and they went ahead and hosted The Harvert at parties and sent their daughters to intern there.

        And I cannot imagine that the Most Holy Obamas never got any word via some entertainment industry back channel when they decided their daughter would intern there.

        As I wrote elsewhere, they all deserve every bit of what they are going to get for enabling this guy.

        1. I can, just barely, see crazy jihadist type with a nuke popping on Hollywood. I can also see a mixed a reaction of “How DARE they?!.. but at least nothing of value was lost. Where do we send the Thank You card?”

          1. Followed by, “But still, our soil. NOT cool.” Followed by…consequences. Arriving after the Thank You card because the courtesies must be observed.

                  1. I’ve heard that some missiles have a tiny smear of bacon fat. Special Munitions (of the type we used on Japan?) are fine by me.

        2. I’ve been wondering if Mr. Obama considers being molested a rite of passage or something. I’ve been absent mindedly following the coverage of that internship since it was first announced, and it was always ‘this guy is not the best person for a young woman to be around’. This was before the NYT broke the story.

          1. Uh…

            *curse word deleted*

            You know, that isn’t really as far out there as I would like, having read stuff from reading stuff from Moira Greyland and others, and talking with some of the more hollywood friendly sub-groups in my area.

          2. That’s going more than a few steps too far.
            I suspect that Obama’s daughter was safe from Mr. Weinstein’s predations, due to her father’s position as “first black president,” or at least her father believed so–and he was probably right. Going after her would have been too much for even Hollywood to cover up, and I also suspect that he would not go after an ally’s daughter.
            That having been said, it was an extraordinarily stupid move.

            1. Traditionally, predators of this sort have not preyed upon daughters of their social peers.

              That said, it was nearly as stupid as trusting the Iranians to self-inspect their military bases.

          3. First, I think even Weinstein would have thought twice about going after Obama’s daughter. The Obamas could drop the hammer on him in ways that actresses – even very successful ones – never could. Second, I’ve heard that Malia doesn’t fit with the general physical types that Harvey went after.

        3. It’s an open secret just how screwed up Hollywood is. See the two Coreys, for instance, as young male examples. But everyone turns a blind eye until something forces it out into the public.

          I’m already starting to see things here and there that strike me as methods of “limiting” the damage in the industry to just Weinstein himself, as if he was the only one abusing his power like this.

          1. There are similar stories leaking out of Silicon Valley, too. Power corrupts, and dominant male cultures tend to treat women as toys — just as there is no shortage of women happy to sell what they got to get what they want.

            Both factions making things far worse for decent people because both need to believe that anybody else in their situation would do the same.

            1. Not just dominant males. Instapundit had a link (yesterday, I think) about one actress who reported that she was forced to stand in a nude line-up review by another woman. For many (and I suspect that this applied to Weinstein at least in part), it’s a power thing. They can force others to debase themselves, so they’re going to go ahead and force others to debase themselves.

              1. IIRC that was the Hunger Games art, and the exec was trying to motivate her to stay on her weight control diet.

                I’d put that into corporate-power cattiness more than what Harvert was doing.

              2. I was engaging in idle conversation when it struck me that I knew who has to cope with the most hostile work environment in America. Just from background chatter and bits and pieces picked up over the years my money would be on male nurses. No, they probably don’t have to endure the “line up nekkid” types of humiliation, but neither do they get the chance to be “a shimmering star in the cinema firmament.”

                Sexual politics being what they are in America this is probably an untestable hypothesis.

            2. The stories hitting the net about Silicon Valley recently are about males, but there are stories around about female execs too. I think the males predominate in the Tech startups where most of the recent stuff is originating, but the older SV companies, where efforts were made to get women into executive ranks so as to gain SJW brownie points for those companies, produced a fair number of stories involving a few of those female execs that those large companies had to expend resources to make stay quiet.

              People are people.

  9. I am adamantly against joining the hashtag army of Me Too – and so is my daughter. We both have experienced the whole gamut of clumsy passes, wolf-whistles (and other expressions) from total male strangers, gropings, bad situations, et cetera. (Nothing traumatic, like attempted or successful rape, or a casting couch offer though – both of us are quite sensible and levelheaded regarding situational awareness.)
    we regard that Me Too thing as basically being a whiny victim. Not gonna go there. We handled the situations and moved on without dwelling on it or making an elaborate show of ‘poor little me’ about it.
    We are strong, capable, non-grudgeholding women. End of discussion.

    1. I didn’t join with MeToo because my examples would have been evidence for the opposite: that there wasn’t an unresolved problem. Which would have required explanation, which pretty much negates the rhetorical power of a hashtag. Heck, one instance made me more proactive. My dad drove my best friend and me around looking for the guy’s white primer truck. (She and I were strawberry and blond perv magnets for a time.*) If MeToo is supposed so show the number of victims out there, well, this won’t be Exhibit A. Also, it was decades ago, and I’m against lumping decades together as an example of unchanging behavior.

      *In all seriousness, pervs tried to pick us up often enough that, without even talking about it, one of us would stall while the other tried to get the license plate.

      1. My younger son and his best friend had this problem early high school. If I posted their pictures then, you’d get why, but yeah…. And they were boys so it was like “No, we’re not going to stay in the house or only go out with you.” Eh.

    2. One, I’m not on Twitter, and two, so what? I was harassed, assaulted, and that was then. It wasn’t serious assault that left me injured, just scary as heck at the time. Three, the false statistics and things like “he leered at me and it was just like being raped” demean the people who really were assaulted and violated. “Let’s all be victims!”

      No. I’d rather be a survivor. Even better, just leave me alone or ask me politely if I’d like to go get a coffee.

      1. Yeah, the massive difference between the guy who followed my sister home and pinned her against her door at which point a neighbor came out because she was screaming and “that guy LOOKED AT ME IN AN UNCOMFORTABLE WAY” are freaking insane.

        Even I have been hit on, obviously enough that I noticed. Not even in the same zipcode, timezone, etc.

    3. I’ve refused to jump on that bandwagon as well. What happened to me wasn’t pleasant–though thankfully stopped well short of actual physical attacks–but what I took away from it wasn’t a mistrust of men, but a mistrust of the authority figures who were supposed to help me, and instead did the exact opposite. Never did trust a school counselor–or anyone else claiming to be a counselor–after that. (I did, however, learn unequivocally that I could trust my parents to have my back. That’s a good thing for a kid to learn.)

      But I’m not a victim, dammit. My only regret is that I didn’t start punching little lechers sooner than I did… 😀

  10. I remember one time while shopping for Christmas presents in Macys, two women came up to me and started screaming at me, accusing me of stalking them. They said I had been following them and they knew I was going to attack them. I told them I didn’t know what they were talking about, and tried to ignore them. They continued to get in front of me, screaming that I was going to attack them. One of them said, “Look at you, you are a bum. You look like a bum.” I was dressed in business casual, having come to the mall from work. They made such a scene that undercover security came up and intervened. I told them I had no idea what was happening, these two women just came up to me and started screaming. Shopping, especially Christmas shopping (Thanks Amazon), made me especially frustrated, and I had had no luck getting my mother a present. I remember telling the guard that I was just trying to get my mother a crappy present (I think it was a bagel toaster) in peace, and they wouldn’t leave me alone. Guard said to just let them leave. “More than happy to, but they won’t go away.” He escorted them away.

    I would not be surprised to learn that those two women are sharing their harrowing tale of being stalked and avoiding being attacked with their #MeToo story.

          1. This whole “it’s an aggression to not sleep with me” is why I am more comfortable with not being particularly physically attractive (I own a mirror. I know what I look like.). I don’t run into that problem.

            1. “I have a mirror. I know what I look like. What really bothers me is when the reflection is laughing… and I’m not.”

              “That.. sounds creepy.”

              “It is.”

              1. I can cope with my reflection laughing at me; what really hurts is when my reflection just sighs and facepalms while shaking its head.

            2. I’m more worried about people even less attractive than me wanting the law to force me to sleep with them so it’s not an assault or something.

              I mean, it isn’t like that’s a big pool or anything but still.

          2. Not run into that one. I have run into complaints from “transwomen” that lesbians don’t want to sleep with them, and that said lesbians are being “transphobic” when they explain that they’re into women, not men in dresses.

          3. Oh, that’s actually been a thing for a few years, when “Palestinian activist women” complained that Israeli soldiers were treating them as Untermenschen by refusing to rape them.

            Yeah, because Israel. This whole line of thought is where you just give up on debating them and settle for them leaving you alone on pain of death.

          4. “being oppressed because gay males don’t want to sleep with them.”
            What. The. Actual. Fuck?! (Pardon my Francais… I’m old-fashioned in that I was raised to not use cussin’ in the presence of ladies, but sometimes stuff goes out on the upper-deck circuit despite my best efforts…)

            1. Wouldn’t know. Since I’m ignoring them, I’m completely unaware of their complaints about invisibility microagressions. 😉

        1. Sure: “microaggression = anything I don’t like”

          Because it’s all about the feelz.

        2. Yes. And turning a girl down can be a form of assault. *face palm* Only in CA thus far, but probably coming to a college near you.

          1. I recall a ‘Fred Sanford’ (memory… might be a refresh or two shy and bit-rot setting in…) quip about it being the The Cereal State. Terribly un-PC, which is to say: it was funny. And probably at least slightly accurate.

              1. I recall a New Yorker cartoon of about 40 years ago: Family of four in car on highway, approaching a sign saying, “You are now leaving California. Resume Normal Behavior.”

                  1. I swear, if I ever need to pick one of you people up at an airport, I will be holding a “Posner is a moron” sign

            1. I’ve referred to California as the cereal aisle of the US for years now.

              You know, full of fruits, flakes, and nuts.

              1. I live proudly live in the Beef state. I’m sure some other states would dispute this.

                Moo! It’s what’s for dinner! Just cows and steers. Bulls are propagating the species and causing milch cows to lactate.

          2. But isn’t it also assault if the guy says yes, and then three weeks it comes out that she’d had a glass of wine with dinner, so her consent wasn’t really consent?

            1. Depends on what her friends think of the guy, or if he decides he doesn’t want to go out with her any more.

            2. You say that as if women have agency, but we all know that in a patriarchy women are denied agency and therefore all intercourse is rape regardless of the facts of the case; the narrative is all-powerful.

              1. No, no, no, RES.
                Women have agency up to the point that they come within a mile of a man. At which point his magical Y chromosome powers suddenly make every decision she makes purely the result of choices he makes, which means he is responsible for everything that she does.

                1. And suddenly, as if from the aether, a yen for open water sailboating overcomes every man across the globe, and lo, was there much wailing and gnashing of teeth from those who could not get there in time…

                2. …which means he is responsible for everything that she does.

                  Which inspired: ‘And if the law supposes that, then the law is a ass — a idiot.’

          3. @TXRed re “Turning a girl down being assault” You have GOT to be shittin’ me.

            1. I wish I was. As I recall the article, the idea was that if a guy said, ‘No, thanks,” he was being aggressive by judging her, and by refusing her invitation. There was also a side-argument that by rejecting her, he was injuring her self-esteem and devaluing her as a person.

              There’s no arguing with an ideology backed up by hurt feelings and a grudge against half the population.

            2. Nope. I know someone who turned down a woman’s invitations to go out on dates with her, and she tried to claim he raped her, ‘because by turning her down, he denied her the sexual choices she was making, denying a woman’s decisions, which included who she wanted to have sex with, or father her children.’ And no, the male was not allowed to refuse, even if he was refusing EVERYONE with “I don’t date co-workers.”

              She was dismissed for sexual harassment, I think, at least. By their female boss. That thing was INSANE.

                1. Urgh, many thanks.

                  (I’m just glad this stopped before we got to “yocto,” as that sounds like something a great deal more unpleasant to clean up.)

    1. So these women thought the proper way to handle someone who was going to attack them was to stand in front of that person and antagonize them? Holy self-fulfilling prophecy Batman.

      1. You see they were perfectly secure in the knowledge that no man could possibly resort to physical violence against them. For good or ill that concept appears to be on its last legs as female Antifa thugs attacks get met with appropriate responses. i.e. you hit me I hit you back, but twice as hard.

      2. I remember at the time, there were a rash of news stories about women being followed out of the mall and accosted and robbed as they got into their cars. This had to be coloring how they viewed the situation. It’s just, that “you look like a bum” line hurt. I thought I was dressed nicely.

  11. “This is amazing for a girl. I never thought…”

    I think that the phrase I never thought… expresses the cause of much of the world’s problems.

    For example people do not think that things are any different in other places or people assume that things must be very different. With that they often reject any offered information to the contrary of the opinion they hold — for that would require thinking, and thinking, particularly outside the box, is difficult.

    1. Having started reading the amazing threading created by the second poster I believe I could not have made a better argument about thought and those who fail to practice it.

  12. Used to be from the age of twelve to about sixty, no woman could step outside without being hit with a barrage of sexual suggestions.

    One of the episodes on YouTube of “Adult Wednesday Addams” had a scene where “Wednesday” was being catcalled. As I recall it, the catcalls were rather mild (can’t confirm the memory because the video was pulled over copyright violations–seems some people don’t get “parody”). Wednesday responded by having several men, tatted up and basically looking disreputable (in a gangland sort of way) showing up at one of the catcaller’s house where they were going to hang around and “catcall” the individual whenever he set foot outside his house.

    Now, this kind of over-the-top response is entirely in keeping with the Wednesday character as presented in these videos. However, in the comments…. (I know. I know. Never read the comments.) People were applauding this as a real thing that people should do.

    Excuse me? You really want to equate catcalling with actual, bona-fide stalking? One is rude. The other is literally criminal.

    Go look at any of the endless jokes that go around online about a woman reacting violently to some slight from a man. Would it be so funny if the sexes were reversed?

    Interview on a talk show. Young man being held prisoner by a woman in a third floor room. Relates tale of escaping by jumping out the window and breaking his leg. Audience breaks into laughter. Host calls them on it: if it were a woman escaping from a man that way they wouldn’t find it funny.

    When men abuse women it’s treated as something to take seriously. When women abuse men, it’s treated with derision and mockery.

    Some people need a dose of both perspective and in looking at things from the other side.

    1. But, let’s look at it honestly*. This is a case where “equality” is ridiculous. You can to some extent laugh at a (generic**) man in a role reversal because it is exactly that – a role reversal. The (generic) woman doesn’t get laughed at because the expectation is that she’s weaker than her captor. On the other hand, if the (generic) man is assumed to be stronger than the (generic) woman, our normal brain expectation is that the man shouldn’t really be captive in the first place. One of the two (or both) must be non-generic in our role expectations for this to occur.

      The same thing occurs if the captive overpowers the captor, too. We root for the woman as a hero if she overcomes her male captor. If the man punches the woman and walks away, it’s not seen as heroic. (As a matter of fact, most would wonder if he couldn’t have gotten away with less violence – she’s a woman, after all.)

      There is also a lingering role expectation that men take care of themselves. This is not just in the physical realm, but in the area of assertiveness.

      A big part of humor is turning the situation around unexpectedly. The fat guy tries to fit somewhere small, the little guy is expected to reach a top shelf, the man bites the dog, etc.

      Having said that, there are real cases of women abusing men. The real cases shouldn’t be sniggered at, as abuse is always wrong. (Though some of the more ridiculous ones are laughable, because… well, they’re ridiculous. Period.)

      (* Breaking your leg isn’t a laughing moment no matter what, though. That’s more of an OUCH! sympathy moment. The laughter would normally occur at the fact the man had to escape in some fantastic way, rather than simply overpowering the woman and walking away.)

      (** That is, big part of the bell-curve, within 1 std. “Normal” expectations.)

      1. I am reliably informed that women are just as strong as men. In fact, the UCF now assigns you to classes not by genetic nature but by self-proclaimed identity. I am assured that has nothing to do with Tamikka Brents feeling completely overpowered by Fallon Fox nor the resulting injuries.

        So, men should be just as afraid of being overpowered and held hostage by women as vice versa.

      2. … The laughter would normally occur at the fact the man had to escape in some fantastic way, rather than simply overpowering the woman and walking away.

        According to one guy who counsels other men about domestic-abuse situations, a man in such a situation should never, but NEVER, so much as touch the woman. If he lays a finger on her, even if it’s just pushing past her as she stands in the doorway, she’s likely to charge him with domestic violence — and is probably going to be believed. So when she traps him in a third-floor room, he might be physically able to overpower her, but he certainly won’t be able to overpower the policemen that she would call to back her up.

        Note that I am NOT saying that all women would behave like this. I can’t even imagine someone like, say, Foxfier deliberately trapping her husband in a room, let alone using implied threats of false accusations to keep him in subjection to her. That kind of behavior is just not in her character, and I could say the same thing of ALL the women who are regulars here and whose character I’ve gotten to know. But of the small subset of women who would trap their husbands/boyfriends in a third-story room… MOST of those women would also see nothing wrong with leveling false accusations. So for a guy who has found himself in that situation, the threat is real and has to be taken seriously.

        Which is why it ends up in the NOT-funny category for me. The average talk-show audience may not have heard enough false-accusation stories to realize what the implicit threat was, but since I have, I don’t find it at all strange that the man would think jumping out the window was his only escape. And since it therefore doesn’t subvert my expectations at all, I don’t find it funny.

        1. This.

          For a man to be the victim of domestic abuse is the subject of jokes and ridicule.

          This is why the very real issue is not taken seriously. He can’t defend himself lest he be labeled the abuser. But if he speaks up about the issue, people laugh.

          I don’t think many in this group would, but in general.

          1. Just recently I’ve been listening to descriptions of treatment by female, 50 old bosses to female mid-30s or younger personnel.

            …this #$@#@ would be actionable harassment from a man. It went on in front of a half-dozen other men. The only reaction to ANY Of it was her being officially mocked and reprimanded for objecting to part of the parking lot having unsafe lighting, which wasn’t even a topic of any of the talks.

            1. Similar with female on male rape. Slate actually had a pretty good article on the topic a few years back.

            1. In Corey Feldman’s case we also have homophobia: the fear of publicly acknowledging that some gay men are predators.

        2. Depends largely on the state; Oregon, from what I’ve heard first-hand, you have to have unrelated parties describing serious unprovoked violence or go to the hospital for them to credit it.

          Exceptions for activists judges, of course, but my sister got hit with it even when HIS friends testified he did things like chuck an old style phone at her head (hitting her, no remorse)

          1. Yeah, you’ve mentioned before that it seems like the system is rigged against the innocent, whichever sex they are.

            Makes me wonder about the spiritual aspects of it, myself. We know that the ruler of this world is the father of lies — how many people has he influenced, in subtle or not-so-subtle ways, so that they’re more likely to believe the smooth liar than the stumbling-over-his/her-words victim?

        3. I acknowledge what you’re saying. It is the current situation.
          But, the normal situation is how we used to handle it. The current feminist prog asininity has totally warped reality.

  13. The show “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” had a song this week about how stupid it is to generalize about men. I thought it was quite well done, especially the end where the lyrics go “All men are rapists” and then the one who’s a mom stops and goes “Wait, I have sons…” and you can see her unsaid “and they aren’t rapists.”

    1. That’s hilarious. The callback to Eighties stuff was funny too! But yup, there is some kind of primal ritual whenever one man has done one woman wrong; it just didn’t use to include quite so much generalization. Hopefully that’s an exaggeration.

      1. Morgan Freeberg has, among the list of “Things I Know” on his blog (House of Eratosthenes), a remark that I have always remembered: “To insult a man says nothing about other men, but for some reason, anything said against one woman is perceived to be said against everything female who ever lived.”

        To me, this has always been the Achilles’ heel of that sub-philosophy of progressivism known as Diversity Representation: it’s never applied as consistently as its premises imply it ought to be.

      2. I was thinking about this while otherwise engaged and it struck me that there is an underlying truth in this video. Men are rude, crude*, insensitive, loutish and a great many other things, but what men generally are not is neurotic. Certainly not the way women are neurotic. I cain’t hardly think of any woman who is not neurotic, at least to some degree (e.g., Sarah and her compulsion to post something here every. stinking. day.) Sure, some men are neurotic, and when it happens it is a subject for (Felix Unger) mockery.

        And it drives women crazy that men are not neurotic.

        Ron Weasley: Well? How was it?

        Harry Potter: Wet. I mean, she was sort of crying.

        Ron Weasley: [laughs] That bad at it, are you?

        Hermione Granger: I’m sure Harry’s kissing was more than satisfactory. Cho spends half her time crying these days.

        Ron Weasley: You’d think a bit of snogging would cheer her up.

        Hermione Granger: Don’t you understand how she must be feeling? Well, obviously she’s feeling sad about Cedric, and therefore confused about liking Harry, guilty about kissing him, conflicted because Umbridge is pressing to sack her mum from the Ministry, and frightened about failing her OWLs because she’s so busy worrying about everything else.

        Ron Weasley: One person couldn’t feel all that. They’d explode!

        Hermione Granger: Just because you’ve got the emotional range of a teaspoon…

        Standard restrictions apply for any and all statements regarding groups, applying common Bell Curve limitations as necessary.

        *not as crude as women get to, admittedly. Women can be far far cruder than men ever get.

  14. I wonder if the ’80’s crusade against sexual harassment in the workplace that reached its crescendo in the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings and was brought to a screeching halt by Bill Clinton’s nomination would have eventually turned its sights on Hollywood. Maybe there’s more than ideological agreement behind the Cultural Arbiters’ support for the Clinton syndicate.

  15. And as for predator cover… I recall back when there was a Big Deal about (those other than infants) wearing signalling safety pins that the very next thing any logical predator (they are often logical. Evil does NOT have to be stupid – but it helps) would do… would be to go out get a safety pin to wear to let victims attached themselves right to him.

    1. A successful predator knows how to hunt.

      An unsuccessful predator, only God knows of.

      I wouldn’t be surprised if predators were PUSHING it.

  16. An observation on men who catcall: for the most part, these are the sort of men who become utterly dominated by the women in their life. They go from acting like a raucous jerk – to submitting like an utter simp. It’s similar to how feminists are the easiest women to use for sex, and those who engage in braggadocio are the first to fold when the steel comes out.

    Catcalling disgusts me, not because it hurts the feelings of po’ wittle pwincesses – but because it’s effeminate and unmasculine.

    1. And you’re not wrong for a lot of guys. A lot of the guys who catcall in Portugal go home and give their paycheck to their wives.
      BUT let’s not make it universal, because a lot of men in that class in Portugal do it because they CAN. And they go home and beat their wives and terrorize the family. Because they can.
      As for hurting feelings. Meh. I found them disgusting. So I ignored them.

  17. The timeline is all wrong for it and that I know of the existence of the album bewilders me but I am FAR too amused at the idea of young Sarah going out alone wearing a shirt promoting the album Public Castration Is A Good Idea now.

    1. You, the Ox, know of an album about public castrat….?
      It should be more than “bewildering” I think, and more “concerning”?

      1. I am NOT proud of knowing (of) this, nor do I have the album. Nor, in fact, anything by the ‘music'(?) group that ..committed… it. Let us just say that after the n-th page, web searches generate spurious – at BEST! – results, no matter how innocent the initial search might have been.

        n is a number that is always smaller than you expect it is.

      1. They’re already kind of doing it to themselves. They don’t seem to create new “Progressives” the biological way, only through psychological manipulation.

        1. Which is why we should declare them mentally unfit and keep them away from any position of trust. Or any equipment heavier or sharper than a toddler spoon.

    2. Those who follow the trends in Classical Music performance may here begin to wonder when some group will decide it is time to replace all those counter-tenors with real castrati.

  18. Isn’t decrying Teh Patriarchy an exercise in cultural imperialism? These people ought be ashamed of themselves, demanding that other cultures conform to their own concepts of culturally appropriate behaviour.

    1. Didn’t you get the memo? Traditional American culture is exempt from being the victim of any sort of discrimination against it, because of some reason or another than makes no sense. What, you’re looking for equal treatment and rationality of thought? That raht there is discriminatory thinkin’, son…

  19. I have an #IHave I’ll admit to.

    I have called my girl my kajira…multiple times and the most recent no more than 72 hours ago.

    And various Pink Activists, if that doesn’t send you to your fainting couches I plan to do it again no later than tomorrow. One day we might even get her a kerf.

          1. I think I’ve finally discovered the reason people keep misspelling the word “ho” as a garden implement: they’re trying to make it the female equivalent of rake. Even those who don’t understand that particular meaning of the word.

            Whorehouses shall henceforth be known as “tool sheds” therefore. Much more respectable.

      1. Nope, both are references to a long standing (and still ongoing) sword and planet series which started in the late 60s (68 I think) and had its most recent book last year 🙂

        In fact, we’re getting close to the lowest numbered parody (47: Sardine Fisheries) given last year’s book was 36.

      1. Why not? Some people can pitch hit 😉 Also this particular relationship was unexpected on several vectors.

        As for the books the first few aren’t bad but not as good as Burroughs, Carter, or Akers. Still, if you like that exotic, pseudo-Middle Eastern/Orientalified Greece and Rome there are worst choices. For Mf the imagery is fun.

        Plus they piss off feminists.

        1. They stories of the first few are decently entertaining, but the man’s writing style just…

          Not sure, but it boots me out of the story every couple of chapters.

          1. I would never, ever admit to reading these ever, but serious entertainment can be found with “Houseplants of Gor” and “Gay, Bejeweled Nazi Bikers of Gor”. If you can find ’em.

        2. Plus they piss off feminists.

          What doesn’t? Disagree with them and your’ fascist, agree and you’re patronizing or worse.

          OTOH, is it even possible to piss off feminists if we proceed from the premise that pissed off is their default state?

            1. They can be pushed to the point of speechlessness?

              Fancy that. No really, fancy that.

              Still, I’ll not hold my breath waiting for that.

          1. Are you asking me if I’m not necessarily a bottom? I generally swing that way but can Top..it is very partner dependent.

    1. To each their own…

      For those with a bad impression of the Gor books, you might want to look at the first three (or maybe four, I’m too tired to dig back into the dark shelves right now). Norman actually did some fairly good world building in what I call the “sword and pseudo-science” genre. Up through Priest Kings of Gor, at least; Nomads of Gor began to wander off into what they have become (in)famous for – repetitious and, IMHO, boring SM pornography.

      I do have them, somewhere in this place, up through Nomads – I’d read, or rather, skimmed for any plot advancement, those published up through the early ’80s when I had a college roommate that collected them.

      Oh my. Almost one o’clock, and now I need to run off and write a character sketch based on him – he’s perfect as the former fiance of the lesbian lawyer in an urban fantasy I’ve been noodling on (considering that this actually happened to the poor guy). Sigh, I’ll get to sleep sometime along here…

      1. I am familiar with their rep. Hell, I’m old enough to remember being able to buy them at Safeway.

        Actually I’d say they were reliably readable (if never great) sword and planet through Assassins (book 5) and hit or miss after. Either Captive or Kajira is a love story with an odd, romantic ending (it is one of the Earth women ones and I checked Slave Girl which I still have so that isn’t it…I am thinking Kajira). There is some metaplot advancement but after a while it does get thin on the ground.

        I never really read them until the late 90s/early 00s. In the 80s I was more of a Horseclans guy. Wish I felt competent to try and write something like them.

        That said for certain things the imagery is useful. While my statement is true I really did bring it up in the context of #IHave as a smiling form of middle finger.

        1. Heh. Those that I bought, I bought in my liberal college bookstore. Might have been because the head of the English Department was good friends with Norman. I can imagine, though, the reaction should they be found there now.

          I defer to your opinion on when they went “monotone” – I haven’t even looked at the ones I have for many years now. Which tells you how dusty those back shelves must be!

          1. The saddest thing, for me is not that they have the S&M elements (as should shock no buddy) but that story got so overwhelmed by the philosophy behind that S&M. There is a core of a great sword and planet series in there that could have rivaled Akers.

            In an odd way they are a non-leftist example of the problem with message fiction.

              1. I have all the DAWs in a box somewhere which means I have some labeled Akers as author.

                It is too bad he passed with one book left (of which we have a 11 page fragment) although maybe that comment belongs a post back.

                1. When I discovered the series back in the 80’s I grabbed every one I could find, right up until the final one originally published in the US. Years later, I discovered that there were more published in Germany and, with the advent of Amazon and it connecting with used book dealers, I got the rest of the US published books. In more recent years I’ve been getting the ebook omnibuses (omnibi?).

                  Prescott was such a refreshing change of pace from so many fantasy “heroes” of the day. Honorable in meaningful ways without throwing away practicality. Devoted to the one woman in his life. “Good family man” (when allowed to be–those “damned” Everoinye). One of his main motivations was to bring about an end to slavery on Kregen. And books that were just allowed to be fun.

                  I like the speculation I’ve seen where Dray and Delia were headed toward an apotheoses where they would actually become “Star Lords” (Everoinye). It fit my observation that as much as Dray cursed the Star Lords for taking him away from Delia, I noted that they kept throwing the two of them together in situations that…well, I think their pairing was part of the plan. 😉

                  Excuse me. I tend to gush. 😉

        2. Oh, and I knew that was the middle finger. While I don’t understand the mindset in the least, if someone likes being called “kajira,” it is a kindness to do so. (IMHO, YMMV, etc.)

  20. “In the midst of the chorus of #Ihave the ones who really have will be assumed to just be guilty of the male gaze or something equally stupid.”

    As I’ve said before, both here and in other contexts, the Boy Who Cried Wolf would make far more sense to most people in this day and age if it were told as a tragedy about an earnest but uselessly paranoid shepherd who was honestly always trying to warn his colleagues, rather than a mischievous liar who knew he was B.S.’ing his colleagues for his own amusement.

  21. Thank you! I thought I was the only crazy one seeing that there was something wrong with this #meetooing (I like how you phrased it 🙂 )

  22. “She never got over the envy of not being able to pee standing up”

    That one always tickles me because it reminds me of old friend. She was (IS I suppose, we lost track of each other years ago when I moved from California to Florida) openly lesbian. I didn’t care, and treated her just like anyone else (which still wasn’t all that common back then). For fun on lazy days off, we would go out girl-watching.

    Me: “I like that one, the short one over there with the big smile and poofey hair.
    She: “Sorry dude, she’s on MY team…”
    Me: “Rats! Foiled again!”

    The funny thing about her was when she got a few beers into her she started thinking it was funny to use the stand-up urinals in the men’s room. Usually following some guy into the head and using the next urinal over, just to freak him out (she was a big girl, I only had to save her once or twice when some dude didn’t think it was funny). I never figured out HOW she managed it. I asked once, and she said she just worked at it till she figured it out… then threatened to beat the tar out of me if I ever asked about it again. I’ve heard that there is a plastic apparatus that can be used for this, but if she used one, I sure never saw it.

    1. There is or was a website discussing the techniques. It is apparently learnable, perhaps depending on how one’s plumbing is laid out. (And I’m not being tolerant of Trans saying that. At least some biological born women can learn to pee standing up without the use of any physical aids. Apparently. Also, apparently a pair of pants can be used as an aid somehow, sometimes.)

          1. I’ve heard that peeing standing up is useful for female military pilots? I may have had my led pulled clean off.

            1. The ability to use the relief tube on long flights like the guys would be really helpful.

              I got the plastic apparatus to see if I could learn to urinate standing up – not out of any great desire to imitate a man, mind you, but because the ability to not have to bare my bottom in the Alaskan bush would have saved me from a great many mosquito bites in uncomfortable places. Alas, I never did get it to work well, and gave up.

    2. *considers*
      In theory, cus I’m not going to try it:
      If you approach it from a standpoint of the theories about female and male units being mostly the same with different growth rates, you could mimic how a guy in the movies grabs himself but flat, and lift slightly, especially if the inner area was situated more forward and it would work.

      1. Knew someone with this skill, and when her hubby embarrassed her in front of several older ladies we knew by loudly proclaiming the fact, the Italian mom in the group looked at her and asked, “You have a trained monkey?! How’d you train your monkey?!”
        Oh, and hubby became an Ex not long after, but then she wasn’t fully on plumb either. Chased me but I wanted none of that lunacy, and she went off to chase those best not caught, and caught too many.