Semantic Confusion

My problem with the women’s marches, the one last year, and the one now, is that I still don’t understand them.  What’s more, the people marching in them don’t seem to understand them.

Go look at that link, I dare you.  When asked why they were marching in the … ah, sisterhood of the traveling pussy hats… the enlightened activists gave the following answers:

“So future generations don’t have to.”

“My Mother and Planned Parenthood.”

“My mother, she’s a homeless person.”

“I don’t want my children growing up how this is now.”

To which the only logical and appropriate response is “AND?” because, honestly, what do they expect to gain by marching?  “So future generations don’t have to?”  Don’t have to what?  What are you marching for, precisely?  The right to wear a pink pussy hat, or dress like genitalia?  I don’t think anyone ever disputed that, honestly.  Pointed and laughed, sure, but hey, that’s our right.

“My mother and Planned Parenthood” is roll on the floor funny.  What are the links between those two?  Does her mother work at Planned Parenthood, or just visit frequently?  Is she just happy her mom didn’t use Planned Parenthood to get rid of her?  WHAT?  What the hell does that even mean, and what does marching on the street like a loon do for either her mother or planned parenthood.

“My mother, she’s a homeless person.”  Oh, this one takes the cake.  I mean, in a country full of services for the homeless, in a country in which the only way to remain homeless for more than a couple of weeks is to be mentally so far gone you can’t function, or to have a drug or alcohol addiction, this flake is marching for her mother because her mother is homeless.  Here’s a clue, sparkle princess, marching for your mom will not do squat.  How about bringing mommy home and inviting her to sleep on the sofa?  That would do something.  Is your filial love predicated on marching so everyone knows how nice you are, but you can’t actually be bothered to help the woman who gave birth to you?  And what do you expect your silly march to do?  PRECISELY?  Will you explain this to me?  People will go “Oh, she’s marching with a pussy hat, I’d better take care of her mom?”

This last one is the same shit that liberals always tell themselves, and note the vagueness of it “I don’t want my children growing up how this is now”

Um…  you don’t want your children to grow up with electricity, abundant food, and better hygiene than any other society in the history of mankind?  Is that it?  No?  Then what don’t you want your children to grow up with?  A mother who can’t express herself to save her life?

Over all, over and over again, they seem unable to answer the one fundamental question: What are you marching for?  What do you expect to result from this?”

Some of them make allusions to some vague “lost rights.”  I want someone — anyone — to go over the law and everything that’s happened legally from last year till now.  What right have women lost?  Name me one.

They can’t of course.  It’s just that their betters told them that women would lose rights under Trump, and therefore we must have.  Somehow.

The smarter might make strange noises about health care, but that’s the veriest bullshit.  Insurance is not healthcare.  Obamacare was already imploding where it counted: on getting to see a doctor for your problems.  Not having to pay a fine for not having “insurance” doesn’t kill anyone.  The contrary could be argued.

But let’s concede they’d lost “rights”.  What in actual heck would marching around be-pussied do?  Despite some of the signs (like the one proclaiming this chick’s vagina was the scariest thing anyone had ever seen [we believe you, crazy lady]) a) people know women exist.  b) people know women have vaginas, and no, conservatives, republicans and libertarians aren’t scared of vaginas.  Well, maybe of crazy liberal vagina, because who knows what in heck diseases multiply there, but not of vaginas in general.  Most of us either have vaginas or think highly of them. c) even if women had lost rights — say the right to kill babies who can survive outside the womb, because mommy changed her mind — what would marching do for it?  Most people who think that right should be lost — including women — have reasons ranging from the cohesion of society to the idea that murdering innocent humans in batch lots is bad (‘mkay?) and their minds aren’t going to change because some frankly unhinged idiots march up and down saying things that mean nothing or carrying signs that are self-indictments as to inability to reason.

The other day I was watching liberals lose their sh*t when the results of the election came in (don’t judge me, okay? The alternative was calling my few remaining liberal friends and laughing) and there was a woman news anchor telling the world how she didn’t respect any woman who voted for Trump, because he was a serial assaulter (totally unproven), treated women like objects (COMPLETELY unproven, and according to women who work for him, counterfactual) and had talked about grabbing women by the pussy.

And my jaw dropped open.  leave aside that I’d lay you even money this idiot voted for Clinton, probably twice, and Clinton WAS a serial assaulter who treated women like objects, and it’s all proven and public record.

Let’s go to the “grab them by the pussy.”  All Trump said was that if you were rich enough women would let you grab them by the pussy.  He didn’t say he did it.  He didn’t say you should do it.  All he was saying was that women find things other than looks attractive. He was in fact saying women are hypergamic which happens to be true.  And yeah, he used the word “pussy.”  Dear idiots, if your vagina is the scariest thing anyone has ever seen, and if people who can’t say “vagina” can’t legislate it, you can’t faint with shock at the word pussy.  That’s not how this works.  that’s not how any of this works.

And no one is impressed with your strutting your pussy hats and vulva (no, those aren’t vaginas.  Geesh.  Did no one ever teach you anatomy) costumes, when you can’t articulate what you’re doing it for, nor reasonable goals you hope to obtain from this.  Because the things that come out of your mouths make me wonder why your vote counts as much as mine.

Heinlein’s books talked a lot about semantic incoherence during the crazy years.  I was unclear on the concept but I’m not anymore.

And the worst of it?  The absolute worst?

This is how women talk.  Note not individual women and not all women.  But it’s a thing women do in groups.

You see, just like testosterone boosts your self confidence and your ability to feel good about yourself, female hormones boost your ability to bond, your desire for group cohesion, and your not-perfectly-rational wish to belong.

So you get a group of women, and it’s easy to get them all to march out for no particular reason and with no end in sight.

You’re invited by friends, because “we’re all doing it.”  And you go, because your children or your mom or stuff.  Because your friend told you “we have to do it so the children don’t have to” or because “isn’t your mom homeless.”

And unless you’re rock bottom stupid (some people, male and female, are) you know it doesn’t make a wit of sense.  But your friend is so sure.  And if you ask questions or point out it makes no sense, they’re not going to talk to you again.  There’s going to be a rift, and who are your kids going to play with?

Women are evolutionarily designed to avoid conflict and reinforce the group.  This means they can be very good for creating happy extended families, and very bad for creating crab buckets at work or in political situations.  And they’re really good at mass movements of astounding and jaw-dropping incoherence.

This bothers me for two reasons:

It gives ammo to genuine bad actors who hate us and everything we stand for.  The Mullahs in Iran can say that even women aren’t happy living in the great Satan, look at their demonstrations.  Clearly, Islam respects them much more, by wrapping them in furniture covers.

It gives ammo to genuine misogynists.  They can assume that every woman is an incoherent zombie, and use it to curtail the rights of thinking women, or to sweep us out of employment, or to treat us like overgrown children.  Because honestly, the women on those marches are overgrown children.  They’re just not all women.

As a woman, and one who believes in female equality before the law (not in female equality, because we’re different from cell to hormone) I want these women to stop, to think, to consider what’s likely to come from this, and to behave like thinking human beings.

This might be impossible because “aren’t you marching? I knitted you a hat.  If you don’t come, I know you hate us all.”

It’s human.  It’s the way we’re made.  And I’m not going to march against it, but it’s annoying the heck out of me.


301 thoughts on “Semantic Confusion

  1. I’ve seen that cohesion thing women do. I never had the warm fuzzies like that until I got older and actually met more of my tribe. But for the longest time I couldn’t understand why they bonded… it made no sense and I was usually on the outside of it. Might be why that in my working life– I mainly worked with men.

      1. Likewise. I’ve come to the conclusion that I was put together all wrong for a woman. I’ve got all the right parts in the right places, but whenever anyone says, “Women tend to…” I always think, “No, I don’t.”

        1. Same for me: same educational and job opportunities, the same pay as a guy working the same job to the same standards … but oh, good grief, did I get impatient listing to other women moan, and complain and quibble over the most trivial stuff. Look, I’ll be sympathetic, the first time around, but then I expect you to get out and do something to fix your damn problem.

          My daughter is the same. As a teenager, she preferred hanging out with the guys in her church youth group rather than her school girlfriends, because she didn’t have to verbally pull her punches all the times, as the girls would so easily get their feewings hurt.

          And yeah, I can’t figure out what rights that we’re gonna lose under a Trump administration, either.

          1. We are facing the erosion of the right to remain silent because so many fools are choosing to give it up. 🙂

          2. My wife’s a rather high-level research manager. She JUST got her first male supervisor,head of department. The management styles are very different. She’s having difficulty coping with not communicating constantly all day.

            I told her it was simple. He’ll tell you what he wants you to do. He’s going to want to hear about problems, and the solutions that can be worked out. He doesn’t want to be your BFF and hear about your personal life, or upcoming vacation plans in exhaustive detail, he doesn’t want to hear office gossip, just he wants you to do your job, and see him if there’s something you need from him. He’ll tell you what he needs you to do, and if he doesn’t hear from you, he’s going to figure it’s getting done competently. And that’s it. No muss, no fuss, no personalities getting in the way of the work.

            But after 30 years of working with/for women, it’s something of a shock. She’s used to a very… well, I’d call it ‘intrusive’ level of interaction with her supervisors, and doesn’t quite grasp yet that management styles are VERY different between men and women…. but she’ll get there.

            1. It’s not *always* a male-female thing…even among men, some people are going to want work conversations to be more personalized than are others. There’s a model of personality types sometimes used in sales training, in which it is pointed out that if you try to be too warm and friendly to certain individuals, you will just irritate them, whereas if you try to be too direct and businesslike with others, you will leave a negative impression.

              Regional and national differences, also.

              1. There’s actually a trend to bring a personal level into the manager/employee relationship. One of the topics for me to cover on my weekly call with my supervisor is stuff going on in my personal life.

                If it is going to impact my job? Sure, but only to the extent that it impacts my job. The rest is none of his business, and I don’t need to know whats going on in his personal life either.

              2. This.
                I find that although sex is a fair predictor for style, it’s not absolute enough to be more than a starting point for relationships.
                I know lots of men who act more like the stereotyped woman, and vice versa (see run of comments above).

            2. The woman who hired me where I work now, but who left a few years ago to work at a startup managed a lot like a man, but was also very personable with her employees. I miss her.

                1. Company political wrangling. I had a position where technically I was working for a specific subdivision of a large division of a global company, covering 3 areas. The subdivision in question did not have the money in their budget, so another subdivision agreed to pay for it. But, given the type of work I was doing, a 3rd subdivision provided the supervisor. The supervisor want me physically working in her area, the subdivision actually utilizing my skills wanted me in the central area (where most the work was being done), and the money people wanted me in their area. When the job posted the money people had (technically won). However their ad had asked for the moon (skills wise) when I applied & interviewed they got the moon & stars, but need to reside in the central area. Job location changed, but they kept the same supervisor. Fast forward, they finally changed my supervisor to the manager whose people I did most the work for, only difference between the two on my weekly & monthly check-ins/reporting was when I called her, she was 100 miles away, when I called him, he was down the hall; otherwise, I never heard from either (well okay he had to attend the same “safety” meetings I did, but still). Personally, I am a lousy gossip. Learned a long time ago, mouth zipped, ears opened; both personal & professional.

          3. I’ve lost several girlfriends when they complain to me that their lives are in tatters and they’re afraid they’ll never be able to pick up the pieces, and I offer suggestions on how they could start making the mess a bit more manageable.

            1. It’s not about the nail. It’s about you listening, and NOT trying to fix it. (Even though that’s the first reaction… and the second. And the third, lol…)

              1. I hadn’t seen that video – it’s brilliant.
                Spouse and I started some years ago prefacing our vents with defining it as either a “fixit” or a “there, there, poor baby” exercise.

            2. I saw a very insightful comment about why women need to do that more than men, and it has to deal with mental processing. Men tend to run the processing of events inside their heads, but when a woman specifically is venting, that’s external processing, and the events can’t be fixed until they are processed. When you offer suggestions, you’re derailing the processing of events—think of it as interrupting a warehouse manager when they’re loading items into the warehouse. If you start in on how best to market those items, the manager is going to be annoyed because they haven’t even had a chance to run inventory yet, and you’re getting in the way.

      2. You mean I’m not alone? One “Me too” I can get behind. FWIW. Pay equity. Most positions it came down to who was willing to work the OT (salary not exempt – translation: Salary with overtime pay). FYI, unless required, after we got our base security established, not me, or rather not us (hubby started same place three weeks before I did, I had to finish school first, we’d been married for 4 months, least I be accused of meeting and marrying someone from the job). Later, pure salary positions, it was, what classification were you, how long had you been on the job. True whether large, medium, or small. Now, after awhile did I think the monthly wage range between 12 year VS 15 year employee was wider than it should be, yes. But where does that differentiation say male VS female?

    1. I’m seeing a trend here….
      We could put together an anthology of first-person memoirs titled “Female Is Not My Native Language.”

  2. When I listen to those type of women (and the men who appear to take them seriously), I wonder “is there intelligent life on Planet Earth”. 😦

    1. Yes there is. Although they do tend to make me think that humans aren’t the smartest ones on the planet.

        1. Threaten it with a lemon, a paper clip, a plunger, and a hammer. It will ponder the first three in total confusion until the hammer causes it to panic and do what it’s told. 🙂

  3. “So future generations don’t have to.”
    Given they’re pro-abortion, that one is cosmically apropos.

  4. I heard about the women’s march while I was at the local watering hole. Looked up at the t.v. and Nathan Phillip’s Square was wall to wall pink hats. Seriously? We had massive protests in Canada over Trump? WTF?!?!?
    Leftists. *spit*

      1. Wow. Every now and then, I read something on this blog that seems so stupid I can hardly believe it’s real. This one is right up there with, “Oh, he wants to ban everything in sight? He must be a libertarian.”

        Where do you dig these people up?

        1. I swear they’re all over. I just notice them.
          My mom called me to have someone to laugh with over that particular demonstration. She has emphysema. She was laughing so hard I almost called my brother to take her to the hospital. She kept gasping out “Trump is not your president. No shit, you idiots!” And laughing.

        2. Well, he’s in Washington mainly, so if he wants to ban, say, most of the State Dpt. and unelected bureaucrats hither and yon… Dang, still looking for a downside there. Not finding it.

      2. It became obvious during Obama administration that progressives around world see themselves as a movement. Social issues start in America and then spread outward, ‘islamaphobia’, trans rights and pronouns, and now Trump election has triggered certain kind of individuals around globe.

        I am Canadian, two progressive males i know are made crazy by Trump, I asked a couple of times why allow American president to live rent free in their head?

        1. It’s not like we’re going to invade suddenly. We might stop in for a Molson or some maple syrup, certainly for some Mackintosh’s toffee or a good hockey game, but not over politics

              1. Low bar.

                Almost all coffee is better than Starbucks.

                The field coffee we made in the Marines was better than Starbucks, even the bottom of the pot with the crunchy bits.

      3. Well, as PotUS, he is obviously the rightful overlord of Portugal, so it is appropriate that they have a few moments of fussing before he loads them up into cattle cars, in order to restore the land to its proper usage. Okay, I could not articulate what that purpose is, but sheep and grapes have no legitimate purpose in human society. Which reminds me, I am full of s*#t, and need to go eat some raisins.

      4. LOL. For real? How come I haven’t heard about Canada and Portugal trying to influence our election process then? 😉

        1. If conservatives were prone to pointless marching I can think of a number of signs appropriate to the parade:
          Putin is not my president!
          Soros is not my president!
          Hillary is not my president!
          Obama is not my president!
          Oprah is not my president!
          Daffy Duck is not my president!
          Asterix is not my president!

          1. I miss Protest Warrior. They would go to these sorts of things with those sorts of signs. I used to have several I had downloaded to my computer.

              1. Their website is still up! I could have sworn they had disappeared a long while back. Though a few of their posters appear to be gone.

              2. Yeah, you lose 70% of your military fighting for other countries freedom during WW I and see how well you do fighting off Germany less than a generation later.

                  1. Didn’t the Germans lose even more, then come back to conquer the French in what, 6 weeks?

                1. Kell, it is a specific reference to France’s actions in the UN after 9/11. Not a general reference to France’s experience between 1789 – 1965.

                2. Ummm, the poster was not in reference to WW2. It was in reference to their complaining about our “aggression” related to 9/11 and Iraq.

              1. In one of Larry Niven’s short stories, he had a person who joined various protests holding a blank sign.

                The person actually didn’t understand why the protesters disliked that. 👿

        2. After Obama got elected, there were some Africans celebrating that one of them was “President Of The World”.

          Idiots. 😦

      5. I have an idea for a march, with singing. And with signs. Not in protest, but in celebration. For the signs shall proclaim: “Hillary Clinton is STILL not our president.” 🙂 🙂 🙂

        1. After Infantry School I’m still all marched out, but I have a bottle of tequila that I’d be more than happy to have a shot of in memory of that happy day.

    1. I have an intense urge to chase some of these people with one of giant inflatable hammers that go SQUEAK! when you smack something with them. They don’t rate anything more serious than that… though I doubt it would make them look any MORE ridiculous than they already do.

  5. How about bringing mommy home and inviting her to sleep on the sofa? That would do something. Is your filial love predicated on marching so everyone knows how nice you are, but you can’t actually be bothered to help the woman who gave birth to you?
    Just maybe someone actually married this dimwit, and has told her in no uncertain terms NO. Because her mother is more bat-guano crazy than she is.

      1. Oh, I agree! But, given the likelihood that the mother is nuttier than a squirrel sack, it’s likely she hasn’t taken her in because the one who puts food on her table said “Not a chance in hell, woman.”
        And she has to virtue signal that she really would take care of her mother, except for the war and that sumbitch Johnson. So, out she goes to march against said sumbitch.

        (From the perspective of someone who actually did have a mother-in-law who was nuttier than a pecan orchard. And abusive and entitled.)

        (Oh, and yes, the difference between her marching and her doing something concrete is ALL the difference between virtue signaling and actual virtue.)

        1. GWB, my MIL was nuttier than a fruitcake having started as a rabid feminist, dyed-in-the-wool liberal Democrat, with a Christian Science attitude toward medicine which resulted in horrible vascular dementia (completely failed to manage her blood sugar levels) in the final 5 years of her life such that we took her in for a year, couldn’t take the risk of her not killing the entire family from poisonous fumes or fire, and had to get her into a psych care nursing home for everyone’s safety. Of course we had to take her in to start with, it’s what I was brought up to believe what families do (and still do.) It’s our good fortune that we were able to afford to get her into a place that took good care of her and close enough that we were able to visit her nearly every day. Many, if not most, people in this country probably don’t have those options.

          1. Concur that many don’t have easy options. But all of them have a better choice than “Hey, let’s go to DC and march with a pink hat on my head! Because… my mother is homeless!”

            (In my case, there was still plenty of help given. I’ll leave it at that for now.)

            It’s possible in my posited scenario for the woman giving that response, that the husband is a bit selfish, or that he’s actually protecting the family. But it’s a likely guess as to why the woman hasn’t done the simplest solution for her homeless mother.

            1. There’s also the disconnect between “marching for women’s power” and mom is homeless because “the man says no”, in that whole possible scenario.

              1. There is also the possibility that mom is homeless in the sense “she’s sleeping on my sofa and unless something happens soon there will be murder”.

        2. “the difference between her marching and her doing something concrete is ALL the difference between virtue signaling and actual virtue.”

          Just want to pull this out, because it’s become a trope of the political sphere these days.

  6. Even after reading the whole thing, I’m kind of hung up on this: “My mother, she’s a homeless person.”

    Then why aren’t you doing anything to make her NOT homeless other than walking in the street, looking like an idiot? Maybe invite her into your home so SHE has a home, for example?

    Look, I used several of my tax refunds to pay my mother’s property taxes because she couldn’t. I didn’t want her being homeless, so I did what I could to prevent that.

    The idea of someone allowing a parent to be homeless, then using that as a rationale for protesting something…

    1. I haven’t always been effective at making sure my parents were ideally taken care of. I am perhaps not doing enough now.

      1. But, hopefully, you weren’t doing something thoroughly ineffectual, and proudly and publicly proclaiming that you were doing so.

        1. Well, there’s some personal history that can be viewed that way in a harsh enough light. (Full story is more than a bit TMI.) More charitably, I was trying to be effective as best I knew how. Really, all I can do is make sure as possible that my future actions are effective.

        2. “But, hopefully, you weren’t doing something thoroughly ineffectual, and [then]proudly and publicly proclaiming that you were doing so [effectually]”
          Excellent definition of virtue signaling, with a little editing.

      2. Sometimes you have to be hands off. Grandparents never went homeless, they paid their mortgage & property taxes (that they should never have had, but that is a different rant for a different topic, if refi had been for medical reasons, no rant, it wasn’t), but when they died, beyond the property, courts, funeral expenses, and estate lawyer, their creditors got 5 cents on the dollar owed (totally deserved IMHO). If debits were inherited they would have bankrupted down to their great-great-grandchild; FWIW, they were not living high. Family interfering, from the local county, was elderly abuse; never mind those trying to “interfere” (their kids) were over 70. Grandkids were told to butt out (by our parents) to keep us out of the fallout; also FWIW, entire extended family were on same page on what should have been done, but county would not allow any discussion; manner and timing of their deaths is 100% on county social division.

    2. Monies paid to travel to said marching location, monies for food and lodging, monies for donation to *insert chosen idiotic cause here,* monies for campaign donations…

      On the other hand, monies to take care of homeless mother

      1. “On the other hand, monies to take care of homeless mother”

        Jesus, Pharisees, Decalogue, faux “sacrifices” :
        And he said unto them, “Full well do you reject the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother; and, He that speaks evil of father or mother, let him die the death’: but you say, ‘If a man shall say to his father or his mother, That wherewith you might have been profited by me is Corban,’ that is to say, Given to God; you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother; making void the word of God by your tradition, which you have delivered: and many such like things you do” (Mark 7:9-13).

    3. From observation, when the Right sees a problem that needs fixing, they set up a proper charity to actually do something. Which is usually properly non-profit, uses volunteers, and does things.
      When the Left sees a problem, they want either a new Government branch to do something, complete with lots of government employees; or they want to use the problem to launch a money laundering scheme disguised as a charity. Where you have lots of government grants and big “donations” to pay a six figure salary to family members of connected individuals running a thing that really doesn’t do much to fix the problem. Witness the never significantly investigated Clinton Foundation.

      1. Witness the never significantly investigated Clinton Foundation.

        I have seen indications that may be changing … something about a realization that such “foundations” being especially well organized for money laundering.

        I do not plan on putting off any urgent activities like breathing, piddling or planning for the nation’s 250th anniversary while awaiting prosecution.

      2. And the Leftists — I do think I run into a lot of sincere ones — are absolutely convinced that individual efforts are piddling, unreliable, and more prone to abuse than a government branch. I’d like to say they’re projecting because they know what their “private charities” do, but I’m not sure they’re that self aware. I’d like to be able to deny that they have a point about stability in the cynical sense that a new government branch is hard to dissolve, but I can’t do that. 😛 I think it boils down to a total lack of confidence in both the effectiveness and the reliability of individual efforts, even in aggregate.

        Effectiveness — some of the same people are posting about how urging individuals to save water/reduce energy use is trivial when businesses use $AMOUNT; it’s possible they have a point in some cases but I seriously doubt they have any real grasp of the practicalities for companies nor do they care; also, naturally, they blame this on Capitalism undermining the environmentalist movement rather than noticing their own side wants to control people.

        Reliability — I suppose what it is, is, they figure if they can get enough politicians on board, they can force people to acknowledge that Everyone Should Have X, and Poor People Deserve Luxuries Too, and get it forevermore. And what the government skims off the top, well, that doesn’t matter too much. Whereas if they let people who have money make their own voluntary decisions about what to do with it, it won’t go to the correct people. Might not go to people who aren’t easy to find, or who have invisible disabilities, or who don’t inspire sympathy. To some degree that’s actually a legitimate concern, if you ignore the corresponding ability of government bureaucracies to be oblivious/unresponsive/unreasonable. But then you get to the part where they insist that buying every homeless person a house would be cheaper than dealing with them actually being homeless (I realize being poor is really expensive, but what the heck?) and every kid should be able to get puberty blockers and it’s unreasonable not to be able to take a few months off whenever you please.

  7. Most of us either have vaginas or think highly of them.
    Preach it, sista!

    There’s going to be a rift, and who are your kids going to play with?
    Well, that might make your kids safer. Of course, if you’re the questioning type, they’ve already stopped coming over to your house, because you have GUNS!!!!11!!1!!!!!

    very bad for creating crab buckets at work
    HUH?!? (I think I must be missing something here….)

    1. “Crab Bucket”: A behavior where a group will act in concert to drag someone down that’s either doing something or attempting to escape. Based upon the effect of actual crabs in a bucket that pull all attempted escapers down to their level.

      1. Aha! I have heard the analogy before.
        The “making” part must be what threw me – I was wondering how putting together crab buckets at Joe’s entailed competition instead of cooperation.

  8. It’s virtue signalling, group bonding (not to be confused with group bondage) and getting to be on TV all at once.

    As to the semantic incoherence, Scott Adams explains the workings of cognitive dissonance which underlies their assumption that Taking A Stand will matter.

    1. not to be confused with group bondage
      Actually, wasn’t there a post not too long ago about exactly that? That the left is in mental bondage?

      (Yes, I know what you intended, but I’m much better than to stoop that low.
      At least this early in the thread.)

    2. Group bondage. NOPE. Ain’t goin’ there. Huh uh. No way. Forget I even mentioned it. I’ll go stand in the corner awhile.

    3. It’s also sort of a make believe- they get to pretend that they’re living in the 60’s, and being real civil rights heros.

      1. There was a “movement” a few elections back that called itself or claimed it wanted to “Re-create ’68.” They, of course, overlooked that in ’68 Humphrey lost.

      2. The problem, even in the Sixties, was that the real civil rights heroes were Republicans, battling the Solid South of Democrats. Once it was seen that the Republicans were winning, there was a sudden rush by Commies, leftists, and younger lefter Democrats to take over the issue that was already won.

        Amusingly, this eventually led to some Southern Democrats deciding that they could deal with black people having rights, but not with the other Democrats turning on them.

        (To be fair, there were a few Democrats who fought for civil rights against their own party, and a few leftists who didn’t just use the issue to embarrass the US and further Russian propaganda. But that’s why the others were so keen to replace these true historical figures with themselves.)

        1. Even in the Sixties? In the Fifties the NRA was providing guns and training to Negro families in the South and it was notable how the 2nd Amendment served to uphold the 1st.

  9. Over on Ace of Spades HQ, there was a picture which showed one of the signs in the background. It read:
    “We will crush you with our empathy”.
    Umm..yeah. Semantic confusion indeed.

    1. Victory Girls had a bit on Kristen Bell at the Scree Actors Guilt Awards, where she said:
      “Everyone’s story deserves to be told, especially now…as we march forward with active momentum and open ears, let’s make sure we’re leading the charge with empathy and with diligence.”
      “Active momentum”? WTF? Are you marching or charging? Charge “with empathy and diligence”? Huh? Those are the very antithesis of a charge.

      I wanted to shout “REWRITE!” (Is that the correct allusion, Draven?)

      (And, no, how I wrote SAGA out is not a typo.)

      1. “Everyone’s story deserves to be told?”

        Except if it’s a guy’s story. Imagine Forrest Gump without any victories in it. There’s a considerable number of men in this country who would fit that description precisely.

  10. A recent column by Megan McArdle suggests part of the reason for the marchers’ incoherence:

    ‘Abuse of power’ isn’t the only cause of bad sex
    These women express a feeling of overwhelming powerlessness, even though they are not being threatened. How has the most empowered generation of women in history come to feel less control over their bodies than their grandmothers did?

    Let me propose a possible answer, suggested by a very smart social scientist of my acquaintance: They feel this way because we no longer have any moral language for talking about sex except consent. So when men do things they feel are wrong, we’re left flailing for some way to describe this as non-consensual, even when she agreed to the sex.

    These marchers feel powerless, lack words to convey their concerns and thus fall back on the cant, trite responses that in other settings would consist of “Amen!”, “Tell it, Sister!” and “Hallelujah!”.

    They are intellectual toddlers, having no words to describe the anxieties they’re experiencing and knowing nothing more than crying for Mommy to fix their boo-boos.

    They are also a trivial minority – perhaps as many as one million nationwide — of the country’s over one hundred million women marched. Greater (and more coherent) numbers of women participated in the March For Life only the day before and were largely ignored by the MSM.

      1. The comments at your link are fascinating, especially this one (the topic was Grace and Aziz’s Terrible No Good Very Bad Date).

        esr on 2018-01-19 at 17:28:59 said:
        >In my experience, if a woman has to explain something to a man, she sees that as a failure of “sensitivity” on his part.

        “Yes, I had to think about this for a long time before I understood it. They don’t want mindreading; it’a actually subtler than that.

        What women want is a demonstration that you have modeled their utility function well enough to predict their preferences as or before they manifest. If you don’t, their best case is that you’re “insensitive”; the worse case is that you know what they want but don’t give a shit or are actively being cruel. The possibility that you care about what they want but need to be told what it is seems to be very difficult for them to wrap their non-androgenized brains around.

        I think this is related to the concept of Becker altruism in economics. You are a Becker altruist when someone else’s utility is an input to your own. Running in every woman’s backbrain seems to be a definition of “love” as “he is a Becker altruist with respect to me.” Which is not a bad definition, actually – it’s their belief that we men ought to be able to execute Becker altruism without overt communication of preferences that’s arguably wacky.

        When a woman expects you to have modeled her utility function accurately, and you react with “I can’t read your mind!”, you have (according to her instincts) missed the point. She wanted you to not have to read her mind, either. You should “just know” – that is, you should already be maintaining an accurate predictive model of her preferences by having observed her closely. The extent to which you do this is the measure of love.

        Women, you see, actually do this – a substantial amount of their memory and processing time is devoted to maintaining preference models of other people. Men do it too of course, but not with anywhere the level of effort and persistence women put into it even for casual friendships, let along lovers or spouses. For an average male the effort level is not even close. Our background processing is doing other things, like updating landmark maps of the places we travel. Fill in obvious EAA backstory here.”

        With the extra bonus comment later on:
        John D. Bell on 2018-01-20 at 13:13:46 said:

        “Love is that condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own.”

        He published this in Stranger in a Strange Land, which he initially wrote in the mid 50’s. So not at all a new idea.”
        esr on 2018-01-20 at 16:24:38 said:
        I have a strong suspicion that Heinlein directly influenced both Trivers’s thinking about reciprocal altruism and the Chicago-school economists. Certain turns of phrase keep recurring.

        1. “a substantial amount of their memory and processing time is devoted to maintaining preference models of other people.”

          I noticed this in the last 12 years of my programming career (before I was the only one doing what I did so there was no comparison only hint “You deliver, and you give us what we needed”). Five men & one female (me) making additions/changes to software that (mostly) was client driven. Their first changes “This is what you asked for”, simple straight forward changes, no problem, bigger changes, oh boy, because guys took the client at their word. My changes, most the time (hey I’m human, I missed occasionally, mostly because the problem kept changing), “Based on what you asked for, this is what you needed”, because, unless it was a simple request, I probed until I understood the problem, whether they were articulating it or not. FWIW, clients making requests were both genders, but overwhelming female. Neither were particularly good about what the details needed to be to get to solution of their problem. Plus this was all done over the phone.

    1. There was a little bit of discussion of this idea (not Megan’s post specifically, but the general idea) the other night over at Ace’s blog. At least one commenter there was noting how much easier it was to get a woman in bed with you than it had been the last time he’d been dating.

      Congratulations, women. You won the Sexual Revolution. You can now have sex with men whenever you want.

      Except –
      1.) The guys are a lot more interested in sex than you women are, and
      2.) The guys aren’t so interested in those other things that are also theoretically a part of the dating scene, and that the women tend to appreciate more

      But you got your sexual revolution!

  11. “Most of us either have vaginas or think highly of them.”

    Here! Here! Happy to be a member of the later group.

    “…why they were marching…?”

    I think you hit pretty close to the target. They’re marching simply because of an inate need to feel like a part of something, anything, and marching in a group of other women gives them a feeling of happiness, regardless of why they are marching. I suppose they could all march in the Boston Marathon and feel the same way because they are supporting “Women’s Fitness”. Their inability to articulate a good reason for the marching does show they are vulnerable to manipulation.

    And yes, I’ve run into my fair share of women where you get a strong feeling of, “This isn’t going to end well”, disengage and put as much distance between you and her as possible.

  12. “The word ‘vagina’ is itself misogynist. It is a Latin slang that implies that the purpose is to have something inserted into it. Cunnus is also misogynist, because grammatically it is of the male gender instead of the female.”

    “Aren’t you being transphobic?”

    1. Does the insentient chanting of “vagina, vagina” remind anyone else of that scene from “The Big Lebowski” where Maude tries to shock The Dude by that very means?

  13. I know there are smart women, I married one.
    I know they can think.
    But I swear if one does it’s like a black kid speaking correctly and being a good student. They are acting white…
    If a woman thinks instead of feeling she has gone over to the enemy.

    1. I work very, very hard to think before I feel. Because if I’m leading with my emotions, it means that things have gotten Real Bad Real Fast and nothing short of murder is off the table until the situation improves.

  14. “… I want these women to stop, to think, to consider what’s likely to come from this, and to behave like thinking human beings.”

    That won’t happen, but not because they’re women. It’s because they’re Leftists. Leftism is all about holding power via emotion. Any logical impossibilities are simply ignored, and even worse, valid objections about Leftist positions are demonized even when those objections could be countered logically and civilly. Leftist gatherings are always about expressing hatred while claiming they love.

    1. “… I want these women to stop, to think, to consider what’s likely to come from this, and to behave like thinking human beings.”

      That won’t happen, but not because they’re women. It’s because they’re Leftists.

      Oh, Sarah’s quite aware of the reason. But when she was talking about how women think, a little later on, she was trying to explain why some of the women are there, despite knowing, deep down, that it’s a foolish thing to be doing. Basically saying that not all the women who are there agree with the message, but they don’t want to be seen as unsupportive, or negative, or whatever.

      But in aggregate, you’re right.

  15. Two thoughts;

    In the first place, the ‘Women’s Movement’ has run into the March of Dimes problem; the disease they were created to fight is mostly gone. But there’s this wonderful organization all set to pay salaries and rent comfortable offices, so let’s find a NEW disease.

    An awful lot of the issues the Woman’s Movement was formed to fight were First World problems anyway. But most of those are either gone, vestigial, or artifacts of the Political Left that the Women’s Movement (being part of the power structure of the Political Left) is unsuited to deal with.

    The other thought is that Protest has become a Hobby Activity; undertaken for its own sake instead of as a means to an end. It’s like stamp collecting, or Civil War Reenactment; the people who do it may give reasons for doing it, but they really do it because it is, in itself, pleasurable to them.

    1. Not mutually exclusive. Nor exclusive to several other points here. There’s a lot of “and” in these things.

      1. Oh, there’s AND all over the place.

        The thing is, while the Progressive Left was an embattled minority, they could hold their meetings, elect their spokespersons, have their little rituals, and be perfectly happy (ok, they pretended to be unhappy. it was part of the look). But then they became part of the establishment. And that’s when people expect you to actually accomplish something…..or close the office and go home. And the leaders of the Womens’ Movement didn’t WANT to go home. They LIKED being interviewed by fawning nitwits on television. They LIKED being up on the platform when the Democrat Candidate made his acceptance speech. So they had to some up with new causes. ad those causes got progressively sillier.


        The instant nostalgia for the 1960’s (I think it started shortly before the trash from Woodstock was cleaned up, and by cleaned u I do mean staggered back to their cars) made ‘Protest’ a social activity above and far beyond it’s political aspects. One no longer really goes to a March On Washington to accomplish something, one goes to go.

        1. This — having won it all, they didn’t want to go home. The other day I was lamenting to my daughter over how the current rad-fems picked legal abortion as the hill to defend to the last. I couldn’t figure it, myself; surely they were some other useful, women-empowering causes they could have staked out, but no …
          And my daughter sighed, and said, “Mom, it’s because abortion is the one thing that won’t ever end. It’s ever-renewing, and that is why they have latched onto it.”
          I’m thinking that she has a point.

          1. Oh, it will end, all right: Just about the time the people running the show realize that abortion is gumming up the works when it comes to creating the next generation of client/victims for them to enslave. Once that happens, the worm is going to turn, and we’re going to forget all about how abortion on demand is a human right. And, I’ll bet money that the same group of people who are demanding it now will suddenly turn on a dime, and demand the opposite.

            If you go back and look at it, the abortion rights movement was largely enabled and encouraged by the same male politicians like Teddy Kennedy who were into sexually using and abusing the various groupies they had. Legal abortion enabled them to simply wash away their little faux pas, versus having the chance that little Timmy or Sally might show up as an embarrassment during later campaigns. Women’s Rights? LOL… No, sweetie, you got played. And, you’re still getting played–What ethnicities, pray tell, have been the primary, ah, beneficiaries of abortion largess…? Why, all of the brownish ones, oddly enough…

            It’s been a scam from start to finish, and it ain’t over yet. As soon as the scam becomes overcome by events, then the whole thing will turn on a dime, and it will be the Evul Patriarchy and the Evul Republicans who wanted abortion on demand, and the sweet, loving Democrats who fought for fetal life… Mark my words; that is exactly what’s going to happen when the underlying situation shifts, and you all know it. When it becomes needful for the all-encompassing Party to start forcing women to have babies, then it will suddenly become the next major cause for the same people today who advocate for abortion “rights”.

            1. That’s partially why they want to allow totally unrestricted immigration. Between radical feminism, abortion, and LGBTQetc behaviors, the birthrate of Americans is below replacement levels and our population would be going south as fast as native Germans and other European countries native populations. And the immigrants illegal or otherwise, are more likely to support the progressives if they’re the ones holding the door open for them.

              The question is, why the progressive leadership is pushing that when they’re just as likely to go extinct with the rest of the WASP gang.

              1. The question is, why the progressive leadership is pushing that when they’re just as likely to go extinct with the rest of the WASP gang.

                It’s what leftists do. They never, ever think that they would be put up against the wall when the revolution comes. And they’re always surprised when it happens to them — because if they were capable of learning from history, they wouldn’t be leftists.

              2. Because being put up against the wall will be the next generation’s problem, not theirs’.

              3. The truth? The ones who are actually capable of long-term thought are actually kind of racist themselves, and think they’ll stay the ones in charge. Think a less obviously oppressive version of apartheid South Africa–a small minority of whites and token non-whites running things, with non-whites doing all the grunt work.

                This is a fairly small minority, though–most of the rest are just confused about what compassion actually looks like.

                1. “This is a fairly small minority, though–most of the rest are just confused about what compassion actually looks like.”

      1. Especially since it allows cheap virtue signalling. Imagine having to be virtuous through quotidian good deeds: they cost time, effort, and money, and you don’t end so much more virtuous than your neighbors.

    2. Best suggestion that I ever heard was that all non-profits should shut down after seven years. No matter how good the cause might have been to start with, after seven years, the organization will be primarily invested in perpetuating itself.

      1. I’ll vote for that.
        I would also like sunset laws for NGOs and government agencies authorized for a single purpose in the beginning that morphed into massive bureaucracies in search of a cause (EPA).

    1. I was morbidly amused at the organizers of this year’s event because they announced that the pink hats had to go since they discriminated against male-to-female transsexuals and women of color. Thus displaying at minimum a woeful lack of anatomical knowledge. (The color of the wrapper does not affect the color of the contents. Just like fresh blood outside the body is always red.) But so it goes.

      1. I believe there is a phrase relating to that – “all cats are gray in the dark”. You couldn’t say that to these “ladies” without offending though; that phrase implies a sort of equality, and equality is the last thing those pink-hat nitwits want.

        1. well if they were not nitwits, they’d not be doing silly protests like this (~_^)
          I had something else I was gonna type, but teh stoopidz ist contagious and it fell out of my head

  16. It *is* possible to be homeless long-term without external issues.

    Note that I live in California, where the cost of living is over 30% of pay on average, and cities literally provide no alternative for people who are too many for their shelters. (My hometown complains about the homeless sanitation issue at the same time as it shuts down every public bathroom.) I grant that in many locations where this is not the case, but when people who have decent jobs can’t find a place to live that isn’t eating most of their paycheck, it’s a lot more likely to have folk homeless long-term.

    1. alas, the female holding that sign wants the rest of the country to have the same policies that cause the homelessness you describe, not stop it from happening . . . so i guess that is her protest: we need more homeless like her mother.

      1. Somehow, they don’t make the connection between their laws and actions and the consequences.
        Somehow, everything is the fault of the people who opposed their misguided legislation and behavior.
        Funny, that.

  17. I noticed that several old-school feminists really do not like Linda Sarsour, the “face of Muslim women,” because she constantly avoids, diminishes, and obfuscates about the real place of women in most Islamic societies.

  18. Yep, women do social bonding. This morning, my husband didn’t want to go to the gym with me, and so I passed on going to the gym until this afternoon, when LawDog will be going. Because even though I’m going to be focused on my own squats and bench press, I still want the group bonding of a friend there where we’ll talk about weather or food or the possibility of his book or one of Peter’s becoming a graphic novel during the rest times.

    My husband was completely flummoxed by my deciding to postpone gym, and somewhat confused when I replied, “I’m the sex that goes to the bathroom in groups, love.”

    1. “I’m the sex that goes to the bathroom in groups, love.”
      Oh dear, do not ever mix up the words in that sentence……………

  19. This is just more evidence that my theory about all the various minority groups is essentially correct: They got taken over by the Evul White Patriarchy some time ago, and are now fully engaged in a program of trying to live out all of the exact prejudicial stereotypes that they used to have used against them.

    I mean, seriously… Look at this latest round of “feminist” BS: Could you find more perfect evidence for what the EWP used to say about women being too fragile and illogical to be out in the workforce and in public unsupervised?

    Blacks? Look at the crime stats, and then tell me that the EWP isn’t behind all the black-on-white crime, and things like the Punch-Out game? Could someone who was the enemy of black civil rights and blacks in general do a better job of discrediting them as a group, and making the black community look like a bunch of dangerous feral animals?

    Remember what the Nazis used to say about Jewish financiers being behind all that “dangerous” jungle-based black American jazz music…? Now, go look at who the hell has been working hand-in-glove with the various gangsta’ rappers, and who has been making bank from that highly disturbing coarsening of the culture. Is someone trying to provide evidence that the Nazis had it right, but only a few generations early…?

    You stop and look at a broad swathe of this stuff, across modern “culture”, and you really start to wonder. One place, one time… OK, things happen. Two places, two times… Maybe coincidence. Three…? And, as prevalent as this crap is becoming…? Yeah; maybe the conspiracy theorists aren’t quite as nuts as we think.

    Honestly… If you were setting out with a program to discredit and delegitimize all the supposed “gains” we’ve had over the last few generations in relation to minorities and their rights… Could you do a better job than those minorities are doing, right now? Hell, look at the whole DACA deal–Do you want these people as your fellow citizens? I know a couple of Mexican-Americans who are third- and fourth-generation, and they aren’t too pleased with the whole deal, and actually consider the DACA activist types as being about one step removed from the scum of the earth.

    I think Robert Conquest was on to something with his Third Law of Politics: “The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.”, and that we ought to come up with a corollary to the effect of extending that from “bureaucratic organization” to “political entity in general”.

    You look at some of the things going on around us, and you then are forced to the sudden and dismaying conclusion that Robert Heinlein had to be writing fiction with his Crazy Years idea, because the reality is just too far out there to be believed. We’re already going exponentially past what he wrote, and I would suggest that the reason for that is the simple fact that nobody would have found such a level of insanity as being a reasonable or likely thing, back when Heinlein was writing about it.

    1. I think the blood libel might be a problem with that thesis. At best, only some of the claims against Jews have enough ‘evidence’ to be remotely plausible. That said, my emotional position on Israel is “why haven’t they just killed the Palestinians yet?”

      And the case against Catholics and the Catholic church is much weaker than historical claims. Pretty much the sum total of what can be said about Catholics is that you, Mary, and many of our other regulars can be a bit silly about certain aspects of history, well inside the bounds of normal for silliness about history. (I’m counting you as Catholic for the purpose because your historical viewpoint seems to default to an Irish-Catholic perspective.)

      Likewise Mormans.

      Current evidence does not really substantiate that modern Irish meet the historical claims of incompatibility with civilization.

      Italians, Scotch-Irish, etc…

      The simpler explanations are that leftism is poison, and that media are a bunch of incompetent sensationalist liars.

      1. You’re not addressing the same things I am. Go back and look at all the really base things which used to be said, and then compare that to the actual things going on today, and the behaviors endemic to many of the so-called minority groups. I swear to God, it’s like someone has sat down with a list, and said to their people “OK, we’re gonna make things look like those old-time racists and misogynists were absolutely right…”.

        And, what’s scariest of all is that most of the advocates and activists are entirely blind to the actual effects of what they are doing. As well, the media isn’t helping matters by actively covering up a lot of the things going on, like the Punch-out Game/Polar Bear Hunting, and because of that lack of coverage, it is simultaneously lending renewed credibility to the racists of yore, and preventing people within those communities from seeing the feedback from their actions, both of which feed into increasing animosity.

        It’s strange and scary to see just how quickly and how deeply the change might come. The shibboleths of my youth, the ones I fully bought into as a young man? All about equal rights and the evils of racism/sexism? Yeah; there are a whole lot of people who look at the world around us, realize that the game is now stacked against them as white or quasi-white male, and they’re pissed off. As well as convinced the whole thing was/is a massive scam intended to disenfranchise them.

        The right movement comes along, and taps into all that? Things aren’t going to be so sweet, for a lot of people, and the results may not be so far off from many of the dystopias posited by folks like Margaret Atwood. Whose ravings, ironically, might just become an example of self-fulfilling prophecy…

      2. “Why haven’t they just killed the Palestinians yet?”
        Because they are a more merciful, tolerant, and less bloodthirsty people than their neighbors. Plus they didn’t listen very well when God instructed them to kill 100% of the inhabitants of the land they invaded (or repossessed) after leaving Egypt and wandering around the Sinai for 50 years.

        1. Well, actually… From the Palestinian point of view, the Israelis are just screwing with them, toying with them cruelly. Why? Because the Westernized Jews are sending the Palestinian Arabs a mixed message: They keep beating the crap out of them on the battlefield, and then behaving as though the Palestinians actually won those battles… At least, from the Palestinian perspective.

          To the Arab mind, you don’t do negotiation or reparation, or try to make things nice for the guy you just defeated. Magnanimity in victory is unknown to their cultural lexicon–If the Jews had won, they’d have done to the Palestinians what the Palestinians would have done to the Jews. So, by not doing that, the Israelis were actually signalling that they’d been defeated, and that the Palestinians had won. Or, to the Palestinian mind, why would all this international aid be flowing in? Which they actually see as tribute due them as the moral victors in the conflict.

          By the cultural logic of theirs, the Israelis and the rest of the world are actually just screwing with them. They get their asses kicked, the Israelis pull back, and then come in to bandage the wounded and rebuild. This is the wrong signal to send them, because it just screws up the whole “We got our asses kicked, and lost…” idea for their culture. We think “OK, this question is settled, we beat you in war…”, and they think “Oh, well, you sure aren’t acting like that… In fact, you’re acting like we defeated you… So, that must be what really happened, despite all the evidence…”.

          It isn’t logical, but it is how they think. We made the same mistakes with Iraq during the first Gulf War. Instead of wiping out the Republican Guard, and doing more things like the Highway of Death, we were disgusted and pulled back. What signal did that send the Iraqis, now?

          These cultures do not think the way we do, at all. Trying to project our values, mores, and behaviors onto them just leads to more trouble and more conflict. You have to communicate with them on their terms, which basically means that the Israelis should have simply destroyed the Palestinian Arabs, thrown them bodily out of the country as a whole, and then said “OK, we just beat your asses… What are you going to do about it? And, screw you for aid and reparations after the fact… You started this shit.”. That approach would probably have led to a more lasting peace; the Arab mindset can understand defeat and a victor that acts like one. This oh-so-civilized Western bullshit the Israelis picked up during the Diaspora? That crap ain’t going to fly in the Middle East. Ever.

          Another example I just remembered… Few years back, the Palestinians were bitching that the Israelis considered them less than human, and their evidence for why? The fact that Israeli troops weren’t raping the hell out of Palestinian women whenever they got the chance. Most Westerners hear that idea, and go “WTF? What. The. Actual. F**k?”. Most Arabs hear that, and they nod their heads, in agreement. See, if the Israelis/Jews thought the Arab women were human beings like them, then they’d be doing just what the Arabs would be doing, and raping them… Since they don’t rape them, well, the tautology follows in the Arab mindset is that they don’t consider them human and “worthy” of raping… It’s completely nuts, but it’s an example of why you can’t assume other cultures are thinking or making decisions the way you would in their shoes.

            1. It’s a two-way street; we project on the Arabs the idea that they’ll understand and appreciate our generosity in victory, rewarding us for our humanitarian restraint. They think we’re f**king stupid, and refuse to recognize that they “lost” a conflict, because… In their terms, they haven’t.

              Neither side really understands the other. The Arabs keep thinking that they’ll be able to continuously pull off one razzia after another, and that they’ll never provoke a world-shattering response from us. All the while, they’re steadily adding stones to the scales that will eventually point to “Kill them all” as a response to the one, last, irritating pin-prick. Which they’ll undertake, thinking that they will get the same result as the last one…

              And, to a degree? It will be our fault, for not signalling clearly “Knock it the f**k off, assholes…”. We’re projecting cultural values and signals they don’t possess, and they’re likewise doing the same to us. The end will be a loss of life that will probably stagger the sensibilities of a lot of folks.

              1. we project on the Arabs the idea that they’ll understand and appreciate our generosity in victory
                What you mean ‘we’, kemosabe?
                (But, the political left most certainly does. And I include most any Republican in the State Dept. in that group.)

                1. Unfortunately, due to the nature of things, “we” is all of us, even the ones who know better, ‘cos that’s who we’ve got working for us at the decision-making levels of the government, particularly the State Department.

                  I don’t like it much better than you do, but them’s the facts.

                  The whole thing rather reminds me of that bit in Starship Troopers where Heinlein is talking about spanking babies with axes. The root problem is an inability to understand that you need to communicate with the other party in terms they’ll understand, and that how you would comprehend something ain’t necessarily how they will understand that same gesture.

                  I fear that at some point, we or the Israelis are going to have to spank the Arab baby with an axe, and the sad fact is, it will be as much our doing as theirs–Thanks to the idiots we keep putting in charge of our international affairs and diplomacy.

                  We see mercy and restraint, they see cowardice and weakness. That’s no recipe for a lasting peace or understanding between nations.

                  1. It is ironic that the Twits bleating about “respecting other cultures” and “cultural understanding” generally operate under the assumptions that other cultures are adolescents who need to have their biases indulged.

                    I do not doubt that most here consider cultural respect to entail that other cultures need to be addressed in terms they understand, and if that means crushing them under our feet, driving them before us and listening to the lamentations of their women, well, that’s a shame but if they refuse to learn any other way …

                    1. “other cultures are adolescents who need to have their biases indulged.”

                      Or you could say the mindset that thinks adolescent biases should be indulged, instead of confronted and addressed. You do that young enough, you don’t have to be violent about it, just bring up why it may be incorrect and support your claim. You wait until they’re older, it’s going to get argumentative—and eventually full-on violent.

                  2. I think the British came closest to getting it right, but they forgot you have to repeat the spanking every 50 years….

                    Kitchener’s School
                    Being a translation of the song that was made by a Mohammedan
                    schoolmaster of Bengal Infantry (some time on service at Suakim)
                    when he heard that Kitchener was taking money from the English to
                    build a Madrissa for Hubshees — or a college for the Sudanese at Khartoum.

                    OH, HUBSHEE, carry your shoes in your hand and bow your head on your breast!
                    This is the message of Kitchener who did not break you in jest.
                    It was permitted to him to fulfill the long-appointed years;
                    Reaching the end ordained of old over your dead Emirs.

                    He stamped only before your walls, and the Tomb ye knew was dust:
                    He gathered up under his armpits all the swords of your trust:
                    He set a guard on your granaries, securing the weak from the strong:
                    He said: — ” Go work the waterwheels that were abolished so long.”

                    He said: — “Go safely, being abased. I have accomplished my vow.”
                    That was the mercy of Kitchener. Cometh his madness now!
                    He does not desire as ye desire, nor devise as ye devise:
                    He is preparing a second host — an army to make you wise.

                    Not at the mouth of his clean-lipped guns shall ye learn his name again,
                    But letter by letter, from Kaf to Kaf, at the mouths of his chosen men.
                    He has gone back to his own city, not seeking presents or bribes,
                    But openly asking the English for money to buy you Hakims and scribes.

                    Knowing that ye are forfeit by battle and have no right to live,
                    He begs for money to bring you learning — and all the English give.
                    It is their treasure — it is their pleasure — thus are their hearts inclined:
                    For Allah created the English mad — the maddest of all mankind!

                    They do not consider the Meaning of Things; they consult not creed nor clan.
                    Behold, they clap the slave on the back, and behold, he ariseth a man!
                    They terribly carpet the earth with dead, and before their cannon cool,
                    They walk unarmed by twos and threes to call the living to school.

                    How is this reason (which is their reason) to judge a scholar’s worth,
                    By casting a ball at three straight sticks and defending the same with a fourth?
                    But this they do (which is doubtless a spell) and other matters more strange,
                    Until, by the operation of years, the hearts of their scholars change:

                    Till these make come and go great boats or engines upon the rail
                    (But always the English watch near by to prop them when they fail);
                    Till these make laws of their own choice and Judges of their own blood;
                    And all the mad English obey the Judges and say that that Law is good.

                    Certainly they were mad from of old; but I think one new thing,
                    That the magic whereby they work their magic — wherefrom their fortunes spring —
                    May be that they show all peoples their magic and ask no price in return.
                    Wherefore, since ye are bond to that magic, O Hubshee, make haste and learn!

                    Certainly also is Kitchener mad. But one sure thing I know —
                    If he who broke you be minded to teach you, to his Madrissa go!
                    Go, and carry your shoes in your hand and bow your head on your breast,
                    For he who did not slay you in sport, he will not teach you in jest.

                  3. “Ender’s Game” illustrated quite clearly that Ender knew the point of winning is to keep the enemy from coming back to fight you again.

              2. **WP ate the first response**
                we project on the Arabs the idea that they’ll understand and appreciate our generosity in victory
                What you mean ‘we’, kemosabe?
                (But, yes, the Foreign Service left certainly does that. And most any Republican in the State Dept., I include in that group. Along with folks like GW Bush.)

                1. **WP ate the first two responses**
                  we project on the Arabs the idea that they’ll understand and appreciate our generosity in victory
                  What you mean ‘we’, kemosabe?
                  (But, yes, the Foreign Service left certainly does that. And most any Republican in the State Dept., I include in that group. Along with folks like GW Bush.)

                  1. It did not like my nasty, racist word, evidently.
                    BTW, it did NOT tell me they were awaiting moderation. They simply disappeared.

                2. **WP ate the first three responses**
                  we project on the Arabs the idea that they’ll understand and appreciate our generosity in victory
                  What you mean ‘we’, ke mo sa be?
                  (But, yes, the Foreign Service left certainly does that. And most any Republican in the State Dept., I include in that group. Along with folks like GW Bush.)

                    1. No, just sentenced to have his nose rubbed in his do-do, then get the rolled up newspaper. 😉

              3. Do we have anyone of Arab descent in this blog group that can respond from that perspective? I don’t mind consensus, but I also don’t want to succumb to groupthink on this.

                1. It’s fairly common knowledge to people (not me) who have served there. This is far from the first place I’ve run into this opinion/perspective. I doubt it is 100% true – no statement about giant groups can be – but it’s certainly not false.

          1. “Which they actually see as tribute due them as the moral victors in the conflict.”

            They see it as jizya, the “dhimmi tax” all non-Muslims should pay. Same way they look at government benefits.

      3. I have said for some time that if (IF) the Israelis were as bad as others claim them to be and had done what those others claimed the Israelis had done, NOBODY would mess with them. There would be no Palis left to complain.

        1. The Jews picked up a lot of bad habits during their sojourn in the West; once they remember/realize that they’re living in the Middle East again, and that the region never really progressed past the Old Testament, well… Toodle-oo to the Palestinians. The Israelis are going to start looking at the bits of the Torah that speak to what their god demanded they do to the Philistines and other squatters on their turf, and then embrace the necessities. Another possibility is that they’re going to pull a Samson on the region, and pull the whole thing down on themselves during a biblical-scale defeat. I’ve had to keep pointing out to people that the choice of name for the Israeli nuclear program was no accident, and meant to send a message: Samson.

          The next time ’round, they’re not going to board the cattle cars without a fight. Which is just as it should be.

          1. It isn’t a matter of having “picked up a lot of bad habits during their sojourn in the West.” There is also the fact that their economy requires trade with the West, and to do that they must maintain a certain minimum of social acceptability (as the Boycott, Divest, Sanction movement knows.)

            Eventually the Palis will attain a basic level of sanity (long shot), the Palis will commit an act of such egregious horror that Israel will be able to essentially eliminate them (rather likely), or Israel will find a third party (Bedouins) happy to accept the onus of wiping out the Palis in exchange for minor benefits, such as occupying those lands in comity with Israel (likely.)

            Everything would be helped, of course, if UNWRA stopped providing Palestinian children with badly deranged propaganda stoking their sense of grievance and if the Palestinian system of stipends to families of suicide attackers would cease. Under Trump and with the new Sunni realpolitik displayed by the Saudis and Egyptians this might conceivable occur before one of the three options listed above comes to pass.

            1. The “Palestinians” have the great fortune of having an ‘enemy’ with memories of their own maltreatment and some sympathy/empathy. I suspect had they been up against anyone else (in the region), that that anyone else would have lined up armored bulldozers decades ago and pushed the lot into the sea and Been Done With It.

              1. Pretty much. Sometimes the only way to get really lasting peace is to inflict the peace of the grave on those who oppose you. I strongly doubt that the Palestinians would even exist today, were they dealing with the sicarii of the 1st Century CE.

                Although, I suppose you could make a case that the Romans pretty much culled that particular strain of Judaism from the body politic.

            2. Oh, they picked up the bad habits, all right–Defining “bad” as being “not in accordance with habits necessary to survive in a region like the Middle East”.

              The problem is, the Jews of Israel actually believe all that crap about fair play, and humanitarian behavior being the way to conduct oneself. That’s why they were so easily cozened by the Nazis, because right up until they were being herded into the gas chambers, few of them really believed that anyone, even the Nazis, could do such things.

              Go look at all the carefully reasoned-out Israeli military standards of conduct, which you can find by looking up the terms “purity of arms” on a search engine. Read through that, and digest it: Those are the values the IDF not only espouses, but lives. There are former junior IDF officers who are in prison for long sentences because they failed to prevent their men from having negligent discharges during ‘effing combat operations, things that would get a shrug and a “Oh, well… Too bad that happened, but it’s a war…” from commanders in the US Army.

              The one great failing of the Jews in Israel is that they’re too damn civilized, and they are surrounded by a sea of retrograde barbarity that they utterly fail to comprehend the nature of, or the depth to which it can sink. They’re like lion tamers who are convinced that the nice kitties really love them, and don’t want to hurt them, deep down. Meanwhile, the cats are waiting for them to drop the whip and pistol, so they can have a nice feed…

        2. Several years ago I saw it noted that if the Baja California was throwing even a fraction of the crap at the US that the Palestinians regularly throw at Israel, the peninsula would be uninhabited.

        3. I doubt it. The Palestinians are nearly as dispersed world-wide as the Jews themselves. Sure, they could wipe out Gaza, all the Israel enclaves, and various enclaves in the surrounding nations. But they’re not going to be able to get them all. And how’s that phrase go? Nits make lice?

      1. Strike the words “in America” from that sentence and you get something I’d expect to read on VD’s blog, about how blacks have a significantly lower IQ than whites. Most people who quote that statistic ignore the evidence that IQ has far more to do with culture than with genetics, e.g. the study from Germany that found that IQ rises by a couple of points per year of education*, or the other one (also from Germany) that looked at the children of GIs raised by their German mothers after the fathers went home to America, and found that race mattered far less than culture**.

        * At one point, the legal requirement was to complete X number of years of education before one could legally stop attending school. Then it was changed to complete X+1 years. Studies of high-school populations before and after the change, who had grown up in more or less the same environments except for that one change, found IQs about two points higher in the second group.

        ** The mothers in this study were all white (ethnically German), and the fathers were either white or black. The study found that the all-white kids averaged an I

        1. Oops, managed to post a half-finished comment. The last sentence should read “… averaged an IQ of 97.2 while the half-white, half-black kids averaged an IQ of 96.5. These scores are equal within the margin of error, but lower than the average IQ of 100 by a somewhat significant amount.”

          My opinion on that one, BTW, is that growing up in a single-parent household has been proven to have a large negative effect on a bunch of other outcomes, like the likelihood of ending up in jail or addicted to something (alcohol, cigarettes, harder drugs… whatever). So why wouldn’t it also have an effect on IQ, especially since we know from the other study that environmental factors like longer education has an effect on IQ?

          1. growing up in a single-parent household has been proven to have a large negative effect

            This is one of the major overlooked ignored (suppressed?) factors in discussion of the effect of race in America. The Obama Administration’s forcing of Disparate Impact” policies based on race is disastrous not least because it focuses on the wrong metric; what they ought be examining is family structure.

            But because such a discussion might make single mothers sad, and because it would call for reexamination of government policies which done more to destroy Black Family structure than centuries of slavery and Jim Crow laws we all know it simply ain’t gonna happen.

            Which means those sores on America’s backside will continue to fester.

        2. Blair’s Law in action- “the ongoing process by which the world’s multiple idiocies are becoming one giant, useless force.”

          1. Here’s another good one from Blair (via Wikipedia):
            “On 17 June 2014 Tim Blair published a blog post titled ‘Crown Our Crazy Queen’, which asked his readers to vote for ‘Who is Australia’s craziest left-wing frightbat?’, out of a choice of various Australian feminist columnists, writers and activists. The ‘winner’ was Vanessa Badham, a columnist for The Guardian. This episode triggered a storm of controversy, including responses from the ‘frightbats’ Blair had nominated.

            Blair responded to the controversy by stating that “When you describe hysterical crazy people as crazy and hysterical, it creates hysterical craziness.”
            He has since made the “frightbat poll” an annual event.”

    2. … actually consider the DACA activist types as being about one step removed from the scum of the earth.

      Note that in which direction has not been indicated.

    3. I’ve also been thinking along the same lines, especially with the ultra-rad feminists and the militant black crowd. With the latter – how could their attitudes and actions of late differ from what the most virulent KKK of the 19th century accused Negroes of being: violent, sex-obsessed, ignorant, brutal, incapable of rising to be civilized … and here you go with contemporary black urban culture. Glorifying violence, sex-obsession, willful ignorance, brute force; all that.
      There ya go, exemplars of contemporary black urban culture. You’ve saved the trouble of the KKK burning crosses in your street. Nothing binds quite as tightly as the chains you weld onto your own ankles and wrists.

      1. Your phrasing is far better than mine, but you’re thinking along the same lines I am. All of these groups, whether you’re talking the feminists, the BLM types, or any of the rest? It’s like they’re trying to conform to all the stereotypical caricatures made of them back in the past.

        And, for some damn reason, none of them can see it. The feminists are trying to persuade the rest of us that women truly are too fragile and flighty to be out in public, and they can’t even grasp the final implications of their acts and goals. Look at that deal with Cambridge, where women are now being given longer periods to take STEM tests in… WTF? Who the hell thought that was a good idea, on any side of the equation? If I were the administrator who was asked to make that decision, I’d have had to take the idiot activist aside, and tell her “No, honey… That’s just going to make every other woman with a STEM degree look stupid, and devalue all the degrees we issue women here… Nobody will hire you, if they can get a male who meets the old standards, instead… That’s just how it works, I’m afraid…”.

        Of course, nobody is willing to tell these idiots the truth, so here we are.

        1. Thing is, a lot of the administrators have decided that they can get disadvantaged minority enrollment or graduation to whatever target level regardless of what is going on in primary and secondary education. Coming out in public against it is not a great way to further one’s career. Yeah, long term it potentially devalues the credential. a) The STEM fad is often ignorant of what underpins the value of STEM b) STEM is a fad because other degree programs have already become devalued c) Tertiary education is as a credential supplier dysfunctional, and ripe for replacement, which may happen soon and devalue the degree anyway.

          That said, extended time alone maybe isn’t that big of a deal.

        2. I know. Being female I earned both my STEM degrees right along with the guys; no special considerations. Frozen and wet when I decided the appropriate gear was not needed because it was too hard to carry that day (Forestry Labs, which were in field, were not during the summer). I may not have been able to keep their speed all day in the woods (being short), I did not whine.

        3. Nitpick: the Cambridge people said that the reason for longer exam times was because women weren’t doing well on the exams, which supports your broader point so this is only a nit rather than a disagreement. But the actual action taken was to give everyone, male or female, a longer deadline for those exams.

          I have no issue with that action, BTW: real-life situations in STEM fields (apart from medicine) rarely require answers in THAT time-critical a fashion, so a limited-time exam is an artificial construct anyway, and lengthening the time allowed won’t make significant differences in the results: people who know the material will still pass, people who don’t know the material will still fail, and only people who suffer from test anxiety are likely to have their outcomes changed. (And test anxiety usually does not correlate with poor performance in the real world, at least not in the sample of people I know). Also, since test anxiety is not particularly sex-linked as far as I know, that makes the Cambridge representatives’ statement (“It’s so that women can do better on the exams”) particularly stupid.

          1. The article I read on the Cambridge effort said the extra time — 15 minutes — was given only to women. Apparently they are slower, being more careful and more inclined to double-check their work. Whether that is an extra fifteen minutes on a one-hour exam or a four-hour or an eight hour exam one was not stated but would seem material.

            I agree it would have been better to give the time to all. While time-critical performance would seem unimportant there might be a correlation to productivity — although that would seem subject to review.

            Historically many “accommodations” have had the effect of undermining confidence in the abilities of the “beneficiary” groups, so much so that it almost seems a deliberate effort, similar to prior experiments which consisted of putting a member of a subject group into a position for which he or she was inadequately prepared and destined to be unsuccessful, allowing the management to say “Well, we tried putting [a woman] in charge and [she] just couldn’t handle it.”

            As if every man put in charge had been a success. But it gave cover to the discriminators.

            1. What I had heard, from a source who might well have been mistaken for all I know, is that the time went from 90 minutes to 105 minutes, and that the extra time was given to all students. If the latter half of that is incorrect, then the former half may also be incorrect, so take that for what it’s worth. But if what I head was correct about the time length at least, then that’s a 1/6 increase in the time allowed, which is significant.

              1. Huh. When I took a second-level physics class in college, the tests were so long and involved almost nobody would finish them. But the professor graded based on the highest grade received, not on the points possible, so it was less of an issue. (Questions like “there is a point X found in a sphere of variable charge according to [this equation] which is inside a larger sphere of equal charge Y; what is the charge at X?” He didn’t pull punches. Somehow I managed to scrape a B- in that class, and I was happy to get it.) (I would have enjoyed that class a lot more had not my scholarships depended on my GPA. Terror does not make physics fun.)

                1. I honestly don’t know whether people had trouble finishing Physics tests in classes I took or not. I was usually one of the first five to turn them in, and I really didn’t talk too much with anyone about it.

                  The only exception I know was the Thermodynamics exam. IIRC, it would start at 8AM, and end at 6PM, and students would wander in and out all day, going to other classes in the meantime, and almost no one completed THAT exam.

                  1. We had class sizes of 40-50, and a simple classroom setup, so it was pretty obvious that people weren’t finishing them up. (Maybe one or two, but everyone else would be writing up to the bell.)

                    We had a history professor who had open-ended finals. “Take as much time as you need” sometimes meant he’d be buying pizza for people.

        4. “And, for some damn reason, none of them can see it.”
          FWIW, a spiritual explanation in line with LDS theology would suggest that, having (as a general group) rejected God and his Spirit (which brings enlightenment and enhances reasoning), they are all suffering from a “stupor of thought” which makes them literally stupid.

      2. Everything the Left demands, and does will basically boil down to the rest of Society feeling bad and giving them money & power. Because they’re a poor oppressed victim.
        Now, back in the early days of the 20th Century, when we became prosperous enough to actually care about the oppressed, they had a bit of a point. Black folks were under the official heel of the US Government, Japanese folks were tossed into concentration camps, and so on.
        Society could afford to Give a Fsck, because society hoped that would get these people on their feet, and have a chance to be productive.
        Instead, the victim category keep widening and deepening, because you can get money and preference that way. And in the process, the idea went from Society is helping you to Society owes you. Just because reasons- and they by all that is holy better give them that money and power!
        So, what is happening now is that Society is rapidly reaching Peak Fscks To Give. People are starting to run out, and not only won’t they give a Fsck, they won’t give a S#it either.

      3. “Nothing binds quite as tightly as the chains you weld onto your own ankles and wrists.”
        aka “you are your own worst enemy.”

  20. Perhaps some of those Women’s Marchers will denounce this group?

    Colorado Democrats silent on contributions from Backpage executives
    From Harvey Weinstein to Garrison Keillor, returning campaign contributions made by men accused of sexual misconduct in recent months has become something of a routine for politicians.

    In one case, however, a website accused of facilitating human trafficking and sexual exploitation is at the center of the problem.

    The owners of, a classified ad website, have made generous contributions to several state Democratic parties. The Washington Times has reported extensively on those donations, noting in December, “Since 2010, the owners and their wives have shoveled about $99,000 to candidates and about $95,000 to Democratic parties in Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico, according to federal campaign finance data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics.”


    Despite raking in $70,000, more than any other state party, the Colorado Democratic Party has said nothing about whether it plans to unload the dirty money, even as #MeToo continues to sweep the nation, and even as scandal continues to plague Backpage. To add another layer, five Democrats are currently battling it out for their party’s state attorney general nomination, an office in which they would oversee investigations of human trafficking and sexual exploitation, crimes Backpage is alleged to have facilitated. (Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., for instance, brought pimping charges against three Backpage executives while she served as attorney general of California.)


    A disturbing 2017 report by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs concluded Backpage “knows that it facilitates prostitution and child sex trafficking,” “does not deny that its site is used for criminal activity, including the sale of children for sex,” and “knowingly concealed evidence of criminality by systematically editing its ‘adult’ ads.”

    The Colorado Democratic Party did not respond to the Washington Examiner‘s inquiry on whether it plans to return or donate the contributions.

  21. My favorite part is how they protest dressed up as Handmaids. I mean, they seriously believe that the other side wants to do that to them for real, so they fight back by . . . dressing the way their enemies supposedly want them to?

    1. I read it to mean that since there are still vestiges of Christianity in the country, that is how women are treated *now*. As demonstrated by paragons of sainthood such as Harvey Weinstein et cetera ad nauseam.

    2. “Victory Through Pre-emptive Surrender!”

      Dear Tylenol, Anacin, etc. Do you have anything in Ox Strength? Or will this require phenylbutazone or such to stop my head hurting?

  22. I have to admit I always found the phenomenon depressing rather than amusing. I suspect I have a little more than my fair share of feminine hormones in my biochemistry because I can understand and appreciate the experience of anger driven by fear, and I can understand and appreciate the fact that fear, by definition, does not respond to reasoned attempts to show why it’s incorrect or unnecessary. And nobody ever persuaded me out of my anger by laughing at it; if anything, I find mockery tends to aggravate hostility and division, and it’s happened to me often enough that I have an ironclad policy against doing it to someone else.

    If paranoia is, as Stephen King said, the last attempt of the rational mind to convince itself that morally intolerable events have an explicable human cause, then perhaps these marches are the last attempt of the mind to assuage its need to do something about a situation it finds morally intolerable; whether due to incomprehension or impotence, the perception of complete helplessness in the face of danger (whether that danger be real or only imagined) is one that most minds will do anything to evade.

    1. If they are that mentally unstable that they see this danger, then perhaps they should be in treatment and perhaps institutionalized, instead of indulging their propensity to gather and screech idiotic statements?

      1. Ah, but you don’t have to be mentally unstable to fear a danger that doesn’t exist; you only have to perceive the possibility that it might. Fear is biologically constituted to err in that direction, because if it weren’t it wouldn’t work well enough to keep us alive.

        1. When as disconnected from reality as these folks, yes, it’s a mental deficiency (or instability).

          1. True enough. Part of the reason I’m sympathetic to the irrationally afraid is that because, as the possessor of a genuinely neurotic phobia of an object I rationally know to be completely harmless, I am personally familiar with how wretched it feels to be that afraid, and how infuriating and frustrating it feels to deal with others exasperated with, or worse, amused by, your fear.

            It took me a lot of work to get to the point where I could detach the reaction of the fear itself from my hurt about how others reacted to it, and I had the advantage of not having that fear constantly reinforced by my peer group and preferred media bubble for reasons of political encouragement.

            1. It is one thing to by sympathetic, it is another to be indulgent. Somebody else’s irrational fear of water does not require me to forego bathing.

  23. From the article:
    This last one is the same shit that liberals always tell themselves, and note the vagueness of it “I don’t want my children growing up how this is now”

    Um… you don’t want your children to grow up with electricity, abundant food, and better hygiene than any other society in the history of mankind?

    Of course not. That’s why they promote a system that results in Cuba or Venezuela, and turned a continent-spanning, resource-rich country into a turd world (not a typo) pesthole like the Soviet Union.

    1. It’s long amazed me how natural resource rich countries can be so very poor, and resource poor countries can be rich. That liberty thing (and the knowing of how to use it) is a Really Big Difference. Ponder the powerhouse that Russia could be, if it had the spirit, of say, Hong Kong.

  24. Another line of thought these marches plus other events can give rise to:

    It gives ammo to men who don’t want to spend every waking (and some non-waking) moments thinking a clumsy interaction will land them broke or before a criminal court.. They can assume that every woman is incapable of thinking of people as individuals as the concept is alien to them, to sweep us out of employment and public spaces and to treat them like potential accusers. Because honestly, those women want all women to be accusers and all accusations to be based on the woman’s feels at any point after the interaction, even months or years.. Sure, they’re just not all women, but if they can get that many to join the cause can they take the risk.

    Right now, yes, we can afford the risk. If these women got there way, I’m not sure as a man I could.

    1. I was musing the other day that for a long time I avoided being one-on-one with guys because I was concerned about overly-eager guys accidentally misinterpreting things. Now I have to worry about being one-on-one with all guys because it could hurt their reputation and worse.

      Gee, thanks for nothing, wymynists.

    2. We’ve been there for 20 years. I was amazed at the venom directed against VP Pence, when every corporate HR memo / course / whatever since the 90s has been laying out his rule as policy.

      1. It has been out there but I seem to hear more of an open discussion of its existence and of it being adopted lower down the food chain.

  25. I have a couple of thoughts here:
    1. A few months back, when Joss Whedon’s now ex-wife published her essay about his backstage antics, there was one particular thing that really stuck out to me: in the apology letter he wrote her, he said that the women he was surrounded with were needy and desperate (despite many of them being feminists). As a result of that, he could do pretty much anything he wanted with them. Funny, that sentiment sounds very similar to what Trump said about pussy grabbing. Funnier, that Joss hates Trump so much that he was willing to shell out good money to make advertisements with all of his movie friends about how dangerous and woman-hating Trump is. Funniest is how “woke” and “feminist” Joss Whedon insists he himself is.

    I think there is a phrase somewhere around hating the man in the mirror or something.

    2. About the women stopping to think about the consequences of their behavior? Or just learning to think for themselves, period? At this point, I don’t think they can, simply because of how commercialized this protest movement is. The same people who advocate for socialism have figured out how to successfully capitalize on this protest movement in terms of money and sheer glutting of the market. I work at a chain bookstore. At this bookstore I have seen the following titles:
    “Feminist as F*ck” (note: censorship of dirty language here is mine)
    “Crafting the Resistance” (yes, how to knit your own pink hats and such)
    “The Pink Hat” (this is a CHILDREN’S book, and it’s on the Valentine’s table of all places)
    “We Rise”
    “200 Women” (with flattering pictures of luminaries such as Ashley Judd and Linda Sarsour on the cover)
    “Men Explaining Things to Me”
    “Bessie Before Malcolm” (oh yes, that IS who you think it’s about and it’s also a children’s book)
    “She persisted”
    … and those are just the titles off the top of my head. Not to mention all of the glowing books about Hillary, the display space given to Hillary and Chelsea’s kids books, the nicer books about Trump being given as little promotion and space as possible … It’s as if these women have this identity of protesting wrapped around themselves like a security blanket. If the security blanket comes off, they have to find a way to move forward and warm themselves and lord knows we can’t have that now, can we?

    3. Not to sound too pessimistic, but I’ve already seen the damage that Tinder and the like have done to the dating scene and interaction between the sexes. I’m not looking forward to things getting worse because of PinkHats and PoundMeToo reminding all of us how All Men Are Evil and All Girls Are Victims.

    1. If the security blanket comes off
      Aaaarrrggghhhh!!!!!! My eyes!

      Oh. My. I had not used that word for the symbol…………. o.O

      1. Typically I will use “hashtag” when it applies, but I heard someone refer to the MeToo hashtag as that and now I can’t think of it any other way. Sure, it can be taken as an entendre, but I think of it like someone pounding their fists down on the table to get something they want.

        I should note here that while I believe that we need to be having conversations about sexual harrassment and proper workplace behavior, I also believe that MeToo is a witch hunt.

        1. I think of the bit, “If the law in on your side, pound the law. If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If neither are on your side, pound the table.” And that table is sure getting quite a thumping!

          1. I’m surprised the table is still standing, considering my generation’s inability to afford anything sturdier than particle board. 😉

        2. Not a witch hunt, and not a pining for the Sixties. It owes far more to the power exerted by women in older times when a woman could get a man executed on nothing more than her word.

          They are banning To Kill A Mockingbird not because of the racial issue but because the book exposes just who it was condemning Black men to the care of Judge Lynch.

          1. Where is TKaM being banned for that reason? The most recent I’ve seen is Biloxi, MS because of the racial slurs in it.

            Incidentally, if you want to have an open discussion about sexual and physical abuse, Mayella Ewell makes for a perfect character study. It saddens me a little that this isn’t brought up more during discussions about the novel.

            1. The most recent I’ve seen is Biloxi, MS because of the racial slurs in it.

              That is the reason being given, yes.

    2. RE: “despite many of them being feminists”–they’re not needy and desperate despite them being feminists, they’re needy and desperate for the same reasons that they are feminists.

  26. I don’t like groups, I am not a joiner of things. It has long been my impression when people get together, bad things can happen because people often forget themselves and get caught up in moment. Violence is less likely with women but there is no way would I participate in a parade with tens of thousands of males who are angry about something.

  27. And yet these women insist that I’m suffering from brainwashing by the patriarchy and false consciousness when I don’t agree with them. I can’t stand the modern feminist movement.

    1. I thought hypergamic was the technical term for that feeling you get after the 7th energy drink in the current MMO session.

  28. “It gives ammo to genuine misogynists. They can assume that every woman is an incoherent zombie, and use it to curtail the rights of thinking women, or to sweep us out of employment, or to treat us like overgrown children.”

    This is the part that freaks me out so badly. I don’t care if someone else wants to ruin their own life, but I am NOT going to spend my life wearing a trash bag because these idiots want to live in a weird mashup of the Victorian Era and modern Saudi Arabia. Trash bags just don’t flatter my body type, ya know?

      1. Exactly. Either being ignored or pat on the head, as intermediate result. I was never very good at preventing the “I told you so” from slipping out, sometimes very loudly; sometimes not, I was not above using the fact they were ignoring me and do what I knew was right (well as a programmer, forestry did not allow the latter much).

        Alas, doesn’t happen anymore, but when we’d used to go computer gadget shopping, sales reps would descend on hubby and son, while I happily shopped and looked for what we needed. Eventually hubby would stop sales rep and say “I have no idea what you just said, you need to talk to her”; what can I say I used them to avoid the sales rep.

        1. This happens when we go to a home improvement store. I tell salesman what I need. He explains to DAN what we need. Dan says “Whatever. She’s the one who understands this stuff.” 😀

          1. The last time we shopped for a car, we went to CarMax, which doesn’t have negotiable prices or commissions for the sales people. I think it’s probably no coincidence that they have plenty of women on staff, and that they acknowledge all adults who come through the door as potential customers, rather than defaulting to the male.

        2. There’s often reason for the prejudice in retail stores, sad to say.
          One example from PNG. While in Lae, PNG last year, me, two expat friends, and a PNG Citizen friend went to two different restaurants.
          In both cases, the wait staff, who were PNG Citizens, gave menus to the three whiteskins, but not to the black guy- who was college educated and rather put out. And we all joked about racism.

          A month later, I returned to those same resturants (not a lot of choices there) with a different expat, and a different PNG Citizen. Unlike the first guy, this man was “buslain tru”- a guy from the countryside, and utterly lost & confused. Kind of like how I’d be should I go to a Japanese tea ceremony, or a black tie formal French dinner. So we ordered for him.

          Basically, the wait staff has seen the second situation far, far more than the first, and followed their previous experiences.

    1. Trash bags just don’t flatter my body type, ya know?

      That only matters because you suffer from false consciousness, persuaded that your physical attractiveness is an asset to be enhanced rather than a handicap to be minimized.

      1. I keep waiting for the inevitable clash between the health Nazis (“We’re all too fat and we’re all gonna DIEEEEEE!”) and the anti-body shaming Nazis (“How dare you suggest that I’m not as gorgeous as she is just because I have an extra foot of girth around my waist!?”). Sadly, it hasn’t happened yet. But I occasionally see rumblings.

        1. I’ve seen plenty of that. (I am, FWIW, on the anti-fat-shaming side, because a. I know far too many cases of actual health issues causing the weight gain, rather than the other way around, and b. shaming tactics are actually not only ineffective but produce the opposite result from the stated one.) Mostly I don’t do anything but step back and marvel at the frothing.

          The one I’m anticipating is the clash between hormonal birth control folk and environmentalists.

  29. “It gives ammo to genuine misogynists. They can assume that every woman is an incoherent zombie, and use it to curtail the rights of thinking women, or to sweep us out of employment, or to treat us like overgrown children.”

    This is what freaks me out. I don’t care if these idiots want to ruin their own lives, but I am NOT wearing a trash bag for the rest of my life because they want to live in some weird mashup of the Victorian Era and Saudi Arabia. Trash bags just don’t flatter my body type, ya know?

  30. ” If you don’t come, I know you hate us all.”

    Well, yes, I do hate people who indulge in emotional blackmail. It triggers me.

  31. I know academia is fighting it, but I think women are seeing their right to destroy men’s lives with false accusations under attack.

    If a woman can’t retroactively withdraw consent for sex and have a man marked as a rapist because he didn’t call her back, is anyone truly free?

  32. I think that semantic confusion is actually a symptom of the real problem: a complete and other lack of reasoning/critical thinking skills (thanks, public schools).

    They see (okay, hear) a buzzword or buzz-phrase that sounds cool/horrible and react solely on their initial impression of that phrase and don’t take the time to actually think through what the phrase means and what the cause they *think* they’re joining actually stands for.

    “Hope & Change” is a great example. Sounds great, right? But what exactly are we hoping for? What are we changing? How are we going to change it? Yeah… nobody stopped to ask. Actually, no, I take that back people did ask. Which brings me to another aspect of the aforementioned problem: a total lack of ability to conduct reasoned discourse or construct a rational argument. Thanks again, public schools.

    So when people do stop and ask, “hey, what exactly are we marching for?” or point out, “hey, uh, that… doesn’t make sense,” or even say, “I disagree,” all they can do is hurl insults and launch attacks on their “assailant’s” character.

    And lest some lurking troll think I’m a mysoginist (got spotted and called out on my own blog a few weeks back from an old comment either here or MGC, I forget which) both men and women are equally susceptible to this. I’ve seen it first-hand.

    Basically, tl;dr, they don’t know how to think. Probably because they never learned how to think at best, or were actively discouraged from thinking at worst.

      1. Hope isn’t a strategy and Change has a minus as well as a plus sign.

        TOH, “Hope & Change” seems to be what Trump has delivered

        1. Aye. I recall when I still had a TV signal (cable delivered) listening to one of then candidate Obama’s speeches… and while it sure sounded purty, it was infuriating in how it had no discernible content. All chrome, no steel.

          1. Myself and the rest of the Raptor Clan were of the same opinion: he was (and still is) one of the best orators we’ve ever heard. Too bad he didn’t actually use those skills to say anything meaningful. Or really much of anything at all, for that matter.

            Scary thing was that many of my compatriots (i.e. college classmates) agreed with me that there wasn’t much substance to his speeches, but THEY DIDN’T CARE! All that mattered to them was he sounded really good, he looked good (seriously, I know people who voted for him because they liked his hair, or his smile, or his ties, or because he was “hot”) and who doesn’t want Hope & Change, and how DARE you not want to vote for a black man for President you evil Racey McRacist!

        2. Obama was right about “Hope and Change” coming about because of his election, it was just they were somewhat delayed by two presidential terms), like many of those shovel-ready jobs.

  33. A liberal friend told me a few years ago that she had always wanted to get into activism.

    Bingo, I thought. Liberals believe in “activism” and “peaceful protest” like it’s a religion. I call it liberal activism culture.

    I’ve done a number of blog entries on”activism culture” on my blog.

    1. As someone who remembers the Sixties anti-war protests it was notable that optimum turnout occurred when marches were scheduled for days expected to have nice weather and during exams.

  34. I try to stay optimistic. You used to be able to tell a woman was coo-coo as soon as you met them.
    Nowadays you can tell from a mile away.
    Red flags and all that.

  35. Jumping straight in before I read the comments, and I could pull out several more thought with which I totally agree, but I’ve seen this demonstrated in almost every Leftist “protest” since I started really looking at them, instead of just letting the MSM accounts wash through my brain:
    “Over all, over and over again, they seem unable to answer the one fundamental question: What are you marching for? What do you expect to result from this?””
    They can’t articulate why they are marching (although Sarah does a good job of making lists of possibilities), and the result is always just some vague “it will be better” because “someone” will fix it.
    The main reason is simply that Hillary lost, of course, for this instantiation of the Leftist herd instinct.
    I read the Lenin column first, and this example of inanity really explains a lot about how and why he triumphed.
    “Why are you marching against the Czar / White Russians?”
    “So our children won’t have to” and “I don’t want my children growing up how this is now.”
    Except that the Russians actually had good reasons to believe that things needed to get better; they just couldn’t figure out that Lenin wasn’t the cure.

  36. That link is to a school book from the Saskatoon Public School Division in Canada. It’s actually a reasonably fair explanation of the rise of Communism (for grade 11, so it’s on about a 5th grade level in our day), but doesn’t explicitly disavow socialism as an ideology.

Comments are closed.