Outsourced Violence


Yesterday someone posted a meme with — I suspect she’s an actress, from some of the comments, but you know, I wouldn’t know actors/actresses (honestly, changing it all to the masculine word in a profession where you use your body and appearance is f*cking insane, and I’m done with the corruption of language) if one bit me on the flesh part of the behind — with a woman with a quote from her saying something about how it’s a good thing if the current climate makes every man afraid of every woman because women have been afraid of men for six thousand years.

There are some statements so completely insane that the only answer to them is “I don’t know what planet you came from, woman, but I personally have never been afraid of every man.  Also, you look remarkably well-preserved for six thousand years.

So, it starts with that.  From the mention of six thousand years, this woman is assuming that Maria Gimbutas was correct and that men overturned the peaceful matriarchal society which worshiped goddesses about that long ago.  She might not even know that’s what she’s buying into, having been taught this bullshit as fact.

So, to go to the beginning of this mess: if you’re not six thousand years, you haven’t been “in fear”that long, and as for other women being in fear… You don’t know.  You only know what you’ve been told.  And if you’re ignorant that you think there was some big reversal six thousand years ago, you haven’t really looked for scientific proof, or frankly given it much thought.

So far as we know there was never ANY large scale matriarchal society.  EVER.  Not over six thousand years ago, not ever.  Granted, that is the pre-history, and there are no clear narratives.  But absent Gimbutas dreaming that bull’s heads were uteri, there really is not even a glimmer of a trace of a guess that women were ever in charge.  Those vaunted amazons of the steppes turn out to be teen boys, not women at all (now we can analyze DNA from old bones.)

Yes, there have been female fighters throughout history.  They are outliers.  Most “female military” is either honor guard or largely ornamental until the 20th century and the existence of weapons that don’t rely on upper body strength alone.

Which brings us to the reason large scale (there were isolated tribe, yes, in special circumstances) matriarchies are unlikely in the extreme in our past or our future: women aren’t as strong as men.  They just aren’t.

Over the weekend, I watched a weedy teen male whose waist I could encircle with ONE arm lift a cabinet I couldn’t budge.

Sure I’m middle aged, and would have at least lifted it somewhat 30 years ago.  BUT moving it around like it was nothing?  No.

Because 99.9% of men are stronger than all but 1% of women.  Period.  (Barring illness or other impairment.)

So, how was it possible that in prehistory, with no other improvement to human strength, women would rule?

It wasn’t.  The only way women can rule is to convince men to use their muscles on THEIR behalf, which honestly, one way or another, history shows we’ve managed.

So no, we haven’t been afraid of men for six thousand years.  We’ve cooperated in an unstable but so far successful project called civilization. As long as some men will defend women, the bad men who’d make us afraid are kept under control.

But that requires that women don’t go bad en masse, and don’t use the apparatus of a bloated state to oppress all men.

Actress (I think) chickie wants to have all men afraid of every woman.  That’s because her head is stuffed with fecaliths and she doesn’t realize that women can only have power in society by consent of men.  That women’s violence is outsourced to the apparatus of the state.

Make every man afraid of every woman, and the apparatus comes apart.  The center does not hold.  Those big burly men you want to arrest random men on your behalf?  They will instead beat you to near death, tell you to put a burka on and cook them dinner.

This is where this ends.  Using the apparatus of state violence for “advantage” and “to make men afraid has only one end.  The society these idiots want is not even possible, let alone stable.

The end is a return to barbarism, and in barbarism, women are prisoners and chattels, as they’ve always been.


495 thoughts on “Outsourced Violence

  1. Their entire argument hinges on two points:
    1) Relying on my better nature (so I don’t simply overpower them).
    2) Constantly telling me that I don’t have one.

    There only real hope is that I don’t listen to them and certainly don’t take them seriously.

      1. Ironically many of the women who are screaming “all men are oppressors who need to be made to fear women” are the same folks who want to outlaw possession of the one thing that is a genuine equalizer between men and women, that being of course, guns.

        1. And the best part about that is, these flaming idiotic ‘females’ are the ones who expect the government to enforce these things by means of police or sheep military… using guns and force. Which same groups they also decry as evil and awful and should be destroyed.

          1. Maybe they just, like Talks-With-Plants, imagine what they could do if they had absolute power without ever considering how to enforce it.

            1. They believe power is magically granted so if they get it they won’t have to enforce it because magic.

              I mean, is there anything on the Left from Marxism to Glittery Hohas that isn’t based in magical thinking?

        2. That’s because they expect the state to employ guns on their behalf. But as Sarah pointed out, the state only functions because it benefits both men and woman at some level. When it only benefits women, it will soon cease to function, or begin to function in a way women will find very distressing.

    1. And that woman does not fear men. Yet. If she did she’d keep her mouth shut and not write that kind of arguments, especially not under her own name.

  2. The original twit person is in fact confused by the simple math of set theories and Venn diagrams. The set of men that any woman fears is not the set of all men. In fact in most cases it is tiny handful and many of those same men make men scared too. The only exceptions are women who have been subject to mass abuse (say those poor girls in Rotherham or those in the slave markets of Da’esh) or those who have been taught to fear all men by idiot feminists.

    1. “say those poor girls in Rotherham or those in the slave markets of Da’esh”

      Neither groups getting much attention from the feminists, who are more likely to get angry at the people noticing these abuses and saying they’re wrong.

      1. Feminists prefer to be ‘outraged’ by the men they really don’t fear. In spite of all the hype, what is the trauma of Ford both as a 15 year-old that may have been groped, and a mature woman having nasty emails because of her revelation? Now, compare that to a British girl, probably starting at 13-14 to be gang raped by men and know it will continue, even if reported to the police because the police are likewise afraid that the same men will riot and kill if they confront them?

        In the first case, it is a rich boarding school girl going to party and drink with known horny 17 year old boys; and it happened 35 years ago. In the second case it is middle/lower class girls, walking to school, and it is still happening now. Feminist can’t help teen aged Ford, they could help Rotherham girls, but they will not.

        The sad truth is feminist attact Western Civilization men. The ones that have given women more respect, more equality and more freedom than any other men ever in the history of humanity. They are the easy target.

        1. Feminists prefer to be ‘outraged’ by the men they really don’t fear.

          High school mindset.

          I got attacked, because I WASN’T a threat– I was free points, in game terms.
          In A school, at least one gal plotted (rather elaborately) my social downfall…. she was disappointed because by the time anything came of it she’d been shunted elsewhere.

          If you take the cheap points, you get ahead, fast.

          At the start of the game.

          1. At least among men, it’s amazing what a well placed threat can do. When jumped in a locker room by a group for some hazing, I ended up threatening that while they could probably beat me then but I would find them one-on-one and then we’d see who paid. Apparently, I had a sufficiently crazy reputation and/or sufficient blood in my eyes they took me literally and promptly backed down. Suddenly, the points weren’t so cheap … 😉

  3. It’s vaguely possible the 6 thousand years thing is based off a vague memory of that being “all of history.” Ur was in the fourth millennia BC, poplar guess, right?

    Still silly if you pull it out and look at it for a second– especially since she could’ve done better to just say “for thousands of years.”

    1. “Nor do I believe that women are children, incapable of agency or of making moral decisions. If they were, we’re back to the 19th century, and women should not own property, have credit cards, have access to higher education, control their own reproduction or vote. There are powerful groups in North America pushing this agenda, but they are not usually considered feminists.”

      Au contraire… they are *always* feminists.

      “Furthermore, I believe that in order to have civil and human rights for women there have to be civil and human rights, period, including the right to fundamental justice, just as for women to have the vote, there has to be a vote. Do Good Feminists believe that only women should have such rights? Surely not. That would be to flip the coin on the old state of affairs in which only men had such rights.”

      Flipping the coin isn’t the basic premise of whatever the “feminism” is that exists today, but also describes every other “woke” agenda. Complaining about inequality demanded by the “flipped” state seldom ends well. After all, all women were terrified of all men for 6000 years, sci-fi has been a “white sausage fest” for 60 years, and slavery and Jim Crow oppressed POC for hundreds of years. Certainly we must “flip” for the same periods of time in order to make things fair.

      And I wish I was joking.

      The old feminists had their share of wacked out philosophers but by and large women were responding to existing inequity in law and practice, working for legal equality, careers, and the right to control your own money, to have abuse taken seriously by courts… but *most* of them didn’t in the least bit hate men or want to flip the coin and be on top now. Atwood, however, is OLD. A pure nutter in a lot of ways, but aren’t we all?

      And flipping the coin provides a rather chilling purpose behind “all men” and the fantasizing about power, oppression and fear. Because if grandma was afraid, if my great ancestress was afraid and tortured and oppressed, and if I can BORROW that… what behavior can’t be justified?

      1. But was it inequity?

        If we accept that the modern feminists speak for every woman and girl at every time and place, we are readily persuaded that it is not just, sane, or sound to permit women and girls to hold opinions, make decisions, or really be present.

        1. I brought this up in a post at Chicagoboyz – that a certain number of so-called feminists are so unhinged in their hatred that some elements are wondering if it were a good idea to permit women to vote at all.

          “I am too old to credit vague, unsubstantiated accusations like this. Christine Ford may have been quite the at-large juvenile party animal as a teenager, so I would accept the possibility of an unfortunate, drunken sexual experience being part of her past, as well as a good reason to seek relationship counseling as an adult … Would it be too much to ask of women such as herself and her allies in Capital F-feminism that they work out their traumas in privacy, and refrain from inflicting them on the rest of us? Seriously, I would like that. It’s gotten to the point where sensible women are fleeing any association with strident Capital F feminism, and some men are wondering sourly if it was really a good idea to give us a vote at all.”

          Got some interesting comments on that in the following thread.


          1. I’m not wondering sourly. 😉 I grew up with the manipulative socialist mind games, so verbal contortions are a normal part of my humor. So I hafta ask such questions.

            It’s not a policy position where it’s expedient for me to pick commitment to one side or another. The US functioned before and after suffrage, and the functioning of the US is my priority.

            I don’t want the legal authority and responsibility to make decisions for the women I am closely related to, so I guess I have a policy preference there.

            I don’t know the hearts of every American, so don’t know the future of America. I have chosen to deal with that uncertainty by assuming it will all work out somehow, even if not in a way I prefer or imagine. Assuming that American culture will win out because most Americans are sensible enough when it comes down to it. It isn’t clear that I should not apply the same reasoning to the case of American women.

          2. I’m not wondering. The unlimited franchise has been an unmitigated disaster.

            Consider: When the United States was founded, the vote was restricted to free men over the age of 21 who possessed property or income – the latter requirement deprived about 30% of adult men the vote. But it produced leaders like Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin.

            In the 1820s, the property requirement was done away with. This produced leaders like Lincoln and Davis. Good men, but not as far-sighted nor as adept as their predecessors.

            Then women were allowed to vote. This culminated in the election of men like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. Inept and prone to totalitarian notions of government.

            As for allowing 18-year-olds to vote? Think Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Clinton, and Obama…a string of sociopathic crooks.

            I won’t say women should be categorically denied the vote. I merely say that the standards for both men and women need to be considerably higher than “18 and breathing”.

            1. Note that the 18 year old vote didn’t get approved until 1971, ’72 was my first election. Can’t blame 18 year olds for LBJ, and I seriously doubt Nixon got any love from them in 1972. (I was pushing for Muskie–the follies of youth. Evan as a freshly minted Democrat I sensed the rainbows, unicorns and bullshit from McGovern. Yes, I learned and shifted much further right after a while…)

            2. Consider: When the United States was founded, the vote was restricted to free men over the age of 21 who possessed property or income – the latter requirement deprived about 30% of adult men the vote. But it produced leaders like Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin.

              No, those leaders produced that rule.

              There is a differnece….

            3. In the 1820s, the property requirement was done away with. This produced leaders like Lincoln and Davis. Good men, but not as far-sighted nor as adept as their predecessors.
              You skipped a whole lot of inept presidents who let the US work it’s way to the Civil War.
              There’s a fair bit of survivorship bias in your main theme. You’re picking the good, and leaving out the bad- which was a good majority of the 19th century presidential office holders.

          3. Of the true unfortunates I’ve known that have suffered actual trauma not a one has desired such attention, yet (to the best of my knowledge). One would *think* a professor of psychology would know better. And know what such actions tend a rational person to think of such.

        2. Not speaking for “modern” feminists, but for my mother’s generation I think that there was inequity. Certainly legal inequity. Certainly sexism.

          That’s not to say that life was fair for men, either.

          But certainly modern feminism insists that women are children, incapable of agency or making moral decisions. Beyond incapable of being responsible for their decisions once they’re made. Incapable of rubbing up against other humans without having emotional trauma from it all.

  4. Yes, there have been female fighters throughout history. They are outliers.

    And now I’m envisioning female fighters all played by Black Widow…. (For all the obvious Hollywood, she doesn’t even try to go toe-to-toe with Clint, who she knows won’t go an inch further than he absolutely must to stop her.)

    1. I would have to disagree.
      Female warriors are outliers.
      Female fighters are legion.
      All of course depends on ones definition of fighter.
      But there is no fiercer fighter that a woman defending herself, her family, or her tribe.
      And for at least the last 150 years there is no sensible reason for a woman to fear the greater strength of a man.
      The old saying: God made men, but Samuel Colt made them equal is as true today as it was when modern firearms were first developed. I picked 150 years arbitrarily as when cartridge firearms were first developed, but guns suitable for a female have been available hundreds of years before.
      Credible evidence of defensive gun use on the order of 500,000 to 3 million per year, a good many of those were females.

      1. And for at least the last 150 years there is no sensible reason for a woman to fear the greater strength of a man.

        Objection! Humans are NOT sensible!

        1. The fact that the number of women getting concealed carry permits far outstrips that of men would tend to indicate that at least some ladies are sensible, or at least pragmatic.

          1. Heck, even YouGov when hired by Huffington Post could only get just over half of democrats to care about the accusations against Judge K– humans can do sensible things, but we’re still not sensible!

            It’s like a trace element. ;^)

      2. I seem to remember that Kipling had something to say on this subject, about when the women came out in the night… with their knifes.

        1. “When you’re wounded and left
          On Afghanistan’s plains
          And the women come out
          To cut up what remains
          Just roll to your rifle
          And blow out your brains
          And go to your God
          Like a soldier”

          1. I didn’t quote this but said something very similar to an assh*le who was being an ignorant jerk about women in combat. (For what it’s worth, you’ll not find me arguing for female infantry or special forces.) He’d made a crude remark about a woman’s traditional role on the battle field implying that it was sexual. I (also rudely) pointed out that a woman’s traditional role on the battle field was slaughtering the wounded and looting the bodies.

            1. Indeed.
              *carefully wiping blood off the long knife, and circumspectly stashing away the goodies found … I mean, they were just there for the taking, right? Finders keepers and all*

                1. Seems a decent way to get rid of a rival, too.

                  Though, how do you explain to your village that this other woman ended up dead. Would “Oh one of the soldiers wasn’t as wounded as she thought” actually work? Or do you just leave her and act clueless when her family starts to wonder where she is?

            2. For what it’s worth, you’ll not find me arguing for female infantry or special forces.

              Oh, thank goodness, I thought I’d have to argue against you! A couple of my aunts and cousins stopped talking to me over that when I started going into why it was a bad idea. (Short version, the Bad Guys don’t share their idealism. for most basic starters.)

              Lady jet pilots– to pick a very obvious example– are not a bad idea, generally speaking. Yeah, they can be captured, but that applies to any military member OCONUS. Ladies in other support, depends on the situation– but we should also be looking at racial and identifiable religious characteristics there, simply to protect our troops. Part of why we’re dominant is that we consider humans our biggest resource, let’s not squander that. Even if it means not sending “they look black” troops into some battles, because the folks there believe they are sub-human. For an IRL example from recent history.
              I’m a big proponent of paying attention to what our enemies think matters— even if I think it’s dumb, the Art of War says it’s important. 😀

              1. Physical reality is what it is. The issues that I take issue to are when people claim that it’s somehow more tragic for a woman to be killed or more tragic if she becomes disfigured or that women can’t operate under the concepts of honor and duty or sacrifice. Or that they can’t kill other humans!

                I don’t believe that the number of women who join the military is capped at a certain number or percentage so I’ll assume that the number that volunteer give us a reasonable percentage of women vs. men who find service appealing to begin with which is about 15%. I dispute that of those women that they are any less suited in their *mind space* for the task than their male recruit compatriots.

                But you’ll not find me arguing that they’re as physically capable because women simply are not. Maybe when we have combat armor suits or something, but even then, 15%. Women have fought valiantly and effectively in combat and we have multiple heroes to look to, which is a big issue as well. But that doesn’t overcome the physical limitations that women have.

            3. I’m fairly certain Molly Pitcher wasn’t screwing her husband just before, during, or after battles.

          1. Or the wives of samurai defending their homes while the men were out in the field. Even training in weapons like the naginata, which apparently don’t require great strength to use effectively.

  5. That idiot doesn’t know what “fearing all men” is really like.

    If she did, she would be afraid to talk like she is. 😈

    1. That’s a familiar situation to gun owners, who are constantly accused by the left of being homicidal maniacs simply because they own weapons. The obvious rebuttal is that, if this were true, the accusers wouldn’t live to make their absurd claims.

      1. Speaking of fearing gun owners, I’m waiting for some idiot to try this:

        In fairness to Antifa (“I’ll take sentences I thought I’d never type for $400, Alex”) I hear chatter that the original image is a 4Chan hoax.

        1. The hilarious thing? That holster is well known in evil gun owner circles. Its anti-snatch mechanism is right there for anyone to see. The most anyone would accomplish following those instructions on that holster would be public humiliation.

          1. A little bit right in that many are designed to be removed in a smooth vertical motion. But it requires they have a proper grip to press the latch. Never mind there are some that require different directional motions anyway.

            1. Word around the training campfire is that the Serpa isn’t especially sturdy, and you can just rip the gun right off the belt.

          2. . Its anti-snatch mechanism is right there for anyone to see.

            That incised panel covering the trigger guard?

            Is it easier for the wearer to use than a holster with a snap retention strap?

            1. It’s a latch you work with the trigger finger. As easy for the user as a thumb snap, they say, while being less conveniently angled for a snatcher. Having never used one, I can’t vouch for that.

    2. It’s the same thing as the “Trump is oppressing us like Hitler.” It is oppression LARPing.

      And I’m really starting to want to give those LARPers the experience without the RP, just the LA. For about 48 hours.

        1. Don’t.

          No, really, don’t bother.

          I spent much of the first movie rooting for the home invaders, because the family was so stupid.

          1. The series rather sounds like left wing fantasy of what it would be like. If it happened for real, well, maybe in the cities, and even there maybe just in the beginning years, but small towns and countryside might end rather safer than before, I’d guess. 😀

            1. And the real smart people would realize that “any crime is legal” would mean that instead of going out on a violent spree they could computer hack and otherwise steal their way to wealth; think about all the robberies that one would legally be able to pull off.

              1. they could computer hack and otherwise steal their way to wealth;

                The most effective defense against that would be to withdraw your money and keep it in cash for the duration of the Purge.

                Which means a run on the banks by everyone who thinks of it.

                *Considers what happened the last time runs on back happened*

                … Someone really didn’t think this scenario through.

            2. Human centipede *films*?!? They made more than one?!?!? Just reading the synopsis of the first disgusted me. How in the world could there be humans willing to make *more* of these films?!?

              Maybe it’s a sign that there are aliens among us, or that there are already weird autonomous AI robots….but I can’t help but think that no *intelligence* of *any* kind would make such movies….

      1. There seems to me to be a plague of LARPs going on. The others don’t seem to be as dangerous to the world as Oppression LARPing though. I think that 90+% of the Flat Earth stuff is LARPers. Preppers are LARPers. (Shut up, you are so!) Perhaps life is just that comfortable?

        1. I think so. There’s something is us that needs the occasional deer breaking cover just as we fire and “away goes supper,” or bear in the cave we thought was empty. If we can’t find it in real life, we LARP it. Or teach public school in NYC and LA and St. Louis and…

        2. I won’t argue that point. Somebody asked me about long-term prep/planning once and I answered “I have a serial novel writing itself in my head about ‘how the Seashells Family survived the collapse,’ and then I do that.”

          1. LARPing is also an awesome step in preparing for pretty much any life-threatening situation– what the heck are fire drills, if not “disaster!LARP”?

                1. One thing that I like about fire drills is the way every one goes along, laughing and joking, and then they’re surprised when it turns out that there really was a fire.

        3. Preppers are economically neutral. The do little for the produce markets, but they do wonders for hardware.

        4. I will rise to some defense of preppers. I try to be ready to be stuck in the house for a month (food, gas for cooking, water, etc) because I lived through enough snow storms that shut down the state of CT and ice storms in Atlanta to know 4 days is not unreasonable. One winter I was in CT it seemed there was such a storm every Thursday for a month.

          So I’m prepared for the worst I’ve been through and called a prepper for it. I’m not LARPing. I’m just being paranoid.

          1. It’s hard not seeing prepping as an over all positive. If someone is just into disaster preparedness or surviving the collapse of civilization. I’m pretty sure that all the preppers in the south east managed the hurricane with minimial discomfort. (So long as their house didn’t blow away.)

            But LARPing Oppression is over all horrible. The threat isn’t vague and in the future, it’s here and now and has the face of your neighbor and requires stomping that face before it stomps you.

            1. Yes to both your comments. I was only minimally worried during Florence, and that was more “are trees going to fall on my house?” than “OMG we’re gonna dieeeee”.

              Oppression LARP, on the other hand, caters to the worst instincts of the people RPing. “We’re OBLIGATED to do unto others before they do unto us, because it’s NEVER BEEN MORE IMPORTANT!”

          2. I initially bristled at the “Preppers are LARPing” thing, but… it does rather fit.

            It’s just something that is actually USEFUL.

            I know some blogger I read made a point that she (??? memory doesn’t give me much…) does Zomie Prepping, you know, “in case of the Zombie Apocalypse….”

            Sure, it’s a little silly in the “I expect this to happen.” But the specific stuff is still useful, even if it’s snow/rain/wind/idiots that are keeping you from going shopping, instead of zombie hordes.

              1. Nah, I don’t watch TV.

                It was definitely a blogger, and one I respect– it’s in a similar mental category to “one of my sane cousins said it.”

                OK, the “sanity” in this case is more like “isn’t a College Libertarian, or my crazy one-eyed uncle, or the angry liberal aunt, or….”

                  1. Eh, quite possible. I seem to remember their family was involved somehow, so maybe it was something like the family called it that, or…eh, who knows.

                    I agree, it is a good idea– it is clever, fun, and not scolding, AND on top of all that it’s not counter-productive! Puts it way ahead of most PSAs.

                    1. Long story short, between hurricanes, rainstorms that drop 22 inches in less than 12 hours, the second-most lightning strikes in the country (no seriously, apparently only Tampa has more) and the occasional ice storm that freezes the bridges for DAYS… yes, I do zombie prep.

                      One of those rainstorms – not a hurricane, mind you, a RAINSTORM – managed to wash out critical roads to get to, for example, the local vet. I wish I had a picture of the taillights of a car that missed exactly where a road was in that rain and ended up diving headfirst into the ditch next to the local HS. A ditch deep enough to hold all except said taillights. Eep.

                      Last I heard, they’re still repairing some roads from that, over four years later.

                      …You may find it ironic that while the bridges were frozen, there were no calls to the police where I lived. None. For two days.

          3. Husband had a conversation with his father recently while they were visiting, explaining why we have the shelf stocked with canned food, including canned meals. Most of these things are ingredients; used to prepare other meals quickly. The canned insta-meals? For when I’m too sick to prepare food or give the children instructions on cooking, and no other adults are around, and the children need to eat.

            Lots of folks see that shelf and think we’re prepping. Yeah, for when Mommy’s sick and things are busy, and we haven’t been able to go shopping for a fortnight or three.

            1. I wish that worked for my family, but one of us has dermititis which interacts with food and we’re still trying to figure out which foods affect it. Never give up, etc, but some days well, cooking isn’t as fun as it used to be. And if I give kid a can of soup, he’ll have an itchy rash later. So my prepping tends to be having lots of dry goods stored rather than cans of soup.

                1. “Carbs”

                  I’m a zombie on pure carb diet. Either BS too high then too low, with in 30 to 60 minutes. When it is “suppose” gradually go up & come back down in 3 to 4 hours.

                  I know better, but we could scrounge a week out of what we have on hand, right now. After next month I’ll have meat in the freezer (purchased share), & that will change. We live in an area where we don’t get huge tornadoes, hurricanes, huge floods (anymore), much snow (’69 exception), or ice events that last more than 24 to 48 hours, let alone shut down our roads. Possibility of Fire (unlikely), or volcanoes, yes. But in those cases nobody is sticking it out to live off their reserves, & you can only pack up so much. We are in the S. Willamette Valley; valley floor, not any of the foot hills.

              1. Hubby used to be allergic to a looong list of things as a kid; you have my sympathies! Hopefully you can find out what foods/ingredients your kiddlywink is affected by soon.

                When I boggled (I have a number of food allergies too, but less than his list) he noted he was lucky; he knew someone who ‘could only eat space paste, and lived in one of those bubbles.’

            2. “Lots of folks see that shelf and think we’re prepping. Yeah, for when Mommy’s sick and things are busy, and we haven’t been able to go shopping for a fortnight or three.”

              Um… everyone I know does that. Seriously. I can’t imagine not having a stash if you are a family person with decent storage. (Most post-college kids I know would be in heaven to know they had two or three weeks’ worth of food on the shelves.)

              1. I think part of the headtilt has to do with ‘why not just go to the grocery and buy fresh’; which hubby explained. If I could keep chickens, I’d have fresh eggs the way I used to have back in the Philippines… but where I live is not conducive to such. Too many cats, yard is too small, and well, it’s a rental.

                Ironically, other than canned meats in single-serve cans that she likes for the convenience, Mom doesn’t do much of the canned stashes – she has some, In Case of Typhoon, because that’s what saved us from starving (and there were… 9? or so people in the house, children included!) so that kind of thinking sticks; but she doesn’t do it to the levels we used to when we all lived our parents.

                Honestly, the full pantry a bit of a hand-me-down household rule that came from my maternal grandmother and my Dad. Canned food is not seen as a ‘bad thing’ by folks like us. Sadly, the climate is not conducive to something I wish we could do – keep water, soda and things like canned tuna, crackers, canned fruit in the car, TP and a couple of towels, In Case. Dad did that when we had a car in West Germany, and the stash was under a thick wool blanket. We also had another blanket in the car itself, which came in handy when the car had some kind of malfunction and we were stuck on the side of the autobahn, for several hours, in either early winter or late autumn. We had food, drink, and, when bored of the very limited exploring we did of the woody area near the road, warm and napped. I’m a nervous critter about the car breaking down and we not having drinks to keep hydrated, but for the long trips interstate, I ‘prep’ the car for that.

  6. It might be as close as she’s able to come to understanding that men are physically stronger than women and always have been. But the rest is undoubtedly projection. If she had power, how would she use it? Well, given the idea of power over men, how does she use it? The tweet says exactly how she’d use it.

    When it comes to physical strength though, there’s always someone stronger. This is true for every man as well. And the lion is stronger than the strongest man. Or the horse or the cow or the wolf we turned into dogs. The weather, the storms in winter, everything in the world that tried to kill us from the beginning of time. It doesn’t mean that humans lived in fear and it certainly doesn’t mean that we were in constant fear of each other.

    1. Maybe it’s a Princess and the Pea situation?

      They don’t know what fear is, so they identify “recognition of a possible issue” (I’m not afraid of heights, for example. I don’t like them, because I view them as an unnecessary risk in most situations, but the view from a mountain is awesome. This is different from folks who have a “fight or flight” reaction to the idea of height.)

      Kind of like how folks who drive quite dangerously will fuss at me for taking “unnecessary risks” by having kids.

      1. I think it’s simpler than that. The Left views history and social interaction through an “oppressor/oppressed” lens. If she’s too heavily immersed into the ideology, then it’s possible that she’s completely incapable of viewing history in anything other than that light. If so, given that women weren’t oppressing men during those less enlightened times, then obviously men must have been oppressing women.

        The unstated corollary to that viewpoint is that it is completely incompatible with a system like that of the United States.

  7. The only thing that keeps women, kids and old people safe is the rule of law and common decency. The law part comes in when the decency of common people fails, as it occasionally does.

    Offhand, I can’t think of anything that would erode decency faster than using the law capriciously to threaten free men.

      1. And if you demonize the wrong men they’ll replace it with “Might Makes RIght”, which has been the rule of most of human existence.

        The frightening thing is these people believe the present is actually more violent and oppressive than the past.

        That kind of stupid carried the death penalty in the long term.

          1. And as Heinlein noted, when the inevitable happens as a result of the of insanity, it is called “bad luck”.

      2. No king, no feoff, no master.

        The *only* thing that keeps the United State stuck together is the Constitution, whence every single bit of law and authority come.

        Which is why I get downright obnoxious when I see people wave it away as “just a piece of paper.”

        “Yeah, that piece of paper is why you’re not shackled to my plow or picking my cotton… you might want to rethink some of those idiot opinions you picked up by assmosis.”

        1. The people who want the Constitution to be a “living document” without a definitive meaning might not be so happy if the deed on their property were subject to such flexible interpretation.

        2. Not quite. The only thing that keeps the United States together is people who believe in following the Constitution as written and intended by the Founders.

        3. It is. It cannot defend itself and without blood and honor it would be even moreva stsid curiosity than it already is.

      3. It’s the befuddlement that comes from ingesting too much Marx. Silly little Bolshie buggers think that if they can just get the oppressive Constitution out of the way, the People would rise up and bring about a true Communist society. Whereas the actual result of the people “rising up” would very likely involve stringing up the Leftist.

    1. How about certain people throwing acid and cutting people with knives BUT you can’t say that is happening or the police will arrest you. And the police seldom arrest the acid and knife people.
      Law and order breaking down, people starting to punish the people when they catch them. Not a good thing but the elites are digging their own graves. Either the Muslims or the natives are going to put them there.

      1. Not really. The thrust of the novel is that man has made tools so much more effective than any Superman is likely to be. He has near invulnerability and can break things. And it repeatedly gets him nowhere.

        The ‘heroes’ of Myth (who mostly strike me as so many jerks) do Great Things….which mostly boil down to breaking things. The most useful Mythological feat I can all to mind offhand is the cleaning of the Agean Stables…and tell me a backhoe couldn’t do it better.

          1. Since I’m not going to tempt the wordpress demons, the corollary is in a different strip where Asimov’s ‘advanced tech is indistinguishable from magic’ quote is used and modified, although I cannot remember how offhand.

        1. ….Exactly?

          His individual awesome is useless, because of amorphous Power, and then he dies in a Powerful Way.

          He did great things. He had great power. It was useless.

          Nevermind that I can think of dozens of ways to be usefully awesome…..

  8. Obviously someone has never watched that BBC report or read Hanna Rosin’s writing. Don’t you know men are obsolete? Advances in robotics and mechanization will handle all of those heavy-lifting jobs (sure, men designed those robots, but who cares?). Drones (operated by women) will be the new military and police. The new modern workplace is best suited to female sensibilities – and see how peaceful and harmonious an office staffed entirely by women is?

    Sure, there will always be some work so menial that only the sperm-donors can do it, but they’ll be out of sight out of mind. As for this nonsense about Islamic men coming to fill a void of masculinity and welcomed by women with a subconscious craving, that’s pure racist nonsense, an error in the past that’s being corrected.

    The future is female, and if anyone says otherwise they’ll swiftly find themselves isolated as they are shut out of twitter and social media and their Amazon Smart Car won’t start because Alexa overheard them saying naughty words.

    They’ll just be held in place until the drones stop by with their tranqus and tasers to cart the offenders away for reeducation and chemical treatment.

    What a brave new world!

    Thanks ladies!

      1. (pleasant feminine computer voice) Sir, the quality of memes you have been sharing and the sites in your browser history have demonstrated antisocial and maladjusted tendencies. As such, you have been designated for mandatory psychotherapy.

        Sir, the stress-analysis of your voice and mannerisms indicates you are upset and in need. of medication. Please go to the dispenser beside the refrigerator and take the pills that are dispensed.

        Sir, you are showing increasing agitation. As per the terms of service and code of conduct, your social media accounts have been frozen and your Amazon Smart Car deactivated so you will not cause a disturbance for others. Drones have been dispatched and are en-route to deliver you to treatment. Please sit back and listen to the relaxing elevator music while you wait. This is for your own good.

          1. Home-made anti-drone drones. That cooperate. That know their target’s weak spots and go for them.

            Hilariously, a reasonably trained guy could do that today. Right now. And it is getting cheaper.

            1. One of the memorable cartoons in the 1950’s-1960’s yearly supplements to the World Book Encyclopedia (Aunt’s family had the 1950 edition, we got it all handed down/over in the 1970’s) was a fellow with a globe-head (the world) looking at, in turn…

              The Missile
              The Missile to stop the Missile (larger)
              The Missile to stop the Missile to stop the Missile (larger still)
              …’ad infinitum’ (huge)
              …and the last page was a tech running into a hangar or such, shouting, “It’s coming back!”

    1. Sure, there will always be some work so menial that only the sperm-donors can do it, but they’ll be out of sight out of mind.

      See why feminists are worried about parity in CEO slots and Silicon Valley programming, but never in plumbing or garbage collection.

    2. And then we’ll eventually end up in one of those bad sci-fi settings (also, Guardians of the Galaxy 2) in which reproduction takes place purely through mechanical means, and the inhabitants of the world have completely forgotten what sexual intercourse is.

      1. > the inhabitants of the world have completely forgotten what sexual intercourse is.

        With no mating dance, that would bring most of human interaction down to the level of dominance and submission.

        No, I don’t think that would wind up as a very pleasant society…

        1. I’m thinking more like the ‘cold marriages’ described in C.S. Lewis’ That Hideous Strength: right now, more people are interested in dolls and porn than the real thing.

          1. more people are interested in dolls and porn than the real thing.

            Part of that is that we’re rapidly reaching the point (and past it for some folk) where the risk of what “the real thing” can do to you in the courtroom outweighs anything “the real thing” can do for you in the bedroom (or elsewhere).

                  1. I’m not sure how much room there is to lie about the worst case.

                    The real issue is so people know how to evaluate risk, it is not just odds or cost but the product of the two. Divorce and “medium” penalty are common so high risk, but worse case divorce is rare so lower risk.

                    Although, the must issue on accusation restraining orders need to end now. That is almost as bad as a woman pregnant from committing statutory rape getting default custody.

                    1. The question of HOW common is pretty dang important– there’s a major difference between a 50% chance, and a 33% chance; they also had a recent study that discovered…well, the biggest risk factor for divorce is being a Boomer. Especially one that already divorced.

                      That last one would go state by state– a lot of the time it boils down to the rape victim’s parents failing to file for dissolution of parental rights on the part of the rapist. There’s a couple of horror stories of male rapists using their “parental rights” to harass former victims.

                    2. That’s why I say it is odds time cost and then you can say “how many qualifiers do I add”. In general prior divorce makes divorce more likely.

                      A big one for men is who files. It is roughly 2:1 women filing over men (I’m in the rarer case…while it cost more $ to divorce it cost more emotionally to keep her). I haven’t seen that broken down by age group, but there is an age when women are most likely to file and it is late 30s/early 40s: kids in school but still get the house and child support is the cynical read on that.

                      Divorce also behaves like an infectious disease, which rarely gets discussed.

                    3. Eh, the only study I’ve seen that looked at relative rates found that women are more likely to file no matter what– including places and times that were “for fault” only.

                      Broke down pretty solidly when they could find reasons given that cheating women tended to divorce their husbands, while cheating men didn’t bother.

          2. I think more marriages than people realize are ‘cold marriages’. The question is how new is that.

            As I work my way through a volume of Chesterton essays I’ve concluded a lot of leftist assaults are now a century plus old without much movement on either side in terms of language.

            I suspect cold marriages are even older than that.

        2. It would be a horrible mix of Demolition Man and Gattaca, with a healthy dose of Idiocracy thrown in. Which is pretty much where we will be heading if the left gets its way as a best case scenario; worst case of course is Oceania.

    3. “see how peaceful and harmonious an office staffed entirely by women is?”

      Okay. Know you were being sarcastic. Don’t have personal experience in working Office situation; took non-traditional path, haven’t worked with more than 3 other women in work setting ever, in 45 years, & usually the only woman.

      BUT, I was in HS, Girl Scouts, & Job Daughters (worse of the 3 FYI). Not to exclude all girls college dorm, where the standard for not-one-of-us, was you weren’t sexually active & got upset when your roommate wanted to indulge; & that didn’t count being willing to complain about the “smoke” that filled the halls on weekends. And no, might have been a hold over from the ’60s, but that decade was well gone by then.

      I’ll take a work environment where most are male before all or mostly female, even if it meant never being part of the core. I never physically feared the men I worked with just because they were men, ever; & have been in job where it was resented that I was taking a position from another male, so resented. Now, a few men, yes feared, based on actions. Each instance, including the most recent, were because the ones in question were crazy(*), & generally self medicating, even the guys were afraid of what these individuals might do, how do you think I know I wasn’t overreacting?

      So, back to the quote … Is someone nuts? What in the heck are they substance are they popping and/or smoking?

      (*) Crazy = individuals were eventually committed by someone able to get that result. Whether result was to keep them committed is a different story.

      1. I got to the end of the first paragraph and laughed. I would never, ever want to work in an all or majority-female place under a female manager. Nopity nope nope. I went to an all-girls college. Cured me.

        1. You can make an exception for Odds, though. I worked in someplace that was majority female and we were all off of the BS and just wanted to get the job done well and efficiently, so it worked out pretty well.

          Now that the BSA has a female wing, I bet you’ll be able to look at the term Eagle Scout to see women who won’t be a PITA to work with. You just can’t get Eagle through social BS means, and social BS will probably hamper getting one.

          1. Eh, it varies on troop. We had a few who were doing the leadup things to it, finishing badges snd so on. Don’t think they had gone to level of doing project. I was 18 or so and they decided tobe extremely insulting to other scoutmaster and eagle. Our troop had probably a dozen eagle scouts that were still active for conferences and boards. And we pulled from two or three other both local and nonlocal troops. The consensus was that there would be no conference for those individuals that we would be involved in.

            But say they had moved or similar and changed troops. Probably could have finished off. The thing is making sure that things are not rubber stamped but that’s a very fluid problem.

            I still have my eagle on my resume but have awards from other organizations such as ambo as well. Just a lone eagle award doesn’t stir as much benefit imo now.

            1. Nothing in the Eagle requirements that relies on physical strength. Okay, maybe one of the badges, but it’s a choice between hiking, biking, or swimming, and none of those are any more difficult for a teenaged girl to complete than a teenaged boy. (I’ve looked at the requirements. Completely possible.)

      2. I went to all girls’ school for 6 years. I’d RATHER work construction with all men. I’m fairly sure I know what hell is.
        Peaceful my ass. And we got physical violence, too. Indescribable.

        1. It seems that men tend to have more settings. Both men and women hit 100 but men may have increments of 5 while women get 10 or more. Much more either on or off in my experience

        2. Not going to say, working a traditional “men’s” career, I didn’t have problems because female. BUT that was just a tool in the arsenal. Ultimately, the issue was I was a non-local college student taking the job from a local. Period. The other college female on the crew, was 100% accepted, because she was local. The transplanted males into the area, had similar problems, just different arsenals were use to run them out.

          1. I recall reading an author’s forward to that book, where he said the reason he didn’t include girls was:

            1) he didn’t want to include sex (and here I wince at thinking of what would happen in an all-boy environment devolving into savagery, at first I thought the author might be naïve, but now I think it’s implied that Roger – the sadistic enforcer – might have used rape as one of his methods for terrorizing and controlling others – that bit about screwing the pig with the spear carried some nasty implications)

            2) He said girls were too good and kind and would never have let things devolved to that extent. I tend to think he was just being polite. A Lady of the Flies would be too extreme for the reading public.

            1. *considers*

              Well, point 2 is kind of idealistically phrased, but he does have a point.

              Ignoring the issues with the book, girls WOULD have stopped it before it was that bad… at least, that bad in an obvious way. Assuming either an assertive couple of girls or roughly equal numbers.

              Not to be confused with it being any better, although it might be just because of the whole “I want to impress so and so” effect.

              The real advantage of using boys is that male violence is graphic. It translates well into dynamic text. You can DESCRIBE it.

              Without paragraphs of internal monologue.

              1. Hmm, what kind of externalized ‘beast’ would girls have come up with? And what methods of propitiation?

          1. Incidentally, I’m about this close *fingers touching* to going nuclear on the next idiot who whines about healing being a “girly” power and somehow not as awesome as being able to get a stab in and maybe after like 30 of them stop the guy.

            (Video games, obviously.)

            Great, it doesn’t LOOK dramatic. It’s basically an infinite army if it’s strong enough– they have to KILL YOU to stop you, unless she’s got a rez, too!

            1. Back in the late lamented “City of Heroes” I had a character “Tower of Will”. Pure healer. Catch phrase: “I’m the best there is at what I do and what I do best is…pretty nice actually.” As I leveled up the character if I had a choice between some attack power and increasing healing, I increased healing. Couldn’t solo the character. But any group she joined came back successful.

              1. In Rusty & Co., there’s a guy in a D&D world who has a vow of pacifism. A lot of the readers find him pretty neat.

          2. Actually… Father Christmas, to Lucy when she is told she was not to be in the battle and responded “I think I could be brave enough”.

        3. I’m remembering how a girl ‘accidentally-deliberately’ hit me with her bag by whirling it around in the air, thinking I wasn’t paying attention, and when she hit me I decked her. She immediately ran to the teacher with her cronies, hoping to get me into trouble… except teacher had seen her. And to my surprise, sided with me.

          This was in Paris, France, late 90s, early 00s.

        4. I went to an all-girls’ school for four years, and didn’t really have much in the way of problems. The administration had a LOT to do with that, since private schools have the leeway of “we won’t put up with that crap,” so bullying was below my radar. (Won’t say it wasn’t there, but I have a pretty good “don’t mess with me” field, so I wasn’t the target I might have otherwise been.)

      3. All I can figure is that they ARE the women who make those places hell– kind of like how the guys who think the knock-out game is awesome (or are insanely amused by ball-checks) are the ones doing the violence, not receiving it.

    4. to make a baby, you take the DNA (sperm) from a man and insert it in a egg (female-human). so do we now have the ability to extract DNA from egg (human-female) and insert it in to egg (human-female) to create a human child?
      if so all of theses babies would be female

      1. Not an egg, but they managed to split the DNA of a somatic cell and use that with an egg to form an embryo, back in ’01.

        There’s also cloning, of course– though the kid would have the mDNA of the holder-egg and the rest from the donor cell.

    5. The perfect Feministical world… right until Unintended Consequences set in.
      One of which is how very few actual women want to live in a world with no men at all.

      1. I give Sherri Tepper credit for positing a plausible scenario in The Gate to Women’s Country: proto-SJW though she may be, she at least took human nature and biological reality into account and had her matriarch characters use technology and other measures to counter masculine advantages and manipulate masculine drives to successfully keep the matriarchs in power and their eugenic (disgenic?) program going, so that it was (for me) appropriately nightmarish.

        Course, even then she had to cheat and introduce psychic powers to fully make her screwed-up civilization work.

        Still, I give her credit.

        Sad: even the caliber of SJWs has gone down.

          1. It takes skill to evoke a visceral response.

            If she hadn’t been such a committed ideologue, she’d have been much more successful, at least in my opinion. As it stands, if you know anything about her, then you can guess where all her stories will end at about the halfway mark or sooner.

            I guessed the secret as soon as they described Lapland.

            And yeah: Gibbons Decline and Fall? Points for cleverness in a title.

          2. “Gate to Women’s Country” was too pat for skin-crawling for me. “A Plague of Angels”, OTOH, both made my skin crawl and is one of three books in my experience to get literally, physically walled.

            I used to like Tepper, in a respectful-opposition sort of way. Then I started picking up on this running theme of “the elite are RIGHT to keep secrets from you hoi-polloi because you just Couldn’t Cope”, and that plus “The Fresco” put me off of her writings for the rest of ever.

            1. I thought the pat ending worked well with the conceit of using a Greek play as the theme and structure.

              As for the rest: it’s the logical conclusion of the themes she was exploring. Normal men and women would never go along with means necessary to create the societies she wanted (or at least, the societies necessary to keep evil, savage, predatory humanity in check) so where else could she go but to portray the elites as, at best, the lesser evil?

          3. There was a time when I read her works — taken out from the library — with a certain disgusted addiction.

            Had to consciously remind myself how horrific her books were when I saw a new one to break it, but fortunately skipping one did manage to break it.

            The THINGS she had had her good guys do without forfeiting their right to be deemed good and to dominate the rest of humanity without their knowledge or consent —

            The one I really remember was one where a character whose judgment we are supposed to trust gushes about good it was of one of Tepper’s domineering elites to censor that they had committed genocide out of history.

  9. My fear is that we have already reached the point of no return.
    Think of this, the repressed memory of a 51 year old highly educated woman of an event that occurred when she was fifteen, and by her own admission drinking, has brought an entire government process to a screeching halt.
    Was it truly attempted rape, or merely an inept pass made by a likely inebriated teenage boy?
    According to what’s been told the public, whatever did happen stopped when she screamed, and she was allowed to leave and somehow find her way home.
    And most important, was it actually the man she accuses, or some other boy at a party she wasn’t supposed to be at in the first place?
    Given her political affiliations “remembering” a certain identity would certainly be a golden opportunity simply too beneficial to the cause to pass up.
    My point being that this tactic has been selectively used primarily by one political party to attack the other. Outrage over actions from the distant past more often than not conflated far beyond the reality of the matters, while far worst acts have been covered up or dismissed when discovered when done by the faithful.
    And if these truly are the new rules it’s only a matter of time until it all burns down.

    1. Or, to put it more succinctly, even if Kavenaugh’s confirmed, what good is an honest justice where half the population simply does not believe in the rule of law?

      1. Idea: Any more delays, we refer to Kavanaugh’s (obviously false) accusers not as “Doctor…” or “Miss…” or “Missus…” but “That lying bitch…”

        1. We don’t know for certain she is lying.

          Even if Whelan does seem to have ID’d a house she might have chosen when fabricating such a story.

          1. Then she can testify, under oath, and state the truth. As things stand, it screams, “I do not wish to put myself at risk of perjury.” Anything NOT said under oath is mere ramblings. Chainsaw, rusty, sideways, twice on Sundays.

            1. There’s a difference between lying and being fuzzy on details, though. And it’s not lying if you believe that it’s true, even if it’s not. This is why even “eyewitness” accounts are examined carefully and not merely assumed to have everything exactly as it really happened.

        2. In my own mind I already have both for the accuser and folks like Feinstein who are milking this for all it’s worth.
          But I won’t in print because that just gives the opposition another point to deflect from the real issues. They would turn it all into us victim blaming and how can we be so cruel and insensitive.
          Now, once Kavanaugh has been seated, it’s a whole different ball game.

          1. “They would turn it all into us victim blaming and how can we be so cruel and insensitive.”

            If there was no assault, there is no victim in the first place. Until they can prove there was one, she’s not a victim, she’s a perpetrator of perjury.

      2. Even the Huffington Post couldn’t get that big of a number, with YouGov. Of the 32% that disapprove, only 46% said it was anything about the judge himself, at all.

        That number hasn’t really changed with various accusations.

        1. Yep. The current go to excuse is that it isn’t merrick garland and how mean it was for the senate to not vote. You could appoint Solomon himself and they still wouldn’t care

    2. Was it truly attempted rape, or merely an inept pass made by a likely inebriated teenage boy?

      More fundamental question: did it even happen at all? Five supposed witnesses (including Ford and Kavanaugh themselves). Four of them say “never happened.” Only Ford says otherwise.

        1. The goal of her minders has always been maximum delay.
          This has already guaranteed that Justice Kavanaugh will not be seated for the start of the coming session on the first Monday in October. The Dems have already won on that point.
          If they can further delay and obfuscate and muddle what few facts there might be until after the midterms, well then that glorious blue wave will drive the heathen from congress and no Trump appointee will ever be seated again. And the next two years will be about nothing but Trump’s ongoing impeachment trial.

          1. And a carbon copy of non disprovable or salacious accusations will be the main means for that. Or committing perjury that isn’t uncovered until Queen Hillzebub is on her rightful throne, in which case it’ll be too minor to prosecute

      1. Isn’t it six witnesses? The four males supposedly present, and two females? The other female supposedly present has said she doesn’t remember the supposed party.

        1. Apparently one of the males got a sex change in getting her story straight and it was Ford, Kavanaugh, three boys, and a girl.

          1. It WAS as of yesterday. Who knows who the alleged attendees at the alleged party will be by tomorrow?

            1. Note also that Ford sent the letter, not directly to Feinstein, but to her House Rep. Why would she do that, given Feinstein is one of her Senators and minority leader of the committee? Because if she sent it directly to Feinstein, the statements in the letter are subject to a provision of Federal law that would subject her to felony charges if the statements were false under a provision of Federal law that provides that making knowingly false statements in connection with a government inquiry or the carrying out of government duties is a crime. Because the House Representative is not involved in any way in the consideration of confirmation of Kavanaugh, Ford’s attorneys can argue that the letter if shown to be knowingly false does not trigger criminal liability under the statute. The likelihood of Ford knowing about this statute without coaching from the attorneys (Democratic Party activists), is highly unlikely.

          2. I’m not surprised. The lady in question has the first name of Leland, which is traditionally a male one (trust me its my middle name and its a family name and ALL of them were male). So a lazy journalist (but I repeat myself) saw the name and probably said , “Oh another nasty white male”.

    3. Every time I look at Diane Feinstein I have flashbacks to when she raped me in a diner as a small boy. I can remember it vividly. She was moaning and Billy Crystal was watching and laughing demonically at me. I was only able to escape when she took a break and another lady said she’d have what she was having. I even passed a lie detector test which showed I was telling the truth!

      Uh huh. Thank you for your testimony. We have a nice new tin foil hat for you in appreciation for your coming here today. Please follow those nice gentlemen in the white coats.

    4. I have a different take. I think it’s more than likely than the Republicans (perhaps spurred on by Trump) are letting the Democrats burn some more political capital on something that won’t matter. They can, at any point, say “Shut up and vote” and get a confirmation, if they can keep party discipline.

      And what will the Democrats have accomplished? To make themselves look desperate and ineffectual. Oh, if it drags on much longer, I will start to worry, but right now? Do you think the odds of finding a willing accuser for the NEXT nominee have gone up or down?

      I suspect down.

      1. “If they can keep party discipline” there is the flagrant danger. The greatest weakness of the Reps is exemplified by McVain’s thumbs down to repealing ocare. Many more free agents while dems will fall on their sword if the party orders it.

      2. Latest from that evil witch from Hawaii was to insist that her party do everything humanly possible to see that the court seat remains open until after the 2020 Presidential election.
        Real motto of the Democrats: win by any means possible, fair or foul, it’s all about seizing power and defeating your enemy.

    5. You hit the target dead center.
      As for Kavanaugh’s second accuser, when I read where she said one of the other people there shouted, “Brett Kavanaugh do …” I knew she was lying. No teenager or college student uses another guy’s entire name for anything. Only the guy’s mother would say that.

  10. One thing I have never, ever, understood is if men and women are exactly equal then why and how did the patriarchy get established for so many millennium. What was the mechanism that allowed that to happen? And since it is factual that it DID happen, what innate weakness about the women did men exploit? If there is no innate weakness, then it never happened. If there is an innate weakness, then obviously men and women are not exactly equal.

    Pick one.

    1. Mostly it didn’t happen. We’re a cooperative species with slightly different status markers for men and women. Looking at the status markers for men and crying “Patriarchy” is simplistic.

      1. Simple. The guys said move. Some women did. Some women said no and did not. The ones that did not, got eaten by the sabertooth tiger, the dire wolf, and the cave bear.

    2. Sarah has expounded on this at length any number of times.
      Men and women have fundamental differences on average.
      Men are better hunters, while women excel at gathering.
      Men are stronger, women more resistant to pain.
      Takes both to start a baby, the woman finishes the job while her man protects and cares for her during the process.
      As usual Heinlein said it best:
      Whenever women have insisted on absolute equality with men, they have invariably wound up with the dirty end of the stick. What they are and what they can do makes them superior to men, and their proper tactic is to demand special privileges, all the traffic will bear. they should never settle merely for equality. For women, “equality” is a disaster.
      From The Notebooks of Lazarus Long in Time Enough For Love.

      1. I have *no* doubt of the hunter/gatherer divide between the sexes. I harvest wild edibles as a hobby/zombie LARP, and have lost track of the times I’ve commented on some patch of yum that I’ve spotted from the car only to have any males in the vehicle look at me like “…you’re psychic, aren’t you?”

        1. Training matters– I can’t count the times my folks have discussed something, because they BOTH spotted, oh, a cow that is two miles away and up a mountain side, is about the size of a small fly from distance, while we’re driving down the road.

          I do the same thing to my husband with things like stores that we drive past (he actually knows road names!), and we both do it to our kids on spotting animals from the car.

          1. “we both do it to our kids on spotting animals from the car.”

            My sisters & I, also, & all the cousins on mom’s side. Good practice when hunting, whether for meat on the table; or as we do now, with a camera, which is legal every day of the year …

  11. Having been through public high school and experiencing what teenage girls can be and do, the idea of men being worse falls flat. A patriarchy might be loathsome, but only that. A matriarchy is fscking terrifying.

    1. Kipling and others of his day wrote about the British army’s experiences in Afganistan, and Louis L’Amour and his compatriots wrote similarly about experiences by the American army and independent explorers in our westward expansion.
      Conventional wisdom was that while an enemy warrior might kill you what you must avoid at all cost was to be captured and turned over to their women. It was no joke to tell new recruits to save the last bullet for yourself.

    2. As a result of the metoo mess, I’ve heard from a number of women (invariably in their forties and fifties) in the entertainment industry who stated emphatically that –

      1.) While rape – like what Weinstien did – is bad, it’s also true that a number of women willingly took *full* advantage of their physical assets to get ahead in that industry.
      2.) Women are *much* nastier than men are. These women were very unafraid to say (at least where no one else could hear, since I was generally doing work in their office) that backbiting and other negative traits were much more active among women, and much more destructive than most of the things that men engaged in.
      3.) 99.9% of employees don’t need the extra sexual harassment training that’s being handed out. If Joe in accounting does something inappropriate to a woman, then he’s going to get nailed to the wall. And he knows that. So he won’t do anything. But the people at the top are by and large untouchable. And it’s at that point that problems potentially start to develop. But they don’t go through harassment training when everyone else does. And it wouldn’t do any good even if they did.

      1. > training

        The first time I had to go through one of those, I grabbed the Director out in the hall and said, “You realize you just paid for a two-hour class on how to set up situations where employees can sue the company.”

        [blank look]

        “As opposed to a class on how not to get into trouble with the new harassment policies.”

        [blank look]


        It was a class. It got ticked off in HR. Why was I being troublesome?

        1. It probably has to do with thinking.

          I’m told it’s true and I still have trouble even imagining that it’s true, but supposedly the vast majority of people (even smart people) don’t compulsively play through to the application and consequences of new information. They’ve apparently done educational studies on students that show that what they need the most help with is applying their knowledge to the real world or seeing how one piece of information relates to another piece of information.

          Personally this makes no sense to me.

          1. Of course not. If a piece of information were applicable to some other situation, they would have been told about it. “I passed the course; not only do I know everything necessary about the subject, I will actively reject any further learning, lest it devalue what I paid for.”

            Where’s that quote again…

            “…the material which one has acquired through reading must not be stored in the memory on a plan that corresponds to the successive chapters of the book; but each little piece of knowledge thus gained must be treated as if it were a little stone to be inserted into a mosaic, so that it finds its proper place among all the other pieces and particles that help to form a general world-picture in the brain of the reader. Otherwise only a confused jumble of chaotic notions will result from all this reading. That jumble is not merely useless, but it also tends to make the unfortunate possessor of it conceited. For he seriously considers himself a well-educated person and thinks that he understands the meaning of life. He believes that he has acquired knowledge, whereas that every increase in such ‘knowledge’ draws him more and more away from real life, until he finally ends up in some sanitarium or takes to politics and becomes a parliamentary deputy.”

            – Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf”, British (James Murphy) translation of 1939.

            1. I had not seen that before, and the author hidden as I read it… and I found I was in rather pointed disagreement partway through. Things that are nothing but jigsaw pieces lack general applicability – and thus stymie creative and genuine problem solving. Of course, addled Adolf regarded people AS the problem, rather than the solvers of such. [I do find myself wondering if his alleged doctor, who had him high as a kite on almost anything handy is a villain for enabling Adolf… or a hero for thwarting Adolf’s ability… or yes.]

              1. I think that’s his point. i.e. knowing a bunch of random factoids is largely useless. The usefulness is in understanding how those factoids relate to each other, which you can then use to build a better understanding of the world in general.

          2. Eh, part of the problem there is how stuff is taught– if you don’t have ANY connecting parts, it’s hard to fit theories into reality for school.

            Education.com actually caught my attention on this earlier today. I am pretty sure my kids will remember how fractions and division works– if not “numerator” and “denominator”– for being taught it via a story where a kid is dealing with a straight-out-of-the-Godfather-parody cat, his followers, and a bunchy of thuggish hamsters arguing over cupcakes.

            I think they designed that one with the expectation that parents would be listening, and not wanting to be driven insane. 😀

            1. My first grade teacher taught the basics of fractions with candy bars. 4 fractions on the board: Which is bigger? Turned in the little quiz. When we came back we had that fraction of a Hershey bar on our desk. Cries of “Why did get more than me?” “Well, you have the fraction of the candy bar you wrote down.” Everyone learned right quick.

      2. There are a whole lot of flaming hypocrites in the entertainment industry, either complicit or turning a blind eye towards that Weinstein business amongst many others. And need I remind anyone of how they rallied their support for Roman Polanski who was convicted of drugging, raping, and sodomizing a 13 year old girl, then fleeing the country before sentencing and incarceration.

        1. Hollywood is a pesthole, with occasional bright spots like Jimmy Stewart or Charlton Heston. There’s a REASON The Theatre has never been held quite respectable.

      3. Reminds me of a scandal when I was in the Marines. Some Officers and High-ranking enlisted men “behaved badly” at a huge conference (very few, if any, lower ranked enlisted men were allowed to attend, it was mostly plots and flight officers etc.) When the whole thing blew up in the news, the Navy/Marine Corps decided that sexual harassment training was needed (mostly to show they were “doing something”). SO… All of us lower level enlisted men were put through the training (I ended up getting sent twice, because they wanted more numbers). NONE of the officers and high ranking personnel were required to go. Imagine that.

        The joke was “Why do I gotta go sarge? I don’t got enough rank to harass anyone yet!” (yes, Marines don’t tend to use the term “Sarge”, but we sometimes did when we were joking around… and NOT talking to an actual Sargent)

        1. Seriously, I had to go and endure this training, about the last half-decade that I was in. Which was a serious waste of my time, and that of every other career female NCO. We had already learned the best and most efficient way of countering verbal harassment. (Which was to hand it back, with bells and flourishes, guaranteed to shrivel the balls of any male generating it.) The women who most often fell victim to sexual harassment? Baby troops, teenagers, mostly. After a second enlistment, we all picked up the fundamentals: don’t go crying to Social Actions, or your girlfriends – take it straight to the male ego, as viciously as possible. Personally, and straight to their face. Make them apologize, then shake hands, never mention it again, and be friends.
          Worked for me, worked for other women. One of the first things agreed upon in those cursed classes was that none of the males present really wanted to sexually-harass a female NCO, full-knowing that they would have their balls handed to them, on a silver platter, tastefully adorned with a few springs of parsley and a radish carved in the shape of a rose.
          A couple of years later, there was an Army sexual-harassment scandal involving (IIRC) a very senior Army sergeant major. The one reason I thought the accusations were credible was that the women complaining were all very experienced and long-serving NCOs.

          1. *waves a hand*

            Was a sailor, not a Marine, but there was also an informal policy in place for easy pickings like me. (The phrase “utterly oblivious” comes to mind.)

            I really didn’t get to see any of it– just managed to accidentally hear about it– but apparently some Marines decided to be…lewd…about me in our staff Sargent’s hearing. Not from our office, the whatever-Marines-call-ATs were gentlemen, and a hoot.

            He ripped them several new ones, and was still ranting a few hours later. As best I could find out, raw newb grunts. No idea how I got their attention.

            I already loved my Marines.

            That didn’t hurt, though. 😀

          2. Men really do respect a woman who can dish it out as well as they can. Might be one of the reasons I’m enjoying Michael Anderle’s, “Kutherian Series” so much this week. His character’s cursing is a work of art.

            1. They do, that. One of the personal compliments I most treasured was from the First Sergeant at my last duty station, who told me that I was the most unshockable woman he had ever encountered.

          3. “they would have their balls handed to them, on a silver platter, tastefully adorned with a few springs of parsley and a radish carved in the shape of a rose.”

            Just wanted to pull that quote out for posterity.

        2. Example I keep bringing up:
          We hit Hong Kong.

          A chief and an officer went out, got drunk, couldn’t pay the cab on the way home and decided to beat the @#$@# out of the cab driver.

          So they locked down the ship….for second class and below. (e-5. Higher is better, and chiefs are e-7. For those without a scorecard.)


        3. Tailhook 1991 in Vegas. Same year as the Clarence Thomas hearings. Together the events of that summer kicked of millions of hours of useless training across the military and private industry. Double for junior managers – we were told we would be sacrificed in public outside the main lobby at noon on Wednesdays if anything happened.

          But the C-suite folks were still bothering the ladies and getting away with it (critical skills and continuity of leadership, donchaknow). And some of those bothered became untouchable permanent employees because they had dirt on the execs and it had to be kept quiet (see critical skills, above).

          All those stories still around about how bad Silicon Valley still is are just more continuity.

          1. Same deal at my last company. The CEO was hitting on one of the junior case managers. Got reported. Junior case manager left with a 6 figure settlement. Board kept the CEO (buddy system), and everyone else got subjected to required sexual harassment training. CEO screwed up badly enough the next year that they had to terminate 1/3rd of the entire company; and he STILL didn’t get fired. Makes me appreciate the Klingon and Mirror Universe systems in ST:TOS. Kill the boss if you want to get promoted, or he’s sabotaging the system.

    3. It’s a matter of two sides of the same coin– guys are physically overwhelming, gals are emotionally overwhelming.

      Taming it to reason and mutual sacrificial love works on both, too, taking the threat and making it a strength.

      1. What gets me is that feminists * recognize* that (the whole “men’s greatest fear is that they will be laughed at by women, while women’s greatest fear is that they will be killed by a man”), but aren’t able to extrapolate what that *means*.

      2. What gets me is that feminists * recognize* that (the whole “men’s greatest fear is that they will be laughed at by women, while women’s greatest fear is that they will be killed by a man”), but aren’t able to extrapolate what that *means*.

      3. What gets me is that feminists * recognize* that (the whole “men’s greatest fear is that they will be laughed at by women, while women’s greatest fear is that they will be killed by a man”), but aren’t able to extrapolate what that *means*.

    4. Remember that his on Dr. Demento that starts with some guys trying to get their buddy to ask a girl out? And the spoken prologue ends with something like “What’s the worst that could happen?”

      1. Oddly, I do not recall that. But then my attention was not focused on the most played/requested/popular even there. S.O.I.D.’s tune Final Hymn of the Republic (played only once!) was another matter. I missed it directly, but $SISTER managed to tape most of it. I’d love to geta clean copy…. but such might be lost to history. Damnit.

        1. Understandable.

          Just for general information, the rest of the “song” is the “young lady” answering the question. There minutes of teenage verbal castration. It dates break to the”G-rated” era of radio, but that just proves bad language is unnecessary for the purpose.

  12. But absent Gimbutas dreaming that bull’s heads were uteri, there really is not even a glimmer of a trace of a guess that women were ever in charge.

    I will say now, and am fully willing to so state under oath, that I have never spat out (nor ingested, for that matter) an infant/child/progeny – from ANY orifice. I might have had the (oh so very) odd brainchild, but people keep telling me those are stillborn.

  13. I’m roughly paraphrasing from memory here, but it’s something I’d heard from a YouTube livestream: Girls today are feral.

    Literally feral.

    It was the account of a stepfather, talking about his stepdaughter and her friends and his efforts to keep some kind of order (no biological father in the picture, and a stepfather lacks authority and they both know it, a big part of the problem I think). It’s all he could do to keep his wife from buying beer for them. If the guy and the mother are still together – which I doubt – then he is very understandably living in fear.

              1. Which makes my husband . . . what, exactly? I mean, almost seventeen years and he hasn’t shaken me yet, and there’s absolutely no one anywhere who’d describe him as white or part-white from looking at the man . . . well, white-haired.

                Dang mixed families? (As Eldest gripes, everyone assumes mixed kids have single parents. He’s stuck living with Mom, Dad, Grandma, Grandpa, and five little siblings. Could he please get some sympathy here?)

                1. He’s absorbed white culture from The Man, and is therefore acting white, and must be punished accordingly.

                  1. Stop discriminating against immigrants!

                    Seriously, The Man was all black. Everybody was. From President to the guy that killed the President to the guy that killed the guy that killed the President. (The last of which my father-in-law had expelled from school for cause.)

                    1. No, you’re not. Occasionally Twitchy will have a piece up about a Republican Congressman getting attacked as a racist, show his minority wife, and then the resulting tweets of people claiming that the only reason he married her was to attempt to shield himself from charges of racism.

            1. There are several variants:

              1. Men steal resources women would use for children.
              2. Lesbians are better caregivers
              3. Men are the source of all abuse

              You can find more if you research.

                1. Women’s Studies professor disagree and have argued policy on the first…that it is better to keep fathers out of households for that very reason.

                  1. And I assume that they’re citing research from the Journal of Just Make It Up, published by Pulledoutofmyass Press?

                  2. Sounds like the local SE CT DCF office who want a friend of mine to lose all custody rights to his son in favor of crazy drunk of an almost ex. Because everyone knows boys dont need their daddies; unemployable psycho momma and her new violent boyfriend are by far the better choice than loving, gainfully employed, sober daddy.

                    1. Had a friend once in about that position. He mostly saw his daughter when his ex went back in to dry out again. Took two or three tries to find a family court judge with the sense that God gave a turnip and terminate the ex’s custody, and my friend was a savy player of the Government Bingo game.

                      Fortunately, the daughter hadn’t learned toughness from Mommy. When he finally got custody she thought she could bulldoze him by (among other things) announcing she was going to get a tattoo.

                      His answer. “Sit right there, I’ll find my needles.”

                      End of rebellion.

                      Never try to freak out a Father who is a bigger freak (if more functional) than you want to be.

                    2. There have been a lot of citing of good step-fathers, including one from me.

                      This story is not about a “bad” step father, not a drinker or smoker, but unwilling to take any responsibility for the ready made family that occurred when he married. His money was his money. His wife’s money needed to take care of all expenses for herself, her daughter, & put a roof over his head. Fast forward 2 years & wife says enough already. Three months before that, he’d put a stop to the adoption proceedings (signed & witnessed at lawyers). (Bio-dad’s rights severed by court degree.)

                      Oops … turns out he got married so his mother could have a grand daughter. Adoption proceedings, was at a point (per lawyer), that only he could stop it, neither the mother nor the child (age 5), could. Why stop adoption? Because he wanted extensive visitation rights, as being an ex-Step-Parent, without having to pay child support; not legally his daughter. Extensive as in: Every other weekend, alternative holidays, & one night during the week … well he didn’t want the custody, his mother did. Our question what legal situation does the non-adoptive step-parent & step-grandparents have any rights?

                      Child’s mother had no intention of totally cutting off the ex & his family. But figured one weekend with reasonable terms, was more than enough. He disagreed. Filed in court. Even tried the Grandparents law, but that only got them a one weekend a month with terms they didn’t want to abide by (didn’t go to court, what mother offered & their lawyer said that was the best they were entitled to under the law). Oops.

                      The terms he & his parents are now legally binding stuck with now, filed with the court: One weekend a month; mother picks the weekend; if kid (now 6 1/2) does not want to go any weekend that month – tough; mother’s rules apply, reasonable, in ex’s sides thinking or not; he or his parents gets caught breaking any of the rules, visitations null & void.

                      I told mother’s father that he should be making book on how long it takes before ex breaks one or more rules. Not if he breaks one, when. Ex might make it to the end of the year, if his mother can keep him in line. We’ll see. I’ve got the popcorn.

                      I will find out. Not only do I know the mother, her parents, & her grandmother, I also know the cousin of the ex’s father, & her mother (would be ex’s great-Aunt). It is a small, small, world. No, not a small town, just how things work out. I will told one way or another.

                    3. ….you know, when “not a bad” means “was not actively malicious to the kids’ obvious, immediate physical interests,” there may be an issue with the culture.

                      That said, I wish to heaven my sister had been able to find a judge that sane. Her husband was bouncing her off of walls, with witnesses, and she got half’n’half because she didnt call the cops on him.

      1. My sisters & I missed the memo. Three girls. No brothers. Few male cousins, either side (until we were well grown). Guess we have to credit parents & uncles that were just barely older than us for our civilized attitude. Civilized as in missed the memo. AND we were brought up as “no one tells my daughters what they can learn or do (for work).” Direct quote from dad.

        1. Two brothers, one sister, here – and my parents were very clear on the concept that we could study whatever we were interested in at school, and do whatever we wanted to do for a living … and all of us were expected to assist with routine housework.

          1. My kids are unlikely to have maidservice when they are living on their own; I am not going to provide it now.

            Rough quote from my grandmother, my mother, my other grandmother, my aunts….

          2. Dad’s mom had four sons. They can all cook, darn socks, iron– do EVERYTHING that you need to do to keep up appearances as of about 1935, because their mom had a family to represent, and their dad lived on his own with his brother for years.

            So they can ALL keep a house, in all aspects, though dad is the only one that really held out for long. Mom still insists he’s a much better breakfast cook than she is. (….she’s right, other than pancakes.)

            1. I hold that in order to be considered an adult, there are certain skillsets necessary. Housekeeping and household management, as well as cooking, laundry, etc, are standard.

              The only reason why I didn’t get the ‘learn how to take care of a car’ was because we didn’t have one outside of when I was in Germany/very young in the Philippines, and I was physically unable to do plumbing. I could do some carpentry repairs though, and handled tree trimming as a teen (which involved climbing up said tree with a machete… and that’s it.)

    1. I know at least one step father that succeeded in intervening despite biological father being in the picture (somewhat) & initial non-backing from girl’s mother, his wife.

      Don’t know the entire circumstances but what I heard was child was going down “the wrong path.” When step father stepped in & interference was forth coming his response was “Been there, done, that, paid the price. Not. My. Daughter.” End of discussion, end of interference by all parties.

      So, yes. Might be perceived as a unicorn, but unlike the unicorn, step fathers that can make a difference exist.

      1. I know several step-parents who are doing a better job than the original parents. Funny thing, *those* marriages are lasting longer than the original ones.

        1. I remember my dad commenting about the times he’d been on jury duty, they were domestic disturbance cases, and in every case the family was in disarray. Typically a mom with live-in boyfriend who wasn’t the baby-daddy of the kids in the house. In one case, her current boyfriend took exception to the foul mouth of her daughter by a previous boyfriend, and things spiraled from there, resulting in police being called.

          1. The single biggest danger to a child is an unrelated resident male. More than car accidents, or illness, or anything else. In the case of the good step-parents I know, they have *chosen* to be related, but a lot of people don’t make that act of will.

  14. It’s apparently not entirely and blatantly obvious to everyone here exactly what my deal is.

    Part of it is growing to manhood in more or less the current status quo of feminist thinking.

    Okay, human decency and other things are being weaponized to force me to accept conclusions that are not just? Cut them off, cut everything off that I can’t trace only to valid first principles.

    I do have a mother, who I have love and respect for. Like the vast majority of men, the vast majority of women do not have as valid a claim to my effort and deference as my mother does.

    I do not really have much in the way of limits. I either stand resisting any effort to make me budge, or run full out.

    I was once a feminist, and all that stuff. I was young, and it was in the culture.

    My rejection of feminism is to stick to judging individuals, and reject any demands on my behavior or thoughts on behalf of some nebulous collective. Note that I may not implement these principles perfectly, or realize that I am not applying them when I should.

  15. Let me sum up crazypants lady’s position: it is just for you to be punished for something happening that you neither did nor could have prevented.
    This…is not going to end how she thinks it does.

      1. The price that we will pay for that look will be horrendous. The joy of seeing her get what she asked for is not worth it.

  16. Actress (I think) chickie wants to have all men afraid of every woman

    Yep. And lots of leftists wanted whites in the US to start gaining racial consciousness too.

    Because of course men afraid of all women will grovel and ask, “What did we do wrong” just like whites developing a racial identity will grovel and ask, “How can we repair all the damage whites have done.”

    It won’t be like the science fiction stories where white racial consciousness gives us the Alt-Right and men hating women create a culture where women wear sacks in public and must be escorted by a male relative for their safety.

    Oh, wait, those weren’t sci-fi stories, were they.

    1. I do not fear all women.

      I know a small number of women that I can trust enough to consider safe.

      I do not extend a woman more charity than I might a man. I do not have additional good will for females.

      Nobody deals with the vast majority of human beings. The people any one person deals with make up a small minority of humanity.

    2. I’ve had a woman groveling at my feet pleading for forgiveness.
      It was the weirdest, most uncomfortable social experience I have ever had.

      1. Having *anyone* do that, even my worst enemy, would be extremely uncomfortable.
        I’m…not even sure what circumstances would cause someone to do that.

        1. Different country. Different culture. Take me 30 or 40 minutes to write it all in. Perhaps after dinner I’ll come back and post it.

    3. Yeah, forcing a “white” racial identity was gawd awful stupid. Trying to force a “white” racial identity while insisting that people accept the identity and racial guilt for uncommitted crimes was something beyond stupid and closer to dumpster fire.

      Instead of a bunch of different people waving a little flag from the Old Country and being proud of being Lithuanian or appropriating a fictional Irish ancestry and having happy little rivalries, someone saw someone having fun, took out a bull whip and started screaming, “Grovel you swine! Grovel!”

      Brilliant maneuver, that.

      1. Indeed, because then someone looks at history and says, “Hey, raiding/looting/burning is my cultural heritage! Why was I never informed of this? Wheeeeee!” And you get joint Scots-Viking raiding parties (wild, crazy, and very thorough and well organized) rampaging through what remains of society.

        1. “The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted.” D. H. Lawrence.

          If it is racist to make laws that deny the ‘Muslims’ their ‘cultural heritage’, it is racist to make laws that deny me mine. If the law must be contorted to pander to someone else’s mental peculiarities, why not mine? My father and grandfathers, I think, were nicer men than I am. The Indian wars had ended by their time. For all that the world wars, Korea and Vietnam were contemporary or near contemporary, theirs was an era of peace unknown to some of their forefathers.

          How should I be an American man?

          I do not know for certain.

          I do know that I won’t take shaming, shunning, or chiding from someone for doing a thing, who won’t shame, shun or chide others for doing very near the same thing. I will ignore such people when I take counsel.

        2. If only that was what we got instead of the Alt-Right et al.

          Hell, I’m up for going a Viking and pillaging various Senator’s villas right now.

            1. Hmm. Almost half-Finn, does that mean I should be teaching my (mixed) sons to hack their heads off? Throw Molotov cocktails? Be really good snipers?

            2. I don’t much want anything they’d be likely to have.

              I think the tradition in a raid is to burn whatever you don’t want to pillage.

              Problem solved!

      2. Also stating that Whites are racist and will always be racist no matter what they do or say and that their children will be racist. There is nothing Whites an do to not be racist.
        Really, really dumb.

        1. It’s “original sin” all over again.

          “Really? You propose to punish me for the actions of someone of a different tribe, far away, and long dead? F you, and the quadruped you rode in on.”

          (frequently rolled out with propaganda for “peace” and “inclusivity” and “diversity.” Apparently they’re using a different dictionary too…)

          1. Nah, original sin is more like fetal alcohol syndrome– you didn’t do it, but your’e damaged by it.

            They want to bring back collective guilt crossed with contamination of blood– contamination of collective?

          2. Ah, yes, not even Jesus can save you from white privilege. It makes me grind my teeth when supposed Christians make that argument.

            1. If racial sin is a heritable thing, and can’t be cleansed by Jesus Christ, why couldn’t there have been some act of the ancestors of the people who were slaves in the US back in 1859 that would justify continuing enslavement?

  17. People fear rabid dogs.
    And how do people deal with rabid dogs?
    Being feared is NOT a survival mechanism when dealing with humans.
    Especially if you *anger* them.
    A rabid dog can’t help it.
    An allegedly mature woman has a.. what’s that word? Oh yes… CHOICE.

  18. I’m sad that I don’t know what meme you’re referring too? I often find confusion in the thought process behind the schematics of feminism and how being afraid of “all” men as “rapists and misogynists” can one assume it is a liberal feature in American Society? If freedom is a gift and an inalienable right endowed by the creator, how can someone have the nerve to alienate and assume that all men are -mongers and such toward women? It’s literally assuming a whole entire gender is evil.

  19. It’s gotta be a lot easier to think that women can be stronger than men when the only men one encounters are soyboys. If a lifestyle is lacking in any significant source of upper-body strength exercise, our arms atrophy to no more than what’s needed, and at that point a girl who spends any time at the gym might prove to be slightly stronger.

    I recall a story – I think it was in Middle School – about a pacific island where the women basically practiced all day every day to get better at rowing as a team so they could beat their husbands in an annual race. It seemed to me that it didn’t prove much when they were neglecting their daily tasks; I made the mistake of wondering out loud how everyone would eat if the men likewise refused to work in order to train and was soundly scorned for my badthink. (It was only years later that it occurred to me that the men might well have won the competition anyway and the story had changed that little fact in order to support the narrative.)


    1. The thing is, a lot of those ‘soy boys’ are STILL going to be stronger than the woman in their circles. I’m no athlete (congenital sloth and a tendency to trip on linoleum) and I’m a hell of a lot stronger than all but the most athletic women I know.

      How do they manage to not notice?

      1. The “soy boys” aren’t going to show those women that they are stronger.

        IE The “soy boys” may think they’ll get more sex by being those women’s “pets”.

      2. Because you do not touch other humans.

        At all.


        …. I have a touchy family. Drove me up the wall that folks would flinch at stuff like a touch on the shoulder.

      3. Pump them full of female hormones and they’ll lose most of the strength, not to mention a significant amount of bone density.

        1. There are things that change in response to the hormones and things that remain fixed, or don’t completely change to what they would be had one started out with the different hormone mix.

    2. Oh, hi Albert! I haven’t been to rpg dot net in a long time, so I don’t know if you ever finished the FF8 rewrite. I do remember that I was having a blast reading it, though. So whether or not it ever got finished, I just wanted you to know that it was a lot of fun.

  20. It’s a helluva contrast that I read and write this as I listen to Leslie Fish’s The Ballad of Apollo 13 when America had the audacity to go the moon, or try… and then succeed even in a horrific failure, doing the “impossible” even as attempting the “impossible.” Bet your ass I’m disappointed that we’re talking of she-said nonsense rather than how the new lunar colony or how the Mars mission is doing. And that I am wondering how the country I was told about Back When, has descended into the crap we worry about now. When was the last time someone replied to a “Can I…?” with “It’s a free country.” ? I hadn’t realized that had stopped until someone mentioned it. And… damnit, they seem to be right. I’d rather deal with thousands of independent kooks doing heaven-only knows than those demanding a lock/goosestep synchronization of ‘social justice” nonsense. It’s now even infected Linux and has me considering full BSD (and not FreeBSD).

    Reminds me of this:

    1. When was the last time someone replied to a “Can I…?” with “It’s a free country.” ?

      Probably about the same time the phrase “Don’t make a federal case out of it” disappeared.

      Or about the same time the Left won (and they have) by making sure the personal became the political. Before you dispute the Left has won at least on that front consider right now politics is front and center in the NFL, movies, comic books, the Linux operating system, and Dungeons & Dragons with failure to have the right politics meaning you are being pushed out of each of those areas.

      1. “Before you dispute the Left has won at least on that front consider right now politics is front and center in the NFL, movies, comic books, the Linux operating system, and Dungeons & Dragons with failure to have the right politics meaning you are being pushed out of each of those areas.”

        OTOH, there is the degree to which, having pushed people out of those areas, those areas are withering.

        1. When people try to say that this side or that has won, I think of this PTerry quote:
          “Supposing an emperor was persuaded to wear a new suit of clothes whose material was so fine that, to the common eye, the clothes weren’t there. And suppose a little boy pointed out this fact in a loud, clear voice…
          Then you have The Story of the Emperor Who Had No Clothes.
          But if you knew a bit more, it would be The Story of the Boy Who Got a Well-Deserved Thrashing from His Dad for Being Rude to Royalty, and Was Locked Up.
          Or The Story of the Whole Crowd Who Were Rounded Up by the Guards and Told ‘This Didn’t Happen, OK? Does Anyone Want to Argue?’
          Or it could be a story of how a whole kingdom suddenly saw the benefit of the ‘new clothes’, and developed an enthusiasm for healthy sports in a lively and refreshing atmosphere which got many new adherents every year, and led to a recession caused by the collapse of the conventional clothing industry.
          It could even be a story about The Great Pneumonia Epidemic of ’09.
          It all depends on how much you know.”

          We don’t know how it’s going to end. It could be good, it could be bad. We’re just guessing at this point.

          1. D&D didn’t do anything. Wizards of the Coast has fallen to the SJW scourge, with all sorts of “trans-friendly this” and “gay-friendly that” and no evil races and all sorts of such things that kind of make me woder what games these children are playing. Kill-the-monster-and-take-their-stuff does not require angst about your trans character (and seriously, 1st edition had a Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity that changed your sex. It was considered a cursed item, but that was because it changed your sex without consent/recourse), nor does basically anything else. If you’re doing nothing but, say, court intrigue RP where anything like that would matter, why not just call your game “medieval fantasy roleplay”, rather than pretending it has anything to do with dungeons OR dragons?

            Ahem. Sorry, I get a little ranty sometimes.

            1. Wait, no evil races, at all? That’s not just something pushed by hippy players? Fifth Edition is dead to me.

            2. Not that anyone I know plays it that way. And it’s why modules converted from earlier editions are popular.

    2. I have openIndiana running in a VM. Looks a-verra-nahss. I need to check the licensing for any SJWism, though.

  21. While I haven’t read *nearly* all of the “Golden Matriarchy” literature out there (Maria Gimbutas, Riane Eisler, Merlin Stone,…), what I have read of it sounds like the evidence (obviously not history, this far back) fits maybe a matriarchy and maybe a rough equality / division of labor society about the same. And that these writers are basically just picking the first. (E.g., Eisler’s “cultural transformation theory” *assumes* matriarchy followed by patriarchy, and then looks around for confirming evidence.)
    Which basically would put (if my impression holds up to real scholarship) that whole Golden Matriarchy Ruined by Patriarchial Barbarian Militarists thing somewhere between raw speculation, intentional mythmaking, and wishful thinking. (Thus putting Golden Matriarchy in the same class as Real True Gin-U-Wine Marxism: nobody’s ever *really* tried it yet. So, oops.)

    It’s also interesting how *fiction* writers always (as I remember it) seem to imagine really-far-back human societies, e.g. Ice Age ones. From Jean Auel’s “Clan of the Cave Bear” series to the current movie “Alpha” and even some of H. Beam Piper’s farthest-back “Paratime” stories, everyone (I’ve seen / read) seems to go to about the same place: quasi-equalitarian he hunts / she gathers and minds camp and the kids, and so forth.
    Maybe this is playing to a modern audience.
    Maybe this is deep instinct.
    Maybe this is efficiency in the service of bare survival.
    But I *can* say I both have a decent idea how to write a functional so-called “primitive” (cough! try knapping flint sometime, modern smart guy/gal!) quasi-equal society, and a hint how to write a mostly-viable Patriarchial Despotism a la Taliban / Da’esh barbarians etc. (steal what you can’t make / grow); and also no bloody *clue* how to write a decently credible non-tech matriarchy. It just won’t hold together, like making a snowball out of dry sand.
    (Darwin sez, thank you for playing, Game Over.)

    There is at least one entire *book* developing this theme, too much girl power just kills a society: George Gilder’s “Sexual Suicide” from a few decades ago.

    “A house divided against itself cannot stand” has more than one meaning…

    1. Maybe the ancient feminists were using Black magic. Maybe that Black magic no longer works because Christianity put out too much tyrannical patriarchal vibrations.

      1. Yeah, maybe. (There’s probably a story in there, like Niven’s “The Magic Goes Away” but with paleo-feminist Matriarchial Mojo.)

        On the other hand, with Freyja you get Frey. With Oya you get Shango. With Maman Brigitte you also get Papa Legba. Even the revival Wiccans give you the God along with tbe Goddess (save for Dianics and other neo-feminists).
        So even god/goddesses *of magic* don’t seem to do matriarchy, much.

        (And Loki sez, thank you for playing..!)

    2. And just to throw a really nasty wrench into the whole “The patriarchal horse-riding Indo-Europeans crushed the wonderful, peace-loving matriarchy of Old Europe,” A major climate shift appears to have hit the region where Old Europe concentrated. Hanging around to farm became nigh unto impossible for a century or so because of a cold-wet climate phase. So even without the arrival of the Indo-Europeans, the urban-ish Old European farmers had a major problem surviving as settled farmers. (Granted, Gimbutas et al had no way of knowing that – the research is only a decade old at most.)

      1. How could there be climate change BEFORE “The patriarchal horse-riding Indo-Europeans crushed the wonderful, peace-loving matriarchy of Old Europe,” as we know under Gaia loving matriarchy climate was static since the beginning.

        1. The dinosaurs could not be reached for comment.

          Because they’re extinct!

          And how many times are they going to try reopening that stupid park, anyway!?

          1. As a mad scientist, I’d be pretty annoyed/perturbed at the repeated failures. What is it about dinosaurs? We keep other dangerous animals contained in zoos all the time. Waffling about chaos theory aside, there’s no law of physics that says animals can’t be kept in appropriately designed enclosures.

            More testing is required! 😛 (But yes, despite not having seen the movies, they seem like the epitome of bad sequelitis.)

            1. The first and fourth movies are the only ones with actual parks. In the first movie, it was sabotage. I haven’t seen the fourth (and have no desire to do so), but from what I understand there was a genetically enhanced invisible (even to thermographics) super carnosaur involved. Or something like that.

              The second and third movies both involve people going to the islands for non-park reasons. And the fifth movie involved evacuating the dinosaurs from an island before it went volcanic. No, I don’t know why they bothered, either.

      2. A notion which makes it obvious that something was wrong with the matriarchy, because it failed the tests of A. Defeating its enemies on the battlefield (the Western way) and B. Defeating its enemies by assimilating them (the Eastern way). Maybe there was a matriarchal society that the Indo-Europeans smashed, and it was such a hellhole that patriarchy looked better, even to the women.

        1. Like the black magic hypothesis. Or perhaps one of the sexes came from dolphins, one from lizards, and there was a now gone third one that came from spiders.

  22. I have a friend who posts that type of meme on z distressingly regular basis. And every time I point out that the statement is wrong. I am female, and I am not afraid of all, most, or even some men. There may be certain circumstances at certain times where I am more wary of strangers than usual, but that is what a CCL is for.

    Boy, does that response push off the lefties.

    1. I was pulling out into traffic from my work parking lot with this post in my mind and you know… we’re all “afraid” of cars all the time. They’re huge, heavy, dangerous, and one false move or moment of inattention and if you’re not seriously injured, your whole day is ruined and your finances trashed.

      Yet a person who lives in fear of that is diagnosed with a mental disorder, with anxiety or some such. Because caution isn’t fear. Situational awareness isn’t fear.

      1. Really?

        I always viewed a car as something like a shoe. It’s just something that helps me get to where I’m going.

        Trip over a shoelace at the wrong time, and you can buy a world of hurt too, you know.

        1. It’s why I put quotes around “afraid”. Being aware of the size and potential of a vehicle isn’t fear. Being cautious and attentive isn’t fear. Tying your shoe so you don’t trip isn’t fear.

  23. > Make every man afraid of every woman,
    > and the apparatus comes apart.

    Which is why the faminazis get such a hate-on for the Vice President, whenever they remember him.

    Hard to get a credible (even to SJWs) accusation on “someone who hates women so much he won’t be alone with one.”

    No, because their kind might as well be radioactive lepers…

    1. It keeps coming up on lower levels, too. They’ve been whining about men being shy of commitment for decades. They never seem to consider that while some men may be desperate enough to (in the crude phrase) ‘stick it in the crazy’, very few are prepared to marry it.

      1. An all to common timeline of marriage.

        Find someone you hate.
        Buy them a house.
        Send half your retirement and paycheck

      2. The problem is that a lot have taken “the crazy” and (successful) set it up as normal, mostly because the media likes it.

        Which leaves the not-crazy-or-basically-so-because-desperate holding the bag, both on the male and female side.

  24. A related point that I’ve tried to make (and which Jonah Goldberg DOES make pretty well in his very excellent “Liberal Fascism”) is that “tearing down an imperfect system does not make a perfect system”.

    As we already know, all humans are imperfect, and all human institutions are also imperfect. But discarding those systems and institutions that kinda-sorta work – imperfectly – doesn’t mean that the result will be the perfection and utopia that some seem to believe is possible. The history of the French Revolution should help to illustrate that point.

    1. Burning a house down is by far easier than building it in the first place.
      And the inevitable goal of every single revolution is to build pretty much the exact same structure they burnt down. Sure, they may natter about “new Socialist men” or “year zero” or “Chairman Mao Thought”, but they tend to go back to something that looks like their glory days. Hitler wanted to be Fredrick the Great, Stalin wanted to be Peter the Great, and Mao was aiming at the Chinese Emperors of old.

    2. The point I keep coming back to is that a century of Horrible Examples and Dreadful Warnings has used up any benefit of the doubt the Progressives might ever have been due. They can cry “But it hasn’t ever been tried! We’ll do it RIGHT!” as much as ever they like, but they had a hundred years and many tests in which to get it ‘right’, and they failed.

      Until they can produce a society built on Progressive Lines, composed entirely of volunteers, and prosperous enough to be self supporting, they can pound sand.

  25. About… 25% of men are stronger than 99% of women, 50% of men are stronger than 90% of women, 25% of women are weaker than 95% of men. (There are a fair number of elderly men who are very weak.)

    However – not being a woman, I don’t know this, but I suspect that women’s behavior toward men is very substantially shaped by the fact that in nearly all male/female contacts, the man is strong enough to overpower the woman completely if he wants to. This reality is something women absorb in their teens, when boys outgrow them, and perhaps by observation of adults in childhood. It is a factor that is so ubiquitous that it becomes unconscious. The risk is normally very very small – but the possible harm is very large.

    Accordingly, women avoid those risks, in ways they may not even recognize. And men don’t. Men encounter stronger men, but only occasionally, and intrasex differences are usually smaller than intersex differences.

    Fish aren’t aware of water.

    1. It’s not just muscle mass, or upper body strength, which get get most of the attention. The human muscular-skeletal system is all about leverage, and longer bones give males (and adults, compared to children) an inherent advantage in leverage. Nature does not notably pay any attention to human notions of “fairness”.

    2. On the other hand, most men IMO grow up knowing that they can easily hurt women so avoid doing anything to hurt a woman.

      There are foolish women out there who either don’t believe that men are stronger or assume male-restraint means that they can get away with stuff that men wouldn’t accept from another man.

      1. Hell, they do it to other women, too.

        I almost got written up for “fighting” in boot camp because some idiot bleep did a “talk to the hand” which I now think would’ve been a near-miss nosestrike…. but even now I’m pretty sure that it was aimed to be a near-miss on someone who flinches back. I don’t flinch back, it makes me fall over, so I did an arm-sweep to move it to one side (same motion as for a tree branch snapping back, incidentally) and took a step back and to the side, shielding my eyes.

        Apparently, I was supposed to stand there and take it, or something.

        1. “Talk to the hand” is like… I am *never* violent. But the phrase itself makes me see red. If someone gives me a “talk to the hand” they will be written off immediately and never spoken to or thought of again. Because the alternative involves blood.

          1. My uncle actually had a somewhat similar situation (or talked to someone who did…Uncle Bard is a little, uh, grabby with stories. And then he polishes them) and got almost written up for fighting because he called some of the guys in boot camp, during ‘nam, as “boys.”

            At least one happened to be black.

            The RDC was really confused with THAT cultural conflict.
            (In my mom’s family area, “boy” meant roughly “unmarried man.”)

    3. You’re right, sort of. See above my point about cars.

      And I’d suggest that women are cautious of the dangers posed by other women as well. Cars, dogs, lighting storms, spoiled food… In addition, we’re probably tuned to even small dangers in order that suicidal toddlers live to biological maturity instead of succeeding at killing themselves.

      1. Does this mean, that all else being the same, we should expect a slightly higher aversion to risk among children raised by single mothers?

        1. Maybe among boys raised by single mothers? I don’t know. It would be an interesting thing to study except that the lower risk-taking (if it exists) would be pointed to as *better than* more traditional boyish behavior.

          1. Eh – I raised my daughter as a single parent, and she ran straight at all risks. Including the high diving board at the base pool.
            And then she went to be a Marine.

        2. I suspect that boys raised by single mothers would tend towards the more toxic side of masculinity, cf gang members and the like.
          So, you would probably see more risk taking than less.

          1. Conflating issue, they may go in for STUPID risks.

            There’s a lot of stuff that guys do that is risky, but eh. Then a lot that is just risky. And then some that is just freaking stupid.

            It’s a little too situational to really line it out, but things like eating cookie batter with raw eggs in it would be eh-risky, driving aggressively would be just risky, and doing car ballet at half again the speed limit then trying to outrun the cops would be freaking stupid.

              1. There is no new Trek.

                I flatly refuse to jump up for folks who hold me in contempt for liking the series they want to cash in on.

                *looks stubborn*

                From what I have heard, yes, that kind of stupid.

                1. NewTrek is certainly NOT related to any set of stories I’m familiar with, agreed.

                  Even ENTERPRISE gave me severe problems. Far as I’m concerned, “the reboot” is a training film series the Department of Temporal Investigations shows to new recruits, to impress upon them how IMPORTANT their job is.

                  1. Shared this theory with Elf.

                    He laughed and fully approves of it!

                    FWIW, as the resident Wars fanatic, he wasn’t nearly as offended about the Trek reboot– his summary is “Hey, not a bad scifi movie. It ain’t trek, I don’t know what it is, but not a bad scifi movie!”

                    1. Good to hear. My patented theory for reconciling all the episodes in TOS would, I’ve been told, get more lynched at the next convention if it ever became public knowledge. Glad this one is a little safer.

    4. I think you’re a bit high on the relative numbers– my dad is in his 60s and still quite strong.

      More importantly, I’ve found that hitting about 35 or so had made a big impact on my basic strength– I am still stronger than most women (probably by being too stupid to go “hey, this is a bad idea”) but I’ve observed the impact on my husband is nowhere near as strong, even when he’s doing a desk job and I do physical stuff (largely packing kids, basic yard work, cleaning, etc) all week long. He’s STILL doing stuff with almost the same ease he had ten years ago, while I’m struggling more.

    5. > in nearly all male/female contacts, the man is strong enough to overpower the woman completely if he wants to.

      Yes-but… in most societies, and *this* one up to, oh, maybe 20 years ago, doing something like that invited retribution from the woman’s extended family group, friends, church, and whatever othe tribes she was a member of. And the man’s tribes would be similarly disapproving.

      Now… Mom, her current Child Services counselor, and fifty Facebook “friends” don’t give the same shield.

      They demanded “equality.” Well, now they have it.

  26. Brainwashed dimbulb. Had she any experience with
    abusive men or battered women, she wouldn’t be so glib about trying to make men afraid, because men are not nearly so likely to be terrified by women as infuriated. (unless the prospect of being trapped with a woman who has a sharp, venemous tongue is terrifying) As for as the attitude of condescending moral superiority, “There ain’t no good in an evil-hearted woman”.

    1. Being terrified is, while we’re at it, a good route to being very dangerous: you can get rid of your fear by eliminating its cause.

      1. They’d better have been lined up screaming “What happened!!!!” Before I have a chance to get to “them”. Not that would ever be an opportunity (*), but I could dream about it. OTOH the “them” identified would be those lined up screaming, so there is that.

        (*) Isn’t that the whole guilty thing. Both motive & opportunity? Definitely would have the motive. Opportunity, nope. Too busy taking care of me & mine.

    1. Just remember that the burka is a wonderful garment. You can hide ANYTHING under it. That is why ISIS banned it in some areas after they lost a bunch of their leadership to an AK47 hidden under one.

    1. Aren’t you supposed to be blaming the patriarchy for vertebrate and particularly mammalian biology? That does seem to be the fashion these days.

      1. Of course.

        Also, it’s illegitimate for a woman to be responsible and take her biological framework into account if any man anywhere is being irresponsible.

  27. Have just read the NRO article on the PRC-Vatican City signed Saturday.

    Having that power of nomination seems to make possible a ChiCom friendly faction of Cardinals. I wonder about integrity of papal elections, and if that couldn’t have been the real purpose.

    1. The Cardinal in Hong Kong, the highest ranking Catholic in China, has vocally and openly come out against the agreement. He’s also called for the Vatican Secretary of State to resign.

      1. That is one really, really brave man.

        I hope that the Chinese are cunning enough not to martyr him, or those he loves…. it may be hope against hope, but I got it.

            1. It’s worth noting that there are hints (but nothing more) that China might be slowly sliding into instability. Martyring the Cardinal probably wouldn’t cause China to erupt (for one thing, I don’t think that large of a percentage of the population is Christian, let alone Catholic). But it would likely be one more piece of resentment toward the government in Beijing that could conceivably build toward an avalanche breaking out.

    2. Several hundred year “joke”:

      Obviously the Catholic Church is the one founded by Himself, nothing else would manage to survive the management she’s got.

  28. … I wouldn’t know actors/actresses (honestly, changing it all to the masculine word in a profession where you use your body and appearance is f*cking insane, and I’m done with the corruption of language) …

    When we use the word he generically that’s sexist, but when we differentiate between actors and actresses it is sexist. 

    This is not so much about real sexism, but rather it is about power and intimidation.  You have to kowtow to the definitions and the interpretations or be subject to temper tantrums that would shame a toddler.  The funny thing, they are right when they say this is all about the narrative and power.  It is all about their attempt to seize greater power and maintain control of the narrative.

    And no, while fun can be made of the situation, the situation is not funny. 

  29. “Most “female military” is either honor guard or largely ornamental until the 20th century and the existence of weapons that don’t rely on upper body strength alone.”

    I thought that some societies trained women to defend sieges. The Japanese, for one. Not the same as being ‘a military’, granted.

    1. From what I understand it wasn’t so much “trained to defend sieges” as it was “everybody in the nobility – including the women – gets at least minimal martial training, and the only time the women are likely to be caught in a battle is during a siege”. The garrison on the walls during a siege still likely would have been made up of men. But the women represented an extra bit of combat power in the event that someone tried to breach the walls. And it wasn’t like not wielding a weapon was going to keep Bad Things(tm) from happening to them if the besiegers successfully took the castle/settlement.

      1. I was under the impression that Samurai class women were expected to command the castle during a seige on the presumption that the men would be out in the countryside making war on the enemy THERE.


        What the hell do I know?

        1. Command the castle, yeah. And the same was true in Europe, as well, though those same European women wouldn’t have been expected to be able to wield a weapon (unlike in Japan). But the castle would still have a minimal garrison made up of men even while the army was away. *Someone’s* gotta patrol the local roads and make sure that the trade goods still go through and the taxes still get collected. Or check on rumors of a brewing peasant revolt. Can’t send the women to do that sort of work.

        2. That’s standard siege defense.

          Goes into Europe, too– IIRC, a lot of the stuff we do have is lady wives writing to their husbands when both are at war.

          Hell, even FARMSTEADS went that way– guys have the gross power, so they go where that’s useful; women are more agile, quicker, so they’re more useful from behind a barricade.

          1. Where women are “stationed” in a conflict probably has more to do with children and babies than physical strength, ultimately. Or sort of a combo. It would be stupid and wasteful to set the men to guarding the nursery when they’re the strongest and are needed elsewhere.

    2. From what I’ve seen you get the occasional individual woman three sigmas out from the mean who can hang with the men in battle. There are, as one example the “Onna bugei” from Japanese history. The most famous is the at least semi-legendary Tomoe but there were others of well established historicity. I did a piece on my blog once on “shieldmaidens” as described in Norse/Germanic myth and legend. I rejected both ends, the “look half of the raiders were women” of one side and the “never, ever, ever, ever” of the other. I decided probably that, yeah, they existed, but they were rare.

      1. *ears perk*

        The search for “Onna bugei” is female martial artist, but it perks my ears up because it looks a bit like demon or ogre something- Oni. Onna means something like female, by further searches, but…. bunnies! So many bunnies! Especially when I consider so many “they’re uber male strong but female wired” stuff.

        1. Bunnies wielding naginatas? (the traditional weapon of the Onna bugei)


          Sounds like something from Usagi Yojimbo.

    3. My understanding is that Koreans had female archers at some point, too, though I’ve never been able to track down any info on this as anything than Korean friends telling me so.

  30. “The society these idiots want is not even possible, let alone stable.”

    The societies these idiots have wanted throughout their history were never possible, let alone stable. They have wanted societies in which Artists ran things (Oh. My. God.) . They have rioted for Anarchy (where the strong would rule even more absolutely). They have piled more and more authority n the State, which can barely – most of the time – keep the roads open.


    1. I mean, these are the same people who insist that cops and soldiers are evilbadfascist oppressors, and then insist that said cops and soldiers be the only ones who are armed.

          1. I have to admit that for a while I actually expected certain policing inequities to result in campaigns to get the affected people groups to go into law enforcement in order to solve the problem from the inside.

            I am naive.

            (And actually police forces are already highly diverse groups of people. The black family-man police officer is practically a trope.)

            1. Yep. One of my more left-leaning friends was extremely surprised to hear that a disproportionate number of Border Patrol agents are Hispanic.
              Her question: “How does that work?”
              My response: “The primary recruiting ground is the American Southwest. What do you expect?”

  31. Women will not like it when the rules change.

    The rules are currently providing them with protection. When the rules go away, what results will not favor them at all, not in the way they think.

    1. See Sweden. The Feminist in charge are doing their best to destroy their culture and replace it with Islam. Somehow they think THEY will still be in charge.

  32. Silly actress. For one, her numbers were too low. Only 6k years? Humans have been around *lots* longer. And, judging by what we know of more primitive societies, women have a *lot* less freedom when life is lived close to the bone. *shakes head*

    Silly feminists. Still missing the point that the sexes work best cooperatively, not as mortal enemies.

    1. Yes, we’re complementary, not competitive.

      Only the negative sides are in competition, if only because they tear down everything they hit.

    2. It’s a group that expects a 19th century peseudoscience to hold the key to human interaction. What did you expect?

    3. no, there’s a particular story that feminists tell where 6k years ago, teh evul mens subverted the nice peaceful matriarchy.

      1. If perhaps the sound of laughter unto tears was heard from Somewhere Down South, pay it no mind.

        Were it serious fiction, I’d probably pay it more attention. A bit. Have to work hard to make a good story out of that much bovine scatology, though.

  33. When crying about the horrible “patriarchy”, the feminists tend to forget that for a lot of that supposed six thousand years, women actively participated and supported the subjugation of women. They like to vilify men as the monsters, but the real culprit was the CULTURE. That culture has largely changed in the western world. Sure there are outliers, assholes have always, and will always exist. But by in large, Men (at least in the US and other enlightened Western nations) see women as equals.

    Attacking and trying to make “every man afraid of every woman” can only do more harm than good.

  34. I’m pondering Frank Herbert’s views, which in at least two of his works, more or less centered around the view that women actually ran things, though they did it thoroughly *behind* the scenes (The Godmakers, and Dune [the Bene Geserit]). Of course, ruling from behind the scenes has advantages – nobody knows it’s you, so when things go bad, you just end up a widow who can find someone else to maneuver into power.

  35. So just out of curiosity, I wonder what the WAG would be for the percent of female commenters on Sarah’s blog who are military veterans.

        1. You know, I had never considered this – but considering that having served in the military is something that only a relatively small number of Americans have ever done, and that women are a very much smaller number of that number, yet a pretty large number of the regulars here are female veterans … is being a woman veteran a marker for Odd?

          1. I think Odds are more likely to go “well, I say I believe this– better live up to it.”

            We’re also crazy enough to think it will actually work like it’s supposed to. 😀 You know, acting professional and everything. 😉

          2. Type of person who is attracted to what Jim Baen liked to publish is probably sufficient to skew regulars here too much to be any sort of useful indicator.

          3. Possibly. It increases the liklihood, but my time in is a bad sample set. I was MI and that already selects for Odds. Poking around Supply or other administrative MOSes would probably provide a better sampling. It could also be that the military itself, as a volunteer force, selects for Odds. Especially in the US.

    1. WAG, for a vague definition of commentators, 25% to 50% of female commentators. I’d probably estimate a lower rate for men.

      1. Well, technically speaking, the Feminists are the arbitrators of who actually counts as female, except maybe when it comes to pissing contests with the Trans activists. As we don’t have very many regulars who are ultra-doctrinaire Feminists or Trans activists, it is possible that we don’t actually have any female commentators. Unless Dung Field still counts as a commentator, and Dung Field is really Foz Meadows.

      1. I have a soft spot for the Navy. They took us Air Force folks from Subic Bay to Cebu after Mt. Pinatubo. Getting advice on taking care of a newborn (my first) from a crusty CPO is an enduring memory.

        I was on the USS Merrill. I found out a couple of years ago that they sunk my battleship off of Hawaii somewhere to make a reef.

Comments are closed.