Teaching Offense


Sometimes I think 99% of the trouble with current society is the state of education, and the way we arrange to have people teach kids who have never experienced any real trouble or problem what to be offended at.

In historical terms, we live incredibly safe lives in the US.  In historical terms, women live incredibly safe, incredibly equal lives.

And yet women here talk about the patriarchy, and are never done with how much they are being oppressed and kept down.

Dates are rape, bad sex is rape, being looked at by a guy you don’t like is rape, being told you’re less than perfect is the equivalent of rape, and for that matter being forced to smile is “emotional labor” and unfair.

where does all this come from?

Well… it’s taught. And it’s taught in the most absurd and ridiculous way.

This became clear to me the other day.  This young woman wrote an hillarious review of Blazing Saddles on Medium.  It’s since been removed, but the internet remembers.

And what caught me was this:  “<One of the main women in this movie, Lil Van Schtupp (Madeline Kahn), is portrayed as stupid and talks with a lisp. In one scene she uses the classic “let me go slip into something more comfortable” quote that we’ve talked about in class. Objectifying and sexualizing women are two key themes throughout this movie.

Note the “We’ve talked about in class.”

By the time I I came around the phrase “let me slip into something more comfortable” was played for laughs.  If you heard it in a movie — and btw it could come from a man or woman — the character would come back wearing a spacesuit, or alternately naked.

But I watched classical movies.  “Let me slip into something more comfortable” was not sexist.  It was a way of signaling that the characters were having sex, most of the time, in a prudish era where they didn’t feel the need to let it all hang out on screen.

Why the “slip into something more comfortable?”  Because women — and men too — tended to dress more formally in public.  And at any rate, the clothes were made of different fabrics, and simply weren’t that comfortable.

I remember watching a movie set in the fifties where the description of a suspect included “he’s not wearing a hat.”  A little earlier and it would have worked for a female suspect, as being unusual.  and even when I was a kid (though that might have been Portugal, not the time) women didn’t leave the house without being dressed up.  This involved a dress or skirt or skirt suit, and at least a “half heel”, i.e. the highest heels I wear at 56.

None of this was comfortable. It was the equivalent, nowadays, of dressing for a prom, or to attend a wedding or formal dinner.

What’s the first thing you do when you get home?  You get more comfortable.

I don’t know if people still wear night clothes at home in the evening, or if I’m simply in a pocket of the culture where that doesn’t happen. I know it used to happen in the US in the early eighties. Go visit someone early in the evening, and they’re in nightclothes and robes.  Or earlier than that, do you remember housedresses?  My mom practically lived in one when she was home. It was a wrap-around thing that tied.

The point is, usually only intimate friends and family saw you outside of your formal clothes.  “Slipping into something more comfortable” showed that the relationship was no longer just friends, or casual.

Sure, it could be used to show a woman was “dangerous”.  What in hell, precisely is that sexist about?  Some women were sexual predators, just like some men were. It’s called being human.

But no, they teach to these duckies that it’s objectification and sexism.

It’s like the thing with the aprons, that science fiction writers older than I think mean that Heinlein was a sexist, because he has women wearing aprons.  Instead of “Everyone who worked with staining liquids and fire wore aprons. Because clothes were insanely expensive, that’s why.”  We stopped wearing aprons in the measure that a pack of t-shirts at walmart is $10. Nothing to do with sexism.

I do happen to know what sexism is. I grew up in Portugal in the sixties and seventies.  The culture is still relatively sexist — it’s Latin, it bears the imprints of the Moorish invasion and occupation — though mind you nothing on other cultures in the third world.

I remember being in classrooms and hearing teachers ask boys how they could bear it that I had the highest grade in a test, or being called up to the blackboard in a class where I was the only girl, and once I proved I understood the concept, having the teacher say “I see everyone understands.” I have actually been told I was “pretty smart for a woman.”

I’ve also been grabbed in the playground, and had drunkards rub against me on buses.  I say this not to say that all men are bad. They aren’t. But you can’t stop bad apples, and the culture as a whole assumed women were… not inferior, except perhaps intellectually, but certainly creatures that needed looking after, as though they were children.

If you went out alone after dark, they knew what to think of you.  And while they were wrong — I had two classes after dark in college, one in high school (English) — they weren’t wrong about women needing more protection. I always made sure there was either a group of us, or someone came to pick me up.

Because I knew I was weak, and had been in enough tight situations that I knew if a man was determined he could overpower me.  Yeah, I usually had a knife on me. But guns were rare and it was hard to get a license.

Ask me how furious it makes me to hear these children talk about how protecting yourself is evil because the man will just seek another victim.  Is it similarly evil to lock your door? A potential robber might just attack your neighbor.

Should we all make ourselves willing victims to spare others?  We are, then, decided in encouraging criminals.

And then learning by rote what is “Sexist” or “Demeaning.”  Dear Lord, have they lost their minds?

It is a measure of how safe and protected these girls are, that they learn these things by rote and are never curious.  They never wonder WHY those things are considered sexist (in the case quoted, they aren’t. There’s an historical context and a reason for the scene and it has nothing to do with objectifying women.) they just learn to vomit it back on the test, and it gets good grades, therefore it must be true.

If you’re not aware of what they’re teaching your kids in the “college education” you’re paying for, you’re a fool.  If you don’t read their text books and explode the myths and tell the kids what the context is? You’re cooperating with the destruction of Western society in a sea of mentally scrambled myth.

If you took your kids to watch Pocahontas and didn’t tell them the colonists in North America did NOT come to find gold (they were more interested in agriculture, though they went a little mad over the planting of tobacco for a while, but that was later.)  you’re remiss.  Heck, even the Spaniards didn’t come in search of gold (yes, El Dorado, but that was a different myth.) They came for the propagation of the faith, and to find a shorter route to India, where they expected to find not gold but spices, a vital commodity in a world without refrigeration.

Did they plunder gold?  Yeah, sure.  But that was later. That was not their motivation.  (And yes, there’s a lot of nonsense written by Catholic priests in the Americas around that time.  They were, they thought, excoriating the world, and never thought that the future would take them literally.) And there’s other stuff there, involving wars and defeated and rules of plunder.

There is context that is never explained.  Like the buying “Manhattan for beads” is never explained, in the sense that beads were currency for those people, and frankly they were fairly expensive for those buying it, too.

None of this is explained. Instead, young people are taught a litany of things they can recite as reasons for offense or trauma, like some kind of Freudian rosary.

The problem with our children is that instead of education we send them to places where they try to raise their self esteem by telling them they’re simultaneously victims and oppressors, but the world can be made perfect by their admitting their privilege and fighting “oppressors.”

The problem with our children is that they’re not being educated in any sense of the word, are not being told the truth about the past or the present, let alone the future, and are taught farrago and nonsense as if it were gospel.

And it has to stop.

Because it’s not just funny movies we’re losing. They want statues of heroes (Jefferson!) destroyed, because they think this will save the world.  They want to forget the past and in its place have memorized lists of good and bad things, that have no actual relation to reality.

Because that’s what they were taught.

Stuff that has no contact with reality.

And the problem there?  Reality always wins.


313 thoughts on “Teaching Offense

  1. Very True Reality always wins. If you live in an Earthquake zone, it does not matter who built your home just was home built strong enough to survive the next earthquake.
    The value of Spices is not something that most Americans really think about. In a society without refrigeration, they are critical to food preservation and making preserved food taste better. Salt Beef or Salt Pork may last but tasty is probably not how most people would describe it.

    1. Reality always wins, you say?

      AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
      I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
      Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
      And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

      1. It’s been a while. Let’s do the anthem in full

        As I pass through my incarnations in every age and race,
        I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market-Place.
        Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
        And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

        We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn.
        That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
        But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breath of Mind,
        So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

        We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
        Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market-Place;
        But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
        That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in

        With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch.
        They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch.
        They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings.
        So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

        When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
        They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
        But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
        And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Stick to the Devil you know.”

        On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
        (Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
        Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
        And the Gods of the Copybook Heading said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.”

        In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
        By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul; But, though we had
        plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
        And the Gods of the Copybook Heading said: “If you don’t work you die.”

        Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards
        And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
        That All is not God that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four-
        And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

        As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man- There are only
        four things certain since Social Progress began:-
        That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
        And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wobbling back to the Fire;
        And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
        When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
        As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
        The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

  2. In cases like this, when confronted by (literally) know-nothing soon-to-be-putatively-adult children, it’s our responsibility to be (and to show them, good and hard) the reality they have been shielded from. Or should I say denied. Anyway, we do them a disservice if we don’t laugh in their faces and tell them as clearly as possible, “Everything you’ve been taught is wrong. The world doesn’t work, and never has worked, that way. If you keep refusing to see and understand the truth it will slap you down every time. Now stop whining about imagined offenses and look at the real world!”

  3. “The problem with our children is that instead of education we send them to places where they try to raise their self esteem by telling them they’re simultaneously victims and oppressors, but the world can be made perfect by their admitting their privilege and fighting “oppressors.”

    There’s something remarkably – all but blatantly, really – pseudo-religious about all this. And pseudo-Christian in particular. It’s like the left has formally renounced Christianity, and yet uses some nonsensical knockoff for all its rhetoric. So, instead of the Original Sin, you have slavery and climate change; instead of penance, you have virtue signalling; and the modern leftist Deadly Sins appear to be “privilege”, “rape culture”, “victim blaming” etc.

    And just like the indulgences of yore, there’s no real need to actually practice what you preach, so long as you pay your tax-deductible donation to the Democrat party, and maybe say a couple of “Hail Michael Moore”-eys and denounce the evil demons of capitalism in public… on the way to your second private jet.

    Really, it’s a dead giveaway how, say, climate skeptics are derided specifically as “deniers” – which is basically a synonym for “unbeliever” or “infidel” – rather than as polluters – as in, people who live their lives in environmentally unsound ways. Since most of them, as studies surprisingly show, actually live much cleaner lives than the screeching Greta Thunbergs of the world. But no – all that matters is that they don’t “believe”. That they’re not of the righteous faith. That they can’t be “saved”… generally from their financial savings.

    All in all, it’ll fill more than a few tomes to describe all the ways modern leftist rhetoric resembles a cult; from the sanctification of the dear leader, to the hypocrisy of celebrity adherents, and of course, the abuse of anyone vulnerable enough to actually buy into the whole deal.

    1. It very much is religious, it is derived from Christianity, and to be more precise it is a heresy of Christianity.

      It is religious because it it group rituals founded in magical thinking. If you know history, science, and math it is clearly magical thinking; Marx’s ‘data’ is cherrypicked. Yes, it does look like there are a lot of little trends, but there is great complexity, and extrapolating beyond this data set is not valid. (I’ve done some very preliminary work on a historical theory that, if correct, would explain why making historical theories the center of community life might possibly be a bad idea.)

      We can be pretty sure socialism and communism are derived from Christianity because of that appeal to ‘all human lives have worth’. That the appeal is invalid when (as is commonly done) the left takes its conclusions from that as standing on their own when disqualifying certain humans is another issue. There aren’t many other religions available for Marxism to have gotten the influence from, and memetically, Marxism-Leninism has features that make sense if its viral payload was designed and evolutionarily optimized for spreading in a culture shaped by Christian mores.

      All the modern leftism I have seen shows clear traces of the influence of the state cult of the Soviet Union.

      1. There were two things the Soviet Union was good at: stealing (which is why they were able to stay “in the game” as long as they did as a world superpower) and agitprob. So good were they at agitprop that the agitprob has long outlived the Soviet Union itself.

      1. I admit I was still under the popular impression that indulgences were at least sometimes abused as “get out of Hell free” cards, exchanged for decidedly corporeal goods and services. After reading the (much more thoroughly founded) debunkings of all the other various anti-Catholic myths – witch-hunts, the Inquisition, stances on science etc. – I really should’ve figured this one wouldn’t be much different.

        Anyway, yeah, the point is, people are being condemned based not on their actual lifestyle, but on what they “believe”… according to parties showcasing both hypocrisy and explicit conflict of interest in the matter. Sorry, even the biggest redneck slob, chugging a pint of coke through three plastic straws at once, in his gas-guzzling ’54 pickup, still cannot be lectured on environmental responsibility by any celebrity flying more than once a year… which is all of them. Or, conversely, by the soy latte crowd with no concept of the agricultural mechanics behind their soy lattes.

        But when you think about it, it makes perfect sense for liberals to want to regard people like this. It requires zero effort, zero information, zero understanding. You’ve already decided what everyone else “believes”, regardless of what they do otherwise, and you can treat them based on that, with no compunction whatsoever. Your world is neatly divided into neat groups of people you admire or despise (mostly the latter), based on a tautological system entirely built to justify your own prejudice and self-interest. Until, of course, you notice your own failure to live up to even such lopsided standards, the cognitive dissonance eventually becomes too great to handle, and the rest is modern history,.. and a lot of reee-ing over spilt soy lattes, that’s fer sure.

        1. I admit I was still under the popular impression that indulgences were at least sometimes abused as “get out of Hell free” cards, exchanged for decidedly corporeal goods and services.

          FWIW, a lot of our history until very recently came via England, and stuff that was when -it-was-written obviously over the top lost that notation. Since I don’t like bad info, and I know folks HERE don’t like bad info, I try to pass it around as much as possible. There’s a lot of CATHOLICS that were taught the above, as recently as the 50s; humans being humans, there probably were folks abusing theology like that. Heck, I’m quite sure that some scumbag used “sleep with me and I’ll absolve you”. Because scumbags gonna scum.

          Wait, how did I get back on the eco-lecture-twits? 😉

          1. Well, and to be honest, how some people misunderstood indulgences, and how some of the less scrupulous sellers pitched indulgences, provides ample fodder for warping the idea from “a way to fix the damages caused by sin” into “get your dad out of Purgatory (or Hell) with this One Simple Trick!”

            1. Which is pretty critical to understanding the psychology of why the Reformation spread.

              And there is another bit of the theology around confession in Catholic teaching that can be critical for outsiders to understand.

              Valid confession requires knowledge that the sinful act was wrong. The pop culture version of ‘homosexual acts are sinful’ is ‘gays go to hell’. But if we all commit acts and think thoughts that lead us in the direction of hell, and the Catholic ‘Confession’ toolchain is a way of addressing this, then teaching that a sinful act is not sinful is precisely the wrong way to keep people out of hell.

              Which explains a lot about why the critics do not move the Catholic believers, and why the Catholic believers do not move the critics.

              1. Or vincible ignorance about its being wrong. And the degree of guilt is dependent on the effort made to remove the ignorance. (People who go out of their way to avoid learning whether something is wrong may be, because of their hardness of heart, even more guilty than those who do it with full knowledge.)

          2. I suspect Indiana is Orthodox/Eastern church.

            Context that may be important and missing from that.

            The Reformation was something of a civil war within the Western Church. For reasons of past history, the English had a dislike for what became The Authority in the Catholic Church. England sided against, with some civil wars along the way with monarchs that favored one or the other. So, English narratives were and are fairly hostile to Catholicism.

            New England was settled partly by the Calvinists. Now, the Calvinists screwed themselves up and have mostly disappeared, but through New England they were an immense cultural influence in America. One way of explaining them is that the Calvinists moved to New England because they thought that the Protestant Church of England was far too Catholic.

  4. Even better, as I recall, the line is:”Let me slip into something less comfortable”.

  5. One can’t destroy a free culture and replace it with Marxism if the foundation remains strong. Thus must the enemy destroy both Faith and Reason, the twin bedrock of our free society.

  6. “It’s like the thing with the aprons, that science fiction writers older than I think mean that Heinlein was a sexist, because he was women wearing aprons. Instead of “Everyone who worked with staining liquids and fire wore aprons. Because clothes were insanely expensive, that’s why.”

    I saw a preview for one of Marvel’s new Conan comics and there’s a scene of a blacksmith working at a forge bare-chested, no leather apron at all.


    1. This morning’s Drag Week vid from Benny et all in OZ had a joke with Benny grabbing the hem of a guy’s t-shirt to show the holes burned in and saying “Spot the fabricator!”
      Had weld spattered shirts myself. still do, but I weld so much less of late, it isn’t a majority of my wardrobe any more.

      1. Battery acid is another good way to add unplanned ventilation to shirts. Or bleach spatter when you are, oh, cleaning out a cistern and don’t stand far enough back.

        1. There’s a reason why those of us who shoot matchlock firearms have ONE shirt dedicated to it…burned full of holes.

        2. Medium/high voltage, when some idiot doesn’t notice the weak lugs on an old power base. Sparks have et more than a few shirts. And hats. And coats, and gloves… There’s a reason for the PPE. *chuckle*

    2. Humans can’t even cook bacon bare chested without screaming after a grease pop. I’ll chuck it down to the fact that Marvel pays so little to its illustrators these days that they can mostly only afford the newbies or the uncaring.

      1. Marvel (and to a lesser extent DC) ran into some problems back in, IIRC, the late Eighties when some of their Image-conscious artists* decided a) writers contributed nothing of merit to the story-telling process and b) the market for original art was such that they could make far more money re-selling comic pages at cons than they did from the original sale to the magazine … provided the Original Art page was a dramatic action scene (e.g., Spider-Man rather than Peter Parker.)

        The effect of this was eventually mocked by Walt Simonson in his writing an issue of Thor in which every page was a splash page. Of course, Simonson was good enough artist and writer to carry it off, which sort of undercut his point.

        *I will name no names, so let the culprits be known simply as Artist-X and Artist New-Mutants. Look at some of the covers and count the legs, divide by two and see if the result matches the number of characters …

    3. Forging scenes are often shirtless scenes.

      To be just one reason a blacksmith wore an apron was to omit the rest of the shirt — smithies got HOT.

      1. A person might do some work at a forge shirtless. Other actions would be quite unwise. Had a friend who had a forge as he and his dad did blacksmithing as a hobby. I helped mostly by making sure tools were available and making sure the bellows substitute (output of a shop vac) hadn’t caught fire. I helped him forge weld pieces from time to time. To do this both pieces are brought to white hot at the same time. The pieces are brought to the anvil treated with borax and then hammered repeatedly until they’re cherry red, at which point you place them back in the fire to reheat to continue the process. The white hot steel/iron is the exciting part. White hot is just shy of melting, hard to achieve with most modern steel in a coal fired bellows driven fire. When you pull the piece out it is throwing sparks like an enthusiastic 4th of July sparkler. These sparks travel a fair distance. Clothing preference is for heavy cotton denim, wool or best of all leather (no offense Orvan) as they are fire resistant. The sparks are intensely hot I think over 2000F and stick for some reason. Even the toughest most overheated blacksmith would probably want to do that operation with some kind of covering :-).

  7. I’ve had to spend quite some time on my youngest. What she’s learned about economics alone is incredible. As in very much NOT credible. At all. Granted, she’s 12 and I don’t think they’ve really gone over economics in school, and I’m not so sure they even will, but she sure has heard the teachers talk up the progressive political line.

    For instance: She was shocked at the idea that “Free College” still somehow had to be paid for. “It’s free, right? Like FREE is in the name daddy.” Geesh.

    She thought the NRA was a terrorist organization (and was shocked to find out that I was a member). I could almost see the smoke seeping out her ears from the friction between the truth, and the crap she learned at school, especially when I told her about the CMP. “They just let people have MILITARY GUNS?!?!”

    I’m working on un-doing the damage. The Family sits around a table for dinner each night, and I try to, gently, get the girls involved in talking about economics, history, and politics. They don’t tend to like the political stuff, but I tell a pretty good story, and know a bit about history which isn’t too hard to make interesting. I can usually squish some economics and politics in amongst the history.

    I think the one thing that really turned the corner on all this and got her thinking was when she said something about making things “fair”, and I asked her “Really? Is there any such thing as FAIR?” She stopped, thought about it for a second, and I could tell she had just realized that someone was feeding her a line of bull-hooey with that whole “make things fair” schtick.

    1. No. It’s worse when they’re taught economics.
      Marshall’s economics course was worse than mine, taught under a socialist regime.
      It included sections on “hiring for social justice”

      1. one of the guys at the Acorn To Arabella youtube channel was relating his story of getting his student loans, and not paying them . . . because interest only was still $750 a month or so and full cost was $900+.
        What kind of line is anyone fed to make them think that kind of loan shark level of loan and interest was sound? Not even Ivy league levels, but state and community college. He was teaching in Spain, I think and asked to rework this, but the bank refused. He has since gotten a rework and is again paying at more reasonable rates (the other guy has a masters and bachelors he is paying at $170 or so a month . . . more reasonable, but the masters was for teaching and outdoorsmanship of some sort was his bachelors. He at least used them for some time too)

      2. I had a class on Engineering Economic Analysis in college that turned out to be pretty useful. In particular, the concept of the time value of money. AKA How To Make Compound Interest Your Friend.

        But most kids need, desperately, a personal finance course.

        1. Forest Economics – the same class. Calculating the Future Value and taking Future Value and calculating Current Value.

          Also there is Forest Biometrics (Statistics for any other discipline).

          Do not remember any equivalent class for Computer Science. Really could have used one. Got a lot about project processes, and planning. Not a lot about Project Estimates. Or it didn’t leap out at me. Might be because by the time I got into the university level (VS language specific programming) I’d already been doing that (for pay) and learned the hard lessons under estimating. (There is no over estimating, and delivering faster than promised for the same price.)

          1. Before we even got to grant writing, there was a whole course on the three limiting factors of anthropological investigations: Money, Time, and Political Climate (to include little things like wars, genocide, insurgencies, and the like. Physical anthropologists rarely get interested in those until they are safely dead for a few hundred years). There was a whole bit about, “now I know you all learned about budgeting and balancing a checkbook back when you were children. This is pretty much the same, with a few little curveballs depending on locality and country you are working in. Logistics you will cover in the nest course.”

      3. hiring for social justice in either of your son’s fields gets people killed, both fields need people hired for competency.

    2. At twelve she’s old enough. Buy her P. J. O’Rourke’s Eat the Rich. Okay, maybe wait a couple of years. But it will inoculate her against a lot of the nonsense.
      Also the closest to “fair” we can get is treat everyone the same. Preferences are BY DEFINITION unfair.

      1. Thomas Sowell’s “Basic Economics” on Audible. It’s extremely accessible. Doesn’t rely on equations and graphs and gives real world examples of its principles.

        It’s what I got Athena started on.

        1. It’s a good reference to own in paper as well. Even as I start trimming I doubt it will ever leave the house. In fact, I might need a second copy so I can read without distraction from the notes I made.

        2. “Economics in One Lesson,” Henry Hazlitt. Not difficult reading, straightforward and plain. Good companion to “Basic Economics.” Get “Wealth of Nations,” but “Theory of Moral Sentiments” would be good to go through before, as reading them out of order can get weird (at least it did for me).

      2. Actually, my 15 year old is homeschooling now because she’s having anxiety issues. I wonder if it would suffice for an economics credit. (Homeschooling in Florida is SO WEIRD. It’s like the state said “Homeschooling? Sigh… whatever!” and homeschoolers took that “whatever” literally. I’m finding books for her to learn from that she really would WANT to read. For world history, we found a book that goes through it with an eye towards pointing out all the weird stuff you never learn in school. (BTW, this is our first year of homeschooling, so if anyone has suggestions, I’d love to hear them.. if Sarah doesn’t mind of course).

        1. It has been a while, so I give only general principles:

          Your goal is to teach your child to teach herself: analyse a situation, define an approach/solution and acquire the necessary knowledge.

          Engage at all points. Challenge her to put what she reads into broader contexts. For example, if she reads a mystery set in 1934 in which the detective receives a $10,000 dollar payment: how much, effectively, is that amount of money in that economy?

          I recommend watching old movies together, and discussing them. Learn to see the context of the actions, discern the social mores and values. Learn to notice the unseen.

          Most importantly, teach education as an activity, not to sit back and await information. Make it a constant theme so that questioning, evaluating, and acquiring knowledge becomes second nature.

          Yeah, easier said than done, especially as you’ve nine or ten years of public schooling to undo.

            1. Heinlein’s juveniles. Doc Smith. Jules Verne, IF you can get good translations (the 1990-vintage translation of 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea is excellent). ANYTHING written by Theodore Roosevelt.

        2. On the anxiety– I recently started having panic attacks so badly that I was…very scared, even when not having one, we’ll say. At one point I watched my heart rate drop to 50, and shoot up over 100, two or three times in the course of a few minutes, and I couldn’t tell if I was just freaking out or if there was something seriously wrong.

          Turns out that a lack of magnesium can trigger that, and stress makes your body shed magnesium. (I was low on ALL the electrolytes during the heart- freak-out.) It’s one of the ways that St. John’s Wart helps folks sleep, it prevents the dump-magnesium result. The B complex vitamins, and D, are very important as well.


          On the homeschooling, ours are MUCH younger. I’d highly suggest you look into college type classes– if nothing else, “Accounting 101” type stuff should work for math and a life skill, and Hillsdale has a bunch of online stuff. Here’s their Economics 101:

          It’s free.

          Do you have HSLDA? And have you looked into local homeschool groups? They’re still just people, of course, but you can LEAVE a homeschool group much easier than a toxic school.

          1. I had a panic attack once or twice back when I didn’t introspect very well and was trying to push my naturally introverted self to hard to be “normal” Normal meaning extroverted in this instance. Yes, I know NOW that isn’t right, but I didn’t back then. Yes, it was a LOT of stress. So I understand a little of what she goes through. I’m trying to, gently, get her moving towards being more functional out there in the “real world”, but it’s not happening right now.

            I’ll look into HSLDA. We really are very new at this homeschool thing, so any bit helps. There are a few groups and co-ops in our area, but they seem to want a parent to volunteer. Her mother is out of the picture (at very least for that kind of thing) and I have to work to keep a roof over her head, so even if I COULD get her to go, it would be hard to make the volunteer requirement. Sorta a bummer since if I actually had time, I could easily teach computer stuff (hardware and coding), and possibly even writing… maybe…

            1. The Teaching Company is a great resource, particularly with the Great Courses Plus subscription — or as I like to call it, Netflix for college. They’ve been branching out into lower level high school type classes for math, but many of the “regular” history and science classes taught by the college professors aren’t impenetrable jargon-fests. She may find it helpful to work through one of the more gen ed/ overview type classes before diving into something more specialized, (e.g. History of the Modern World before The Black Death) if she’s a bit shaky on the main concepts, but most of the professors are fantastic about integrating the background information as needed.

              1. Yes! And if you already have Amazon Prime, Great Learning Plus is a very cheap per month “channel” compared to its value.

                Latin! Greek! Spanish, French, German!

            2. Comment threading got peculiar, and I have a bit more info.

              Here’s the Penny Candy book

              Many libraries have a copy of money is tight. We used it for a half credit in Economics last year. We did a cost-of living project. (Let me know if you want the outlines)

              We’ll come ’round again to the subject next year with Basic and Intermediate economics by Sowell.

              1. “Cost of living project”

                Yes. Our son’s HS did that. Don’t know if they still do. That was 12 years ago.

                Son did it twice. Because of the Economics (Money Management & Family) merit badges required for Eagle.

                One of my favorite examples for savings compound interest.

                Options – Choose 1

                1) receive $1/day for the next 30 days.

                2) receive $.01 on day one, then next day double what you got the prior day for 30 days. (Day 1 is .01, Day 2 is .02 total earned – .03, Day 3 is .04, total earned -.07, etc.)

                Which one do you take, and why?

                  1. Yes.

                    Works out to accumulated: $10,737,418.23 option 2 VS $30 option 1

                    If nothing else this should force people to calculate out the numbers.

                    I always followed up with real life examples via CC, with partial balance pay off; and compound interest. Had to manufacture on going balances, but not initial amounts or CC terms. Know our son became a convert, don’t know about the others. Should have been some parents paying attention too. But, who knows. Bottom line, pay off CC every month. Unless it is one of those pay off in X time, and not interest, but lord help you if you don’t.

                    1. I knew this, because I had read the story of the philosopher who wanted to be rewarded by the king with grains of rice laid out on a chessboard – the quantity of rice doubling with every subsequent square. Alas, I caught the “New Math” full in the neck in 3rd grade, and have suffered from that particular fad ever since.

          2. Hillsdale is doing a whole bunch of free lecture series, too. I signed up for one on Genesis but haven’t had time/brain to pursue it yet. Ah well, it’ll keep til I get there.

        3. Digressions are very acceptable around here.

          First, homeschoolers can be quite a bit better educated than folks coming out of the public schools without making any unusual efforts.

          Second, being there, engaged and caring, means you are more qualified than many education majors.

          You aren’t the super expert, and don’t have to be.

          What is the goal? Functional adult? Does she want to go to university, study STEM, get a PhD? Anything is possible with motivation, but some things can take longer. Functional adult is very doable. You are a functional adult, but the information that helped you be a functional adult is not 100% the same as what would help her be a functional adult. Everyone’s life will be different, and a lot of that cannot be predicted. Solid college prep is also very doable, if there is a desire to learn or to go to college. Thing to keep in mind is that there is no 100% certain path to success in life, college is not mandatory or an ‘I win’ button, and college without both a goal and a plan runs from risky to stupid. One of your goals should be flexibility, being able to change from following one path to following another as circumstances change.

          Expectations. Consider the Engineering PhD example. Call that 12-13 years from highschool freshman, and done, right? Nope. Engineering is ‘best solution to problem given tools’. The tools and problems change because technology changes, so pretty much any level of engineer needs to be studying all the time if they want the flexibility to get more jobs when the current one disappears. You don’t have perfect information about what the economy will be like for the rest of her working life, so she should expect at least once to need to study for a new occupation that is not related to her previous work.

          Some places have libraries that check out textbooks.

          Your local University may let the public purchase a card for their library.

          Math is probably important. Pre-Common Core is probably better. Saxon used to have a good reputation, but I don’t know anything about the current state. If you have the time, don’t have texts you know are good, and don’t know the math well enough to judge, you might try the textbook and see if it is any good.

          If you can identify textbooks/subjects, homeschooling can continue at the university level. That is basically a good portion of what can be beneficial in graduate school. Dover has a ton of old texts freshly printed and cheap. Some universities and majors have years worth of syllabi from every course on the internet for downloading.

        4. How to Lie with Statistics is a must have. Huff and Geis.

          Maybe I’ll have some more later.

        5. I recently (2012) taught World History in Colombia to middle schoolers. I was asked what my course objectives were. I said 1) To instill a love of learning. 2)To teach them how to teach themselves. I believe that with those two things taught, your work is done, and those two things can be taught in almost any subject.

          1. Oh dear – that link did not embed as planned. Oh well, I expect it will work just fine.

            If your local cable provider offers CSPAN, CSPAN2, and especially CSPAN3 they offer a variety of excellent History (CSPAN3) and NonFiction Book presentations ( CSPAN2) every weekend.
            SEE: https://www.c-span.org/schedule/?channel=3

            Examples of programs include:

            Sunday 10-27-19
            U.S.-Irish Relations Since the American Revolution
            1 hour, 30 minutes

            Irish Ambassador to the United States Daniel Mulhall and historian Martin Mansergh talked about the connections between the Irish and American revolutions, and the relationship between the two countries ever since. The Museum of the American Revolution in Philadelphia hosted this event in conjunction with their first international loan exhibition, “Cost of Revolution: The Life and Death of an Irish Soldier.” Mr. Mansergh’s ancestor, Richard St. George, is the exhibit’s subject.

            The Presidency Ronald Reagan’s Presidential Campaigns
            2 hours, 3 minutes

            Ronald Reagan’s White House political affairs director, Frank Donatelli, sat down with historian Craig Shirley to go behind-the-scenes of the 40th president’s campaigns for the White House. This conversation, which picked up with the 1976 Republican contest against incumbent Gerald Ford, took place as part of Mr. Shirley’s University of Virginia course called “Reagan on Leadership.” He is the author of “Reagan’s Revolution: The Untold Story of the Campaign That Started It All.”

            Nearly all presentations are available through CSPAN’s archives

      1. “It can’t be child abuse! Everybody else does it! Well, except for those crazies who homeschool, but they’re probably Old Testment fundamentalists and snake-handlers…

        Besides, we must have two incomes to support a lifestyle we can’t really afford, and it’s simply not possible for one of us to leave the workforce to attend to our childrens’ education.”

        1. I suspect it may be more like, “If public education is child abuse, then I’m an abuser for sending my kids there. But I’m a good parent! You’re just an intolerant evil poopyhead, and you’re going to hell for insulting millions of parents like me!”

          Or, “Your parents must have sent you to private school. White privilege! White privilege!” (Note: I hate public education because that’s where I was incarcerated. I’ve yet to hear anything that convinces me it’s gotten better in the 21st century.)

          Or even, “How dare you! Everyone in my family is in education, and we’re all good teachers.”

          To that last: Did said family resign en masse when Common Core was implemented, or did they go along to get along? Because if the latter, that alone is sufficient to exclude them from the ‘good’ category.

          As a high school junior or senior, I stated that public education was grownups walking through rooms, blowing out candles. I was immediately put under considerable pressure from everyone, my teacher on up to the principle – of a 5k student school! – to recant. I believe to this day that their guilty consciences were pricking them and they responded the only way they could: Silence the voice that got so uncomfortably close to the truth.

          After all, trying to break away from the Wilsonian program would have seen their careers destroyed by the grinding wheel of bureaucracy.

          And it may be a military term, but are there _any_ ideas that can get through a government bureaucracy that don’t come from the Good Idea Fairy?


          1. I hate public education because that’s where I was incarcerated. I’ve yet to hear anything that convinces me it’s gotten better in the 21st century.

            I’ve got plenty of evidence of the opposite.

            My mother taught in public schools most of my life. I honestly thought she’d only leave the classroom feet first, but in her mid-70s she retired.

            Then taught at a private school two years in part to make sure my nephews could stay there.

            Do not get her started on schools of education or the quality of people entering the profession or the nature of schools to all the crap they are supposed to teach instead of teaching them to read. She started her career doing 4-6, but floated from 1-2 the last half…above and beyond anything else she cared that they learned to read in those grades…anything else could be caught up, but if they couldn’t read nothing could be made up including the reading. She resented any interference or minimizing of reading in the primary grades.

            I watched the last two decades she taught turn her from an ardent supporter of public education to just about ready to burn it all down.

            1. Try this one weird trick to educate your kids:

              Parents stand up to the failing education establishment and win
              If you’re suffering a bad-news hangover, I have a cure — and it’s not a shot of tomato juice and some equally bad or worse news. It’s actual great news: In just one year, a historically failing elementary school in a tough part of Anaheim has produced an educational turnaround that would be called a miracle if it weren’t so utterly predictable.

              State testing shows that Palm Lane Elementary School students are performing at levels unthinkable just one year ago. In 13 of 14 learning categories, students showed improvement for the first time in more than 10 years. In many cases, these gains were significant, with up to 41 percent increases in academic achievement.

              There’s a simple reason for this radical turnaround. A little more than a year ago, Palm Lane transformed from a neighborhood school, under the influence of the powerful California Teachers Association, into a non-union, independent public charter school.

              Unlike traditional schools, charter schools aren’t straitjacketed by union work rules. They’re accountable to just one constituency, parents — not district staff, teachers unions, activists, or district trustees who do the unions’ bidding.

              Children trapped in failing schools run by teachers unions are hostages, unless they move to a better school district, attend private school, or get into a public charter school.

              In a charter school, by contrast, you can leave anytime. And if you do so, the state money the charter collected for teaching your child goes with you. When schools must compete to keep their customers happy, students win. It worked at Palm Lane.

              How was Palm Lane able to transition into a charter school? By taking the fight to the powerful California Teachers Association.

              Parents were frustrated by more than a decade of failure at the school, which routinely processed neighborhood children as if they were commodities. It collected more than $10,000 per year for each of its students and promoted them annually as if the teachers taught and their students learned.

              Read the Whole thing.

              HT: Instapundit

              I long ago realized that, for the most part, our public schools were the educational equivalent of a bar which imposes a two-drink minimum then serves off-brand liquor, watered down, in trick glasses. I don’t mind paying for education if that’s what I get, but (over-)charging for education and being given indoctrination is not my idea of a fair deal.

              1. Reading the full article, I note that the district officials fought it every step of the way, up to and including lawfare against the parents, all the way up to state Supreme Court.

                In other districts where parents tried to take their schools back, the unions got involved to make sure that education continued on the Wilsonian program.

                Every teacher considers herself (or himself) one of the good ones, but genuine good teachers are as rare as hen’s teeth. Almost all will side with the union over the wishes of the parents or the wellbeing of the students.


                1. The difference between a Teachers’ Union and a criminal conspiracy to defraud the public is that, thanks to the Progressive Left, the Unions are legal…for now.

            2. People can have some odd blind spots. Sometimes they get better.

              Jerry Pournelle used to have a personalized topic on Byte Magazine’s BIX online forum. Somewhere around 1990 I made a comment about the state of education, which Jerry chose to take as a personal insult toward his wife. The jerryites dogpiled on, as was customary, and when I failed to vanish in a puff of smoke jerryp got angrier and angrier, until his minders had to start cleaning up behind him. Jerry didn’t handle disagreement well, not that it’s unusual for people in general.

              Then I suspect he actually asked his wife what was going on at work, as he abruptly turned 180 degrees, modern public education was a crime against humanity, and the jerryites agreed they’d always been at war with Eastasia.

            3. I had wonderful teachers all through school. (1960-1975.) Only one would I denigrate as boring, but he knew his subject. And one (see below) who’d started well but had gone astray. The rest? From pretty good to bend-over-backwards if the student showed the vaguest inclination toward learning.

              Seems to me this started going away when the Method became more important than the Student. My only personal encounter was in the 5th grade, where I had the ill luck to fall into the class of a very nice, very earnest teacher who had drunk the Chicago koolaid, and was all gung-ho on progressive methods like “group learning” and “whole word recognition”. And even as 5th graders, we =knew= we were being shortchanged (we were being asked to guess ‘cat’ while the traditional class next door was confidently spelling ‘catastrophe’) but didn’t know what to do about it. Fortunately we moved west so I only had 3 months of this nonsense, and no harm done. And perhaps an early understanding of why imposing Method on Tradition does not go well.

              Much as imposing change on human nature (such methods being the soul of socialism) likewise never ends well.

              Perhaps I should credit poor Mr.Amb (the experience apparently stamped his name on my brain) with my early conversion to the right side of the aisle.

              1. ** progressive methods like “group learning” and “whole word recognition” **

                I still suffer from this. ’62 – ’74. I can read. I just can’t pronounce new words.

                1. I tend to hear words bassawkwards in my head. So if it’s something I never heard pronounced, I’ll say it out loud first time, and my entire family will burst out laughing.
                  Not whole word. Just me. Did same in Portuguese.

          2. I suspect it may be more like, “If public education is child abuse, then I’m an abuser for sending my kids there. But I’m a good parent! You’re just an intolerant evil poopyhead, and you’re going to hell for insulting millions of parents like me!”

            And this is the Big Problem with anything that touches the How to Raise Children subject. Because having any opinion whatsoever will hit someone who will react according to this logic.

      2. I had to end a friendship because the mother stated that it was good that her child had been emotionally abused by other kids in elementary school because, “Now she is ready for middle school. She has toughened up.”

        I home school and hearing that broke my heart.

    3. Might have been here. After one of these discussions about being fair for past transactions and how to solve it. One parent mentioned assigning chores for “pay” to one child. When chore was done, parent paid child less than agreed amount. When child complained. Parent explained the other children, remember, who did nothing, deserved to have some of the earnings “to be fair”. Story then concludes as one would expect … of coarse (cheated) child agreed, based on what is taught in school, that this was indeed fair …

      Yes, if anyone believes that, there is ocean front property for sale in Colorado.

      Conclusion was, child stated/screamed “That’s not fair!” Upon which parent proceeded to discuss what had been taught in school. Child didn’t get the rest of the earned money until parent was sure child understood the comparisons trying to make.

      There is also a meme on FB where child comes home and asks mom/dad what is the difference between Republican and Democrat. Parent responds with: “If I’m a Democrat, I only give you half your allowance, and keep half. If I’m a republican you get all of your allowance.”

      Another one. “Republican, you earn your allowance doing different chores assigned different values, and keep the allowance you earn. Democrat, you still earn your allowance doing different chores assigned different values, but some of that earned allowance is keep to give to another sibling who doesn’t bother doing chores, or does the simpler lower cost ones, because it isn’t fair sibling is not getting as much as you.” Or as they say in school. “Democrat: You work and share what you make with the less fortunate who have the same options you do. Republican: You keep what you earn.”

      It is true some teachers are handicapped by the child who won’t learn due to discipline. Those teachers support parents who discipline and supplement/reinforce instruction. However, it is also true that there are teachers who appreciate parents who discipline their children, they resent supplemental instruction of the facts by parents.

      1. However, it is also true that there are teachers who appreciate parents who discipline their children, they resent supplemental instruction of the facts by parents.</i.

        It makes it HARD to do your job if the kids are seriously engaged and informed– especially if the teacher hasn't seen the subject you're on since last year, and didn't understand it so well in the first place.

        This is one of the BIG things I can do with my kids that a school never could– get enough information to point them in the right direction, and then stand back and give minimal guidance.

        Also, my 8 year old used the word "displaced" to mean "moved something and took its place" in a sentence today, in a natural way, talking to her 6 year old brother. (It was something about how a thing he'd been looking for had been pushed back by someone else shoving stuff in, so he could look over in this area where it'd fallen, something like that.)

        Very proud momma moment.

        1. Just a brief note:

          For years, erstwhile presidential speechwriter and NY Times columnist William Safire had a regular piece int he Sunday magazine, titled “On Language.” Periodically the columns would be collected into a bound edition of the sort commonly termed “a book.”

          Many of those books are the sort of thing that turns up at church book sales and such like events, usually for a pittance, or are available through Amazon at very reasonable prices for used books.

          These books make excellent reading for aspiring students, offering insights into the derivations, proper (and improper) usages, and grammatical antecedents that all serve to encourage study of our marvelous bastard tongue. They make delightful browsing for the voracious verbivore.

          The Right Word in the Right Place at the Right Time: Wit and Wisdom from the Popular “On Language” Column in The New York Times Magazine Hardcover – June 29, 2004

          From Publishers Weekly:

          Safire has published more than a dozen, often bestselling, collections (No Uncertain Terms, etc.) of his acerbic weekly columns on the English language. In his crisply witty commentaries, he does more than elucidate the origins of slang or correct common grammatical mistakes: he alerts readers to the rhetorical maneuvers of our politicians and public figures as only a former speechwriter can. Bush’s phrase “Leave no child behind,” the atomic origins of “ground zero,” the difference between “antiterrorism” and “counterterrorism,” and Tony Blair’s diplomatic use of a moveable modifier in an Israeli speech all occasion the use of Safire’s talent for analyzing the speech of our decision makers. His gift for plucking examples of more general shifts in word usage from the most obscure news reports and for picking up on debates surrounding word use is unmatched. Several of his columns cross-examine Supreme Court wording, and this volume includes entertainingly vigilant ripostes to Safire from Justice Antonin Scalia. Safire is adept at rooting out literary influences and half-remembered poetic allusions, tracking the appearances of, for example, Lewis Carroll’s delightful verb “galumph.” Unfortunately, Safire’s command of foreign languages is less than reliable, as he records Jacques Barzun and others pointing out. And he can veer into chauvinism (for instance, calling for the world to adopt American-style layout for the day’s date). Yet the investigations gathered here, each in an unfailingly droll tone, will instruct and delight all readers who share Safire’s love of language and its endless permutations.
          Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

    4. They just let people have MILITARY GUNS?!?!

      They most certainly did not!

      I had to shoot 3 CMP matches (using my personally paid for AR-15) and pay $189.00 to get my M-1 Garand (shipped direct to me in the US Mail).

      Not like the ease these young whippersnappers have today going to the CMP store. Now get off my lawn!

      (as I typed this I heard in the back of my mind “I didn’t get nothing and I had to pick up the garbage”)

        1. I double checked my paperwork. It was actually $165.00 (including shipping and admin fees, the rifle itself was $94.00) delivered.

          This was the late 80’s when you took whatever they sent you and you were allowed to purchase one per lifetime. Mine turned out to be a 1953 Springfield Armory production in good shape. It’s certainly more accurate than I am. Shot it once at 600 yards, kept them all in the black with 1 X.

      1. I guess I can see an argument for ones that are improved by the addition of bodily waste, but I’m not sure I’m convinced it’s worth it.

          1. Yes, of course I meant all their communist/socialist/statist/fascist heroes. Most of them weren’t even socialists, just run-of-the-mill despots and tyrants waving convenient flags to get what they wanted.

            They hate Andrew Jackson, too, for…reasons. They want to take him off the $20 bill. Do they not realize we could easily have lost the War Of 1812 if he hadn’t blocked the British from sailing up the Mississippi?
            Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do learn from history are doomed to watch everybody else repeat it.

            1. Andrew Jackson was, complicated.
              He was a grifter, a cheat, and a real user; in addition to being one of the founding fathers of the Democrat Party.

    1. As reminders of “don’t go there, it ain’t worth it,” sure. But don’t go pulling down old statues just because they hurt some pathetic little wuss’s feelz. That’s a permanent solution to a temporary problem (this statement is also why I oppose suicide).

  8. Blazing Saddles is a movie about stupid people. Any semi-intelligent person figures that out in the first five minutes, surely — by the time the cowboys are “jump[ing] around like a bunch of Kansas City faggots” teaching the Darkies proper song-styling, if not sooner.

    Sure, Lili Von Shtupp is a caricature — everybody in the damned movie is a caricature (or reverse-caricature) from Black Bart to the fairy chorus boys in the big battle at film’s end. Of course she’s over-sexed; why do you think she’s ‘tired”? If the name doesn’t give you a clue …

    Amazing as it sounds, there was once a time in America when ethnic humour — humour based upon stereotypes, their deployment and their explosion — was common. Had our “reviewer” done her basic required background research she’d have known that the movie was written by a Negro Colored Black Nig… African-American comedian well known for his exploration of racial stereotyping in the United States.

    She might as well have written her essay about defamatory presentations of Italians and Irish as gangsters in pre-code Warner Brothers movies of the Thirties, or denounce the stereotypical presentation of Al Jolson’s quandary in The Jazz Singer as representative of the Jewish-American experience.

    For much of its history, American Cinema has been a conglomeration of stereotypes, cliches and over-simplification. There are reasons for that, and those reasons led to Hollywood becoming the world’s dominant center of film production. A person could have written an interesting and informative essay on such a topic — was that person’s head not so firmly lodged in her ether region.

    1. she seems to have glazed over the willingness of the town to take in the Irish, those racist fools . . . Also, she might aught to have watched the DVD with the Directors comments on. Then again, as liberal left as Brooks is, he was also exceedingly anti-Hillary (iirc Clintons in general, but very much Hill recall him backing Stan Lee and someone else in their fight) so mayhap that makes him a racist, antisemitic, cis-male, rightwinger, and to be ignored.
      Also, it turned out, Mel wrote most of the Bart stuff, and Richard most of the Mungo bits.

      1. “Blazing Saddles” is a lot like “Gran Torino.” People already know all they want to know without ever having seen either, and if forced to watch, apparently only remember the bits they think support what they had already decided.

        1. Just wanted to say that your comment reminded me of one of the best reviews I saw of the Friday the 13th remake (quoted in its entirety).

          “It is what it is. You either want to see it or you don’t, and nothing I can say about it will make any difference.”

        2. when I was in New Orleans, I knew a black guy who did a perfect imitation of Slim Pickens’ lines. He was especially fond of the shovel upside the head line, and the Kansas City Faggots line.

    2. I saw an interview with Mel Brooks from… I’m pretty sure it was the late ’80s or early ’90s. He said something like, “back then we could all laugh together at the movie. But we wouldn’t be allowed to make it now.”

      1. think the 90’s … iirc he has been saying that since then, and even when made he made sure to get Richard Pryor or he’d likely not been able to make it.

        1. Pryor (who was actually a decent actor despite being a lousy comedian) caused a number of problems with the production. He was originally supposed to play Sheriff Bart, but his drugs-and-alcohol-fueled lifestyle made the backers worry he’d OD or wind up in jail before the film was finished. Apparently Pryor was unable or unwilling to put aside the dope until the movie was done, so Cleavon Little got the star role instead.

          1. Pryor was responsible for Mongo, IIRC. So there’s that.

            Mongo only pawn in game of life.

  9. In historical terms, women live incredibly safe, incredibly equal lives.

    Funny you should mention that. I’ve been listening to Walter E. Williams’ “All it Takes is Guts” on Audible, a collection of his old Newspaper essays. In one he talks about how the alarming statistic of women being assaulted (he didn’t say but I presume this is accompanied by battery so consider that included as well) by husbands or romantic partners. He then broke it down further to show how the purveyors of that statistic had dishonestly lumped different groups together to create a false picture of domestic violence so as to condemn the institution of marriage. Women with “husbands or romantic partners” covers a wide range. It includes married women, women “shaking up” with someone, women with steady boyfriends, women involved in casual hook-ups, and so on. When you break it down further you find that of those various groups the one least likely to be assaulted by their partner is married women. Indeed, married women were group least likely to be assaulted at all (by partners or otherwise).

    Anyone assaulting another, particularly someone weaker than themselves (which is usually the case–assaulting someone stronger is frequently a self-correcting problem), is a bad thing. And some wives do get assaulted in general and by their husbands which is particularly heinous in my view. But no good purpose is served by deceptively applying the higher rate of attacks on unmarried women to wives as some kind of attack on the institution of marriage which was being done when Dr. White originally wrote his piece (and is being done today).

    1. The assault on the institution of marriage is part and parcel of the Progressive agenda. One, it reduces the number of children born period. (You know, that whole overpopulation thing they’ve been pushing.) Women bear fewer children out of wedlock (lack of resources for them) than married women; even if unmarried women are getting more sex than their married peers. Two, the assault on marriage oddly enough opened the door to the LGBTQxyz entry into marriage. (Which was Progressive “Heaven” as it allowed them a platform to attack all religions where non-standard sexuality is considered immoral.) And since destroying religious morality leaves a vacuum that the Progressives could insert their secular wishlist, that also weakened the cultural-social foundations that the American Constitution is based on. It’s really insidious.

      1. One, it reduces the number of children born period. (You know, that whole overpopulation thing they’ve been pushing.)

        Then why do they have the government pay high-school girls to get pregnant?

        Their only consistent goal is ‘gain power over everybody by any means possible’. If that means pretending that history means the exact opposite of what it does, or believing fourteen mutually incompatible concepts at the same time, they do it. And then call you “RACIST!!!” for not agreeing with them about every tiny detail of their delusions.
        There is no shortage of people convinced they can create the perfect world. Trouble is, they always start out by fucking up this one.

        1. Then why do they have the government pay high-school girls to get pregnant?

          They don’t.

          There’s enough support to cut the knees out from under the fear of being a single mom.

          Kind of like how easily accessible birth control does the same.

          Which makes it much easier for the users to pull the “you don’t really love me!” card on their targets.

          Which destroys family formation.

          1. And let’s be fair, that support isn’t all coming from liberals who want everyone on the government teat. There’s a whole ecosystem of pro-life charities designed to bribe women into not aborting their children. It works about as well as any Danegeld.

            1. No, because the kids aren’t dead. Short of that, the “danesgeld” works fine.

              They’re trying to fix the problems that happen when the girls find out that no, they don’t actually “pay high schoolers to have babies,” he didn’t love her, and now she’s living the situation that use to make women less willing to take the risk of laying with someone who wouldn’t even make a public promise to support his offspring.

              As well blame the ER for enabling people to be stupid by not letting them die, even when the injured person didn’t do anything dumb.

              1. There’s a lot less ER out there than there used to be. My town no longer even has one, and the wait time for a stroke patient is over four hours in either major Little Rock hospital.

                There may be some places that operate like on TV, but not around here…

                1. Mine never had one. ER was either a walk-in clinic some 40 miles away, an hour and a half ambulance drive, or an emergency helo flight to Spokane.

                  Have heard folks complain about the ER enabling stupidity, ranging from motorcyclists existing and getting any sort of accident treatment, up through the opening scenes of Idiocracy.

                  This is solidly on the “well, riding a motorcycle is stupid, so even if he got hit while he was sitting at a red light he shouldn’t get treatment” end of the scale.

                  1. I’ll admit that one of the patches on my cubicle wall is “I fix stupid” (ff/emt x 10 yrs). But that doesn’t state who is the stupid

                  2. We still have a decent (I think) ER, but at least one of the ambulance services shut down, so there’s time to arrive (20-35 miles, depending) on top of the 45 mile drive to the hospital. The usual advice is to start transport yourself and meet the ambulance coming from town. It works, sometimes. If not, first responders are local, and they might keep you alive until the ambulance shows up.

                    Air transport is available, but they’re 80-120 miles away and can’t always fly. (Worked an MVA mumble years ago; good weather by us, but Bend was no-go and Medford wasn’t available.)

                    So for us rurals, there’s a strong incentive to refrain from doing something stupid. There’s also a strong incentive to move closer to town as one gets older. Real estate prices reflect that incentive, too. 😦

                    1. Inlaws ended up doing that. The place they built for retirement sits on the Little Descutes river, right on a north/east boundary, south of Bend/Sunriver, North of La Pine on 99. 3/4 of an acre. They were about an hour from the Bend Hospital, and 30 minutes to the La Pine clinics, which in 84 didn’t exist.

                      MIL had a brain aneurysm collapsing on the kitchen floor. FIL called the neighbor who was a retire nurse, and 911. Nurse kept MIL alive until current professional medical EMTs arrived, kept her breathing. They transported MIL to nearest available clearing and air transported to Bend. MIL survived, and was relatively okay. She was lucky that the aneurysm break was on the surface, not buried.

                      They sold their retirement home and moved into Bend.

                      We really, really, looked at buying it ourselves, to keep it in the family. But we just couldn’t justify it. Ultimately it would not have been a good idea. Not like we lived in the area, or even that was even going to be possible.

                    2. We’re looking and (I think) we’ve agreed that building a house (or getting a POS rundown place and putting a new one there) is more that we’re good for. So a built place, with either enough room for sewing and office plus guest (3 bedrooms plus den would do wonderfully), or a smaller place with a shop large enough to have a separate sewing room from the wood and metalworking.

                      We’d like to find a place 15 miles from Klamath Falls, but costs are getting high. Fallback is 30 miles from town, but we’ll see what the market shows in spring. If it’s a rough winter, some of the warm-weather newbies might decide to sell. Meanwhile, we have to get our place ready, too. Medium projects (replace a couple doors, new carpet in the master bedroom, plus whatever else seems necessary).

                      Lesson from foot surgery is that this place is too much for one person to run, and as we age, two people is a challenge. Not sure about hiring somebody; it’s a mixed bag here.

                    3. I don’t want to build a house (nor have one built), but a shop is feasible, with some strategic sub-contracting.

              2. No, it doesn’t work, and for the same reason the Danegeld doesn’t — by bribing the woman to not abort, she becomes an example to her sisters, cousins, and friends that sleeping around and getting knocked up isn’t that bad. It gets to the point where I worked with a woman who thought being a mother at 18 was normal and being married at 18 was unthinkable, or the college classmate who refused to marry his girlfriend because all the local religious charities were showering her with baby supplies, to the point that they didn’t have to buy diapers for six months after the birth.

                Classic economic theory states that if you want more of something, subsidize it. Bribing women not to murder their bastards subsidizes and incites bastardy. If we want women to refrain from sex that creates children outside of marriage, being a single mother has to return to being more terrifying than sex is appealing. Which obviously, mean single motherhood has to be pretty damn terrifying, not something that comes with government and charitable rewards in the form of free healthcare, food stamps, WIC, welfare, lower tax brackets, and care packages.

                1. I know Game of Thrones doesn’t have the best reputation here, but one of the most true moments is when Jon Snow and Sam Tarly are discussing their sexual experiences. Jon, who grew up being a bastard in a noble house, talks about how the one time he visited a prostitute, he couldn’t go through with the act. Having grown up being treated with all the contempt that comes with being a bastard, he couldn’t bring himself to risk siring one himself and so refrained, even though he very much wanted to ride the town bicycle.

                  Bad decisions have to hurt to keep people from making them.

                2. It appears you have concluded that bastardy is worse than murder; as I do not agree with that, pretty much ends the discussion.

                  1. No, I just don’t think that paying off hostage takers gets you anything but more hostages.

                    Hell, I think that women who have abortions should be executed, because if you really believe a fetus is a person deserving of rights, an abortion is a premeditated murder and should be punished as such. But that’s another place where the pro-life groups and I differ.

                    1. Hell, I think that women who have abortions should be executed, because if you really believe a fetus is a person deserving of rights, an abortion is a premeditated murder and should be punished as such.

                      You’ve got the bio-father on that list, too, then?

                      Because they’re just as guilty of setting it up, given the current legal situation.

                    2. The father has no say in whether or not a woman gets an abortion. If he is a willing conspirator in the murder, of course he should be punished as well.

                      You also have folks like one of my friends who would happily sue his ex for the wrongful death of their child, aborted before he could sue for full custody to save the child from the completely unfit mother.

                    3. Ah.

                      So ransoming a hostage is evil, but actively delivering one into a situation that is at best a deadly danger, is fine.

                      Same way that creating a bastard is worse than killing one.

                      I get you are hurting about not being able to have a child, and the difficulty of adopting one, but you are really going in dangerous directions, Amy.

                    4. Not being a GoT aficionado, I have no idea what you two are talking about…

                      However, for Foxfier – when talking with my son, I noted that if the scenario ever came up, he doesn’t have to worry about her father with his shotgun. However, he does have to worry about his father with my shotgun.

                      (Many worries are avoided in life with appropriate use of shotguns.)

                    5. I always maintained that any boy courting Daughtorial Unit was doing so at his own risk and could expect hope from neither Beloved Spouse nor me.

                    6. However, for Foxfier – when talking with my son, I noted that if the scenario ever came up, he doesn’t have to worry about her father with his shotgun. However, he does have to worry about his father with my shotgun.


                    7. Maybe I’m just crazy for thinking women are responsible for their choices. She chooses to have an abortion; he has no say. So yes, she should be the one who gets punished for murdering her child, and he should only to the extent he helped.

                      She chooses to have the extra-marital sex that leads to pregnancy (in 99% of cases, and yes, I favor the death penalty for rapists), so in case of pregnancy, she has to face the choice of marrying the sperm donor, putting the kid up for adoption, or raising a child as a single mother. If she isn’t really capable of saying no to sex when she’s not ready to face the consequences thereof, she should put on a burka and let her dad manage her sex life.

                      You can have freedom of choice or freedom from responsibilities; not both.

                    8. You can have freedom of choice or freedom from responsibilities; not both.

                      Yet that is exactly what you give the ‘sperm donor’. The ability to create a child, and then abandon him, right up until the point he’s forced to at least partly financially support the child. And anyone who tries to take up the slack, for the child, is doing wrong in your mind– because it reduces the availability of unwanted children for you to acquire. Something I would not accuse you of, but you flatly stated.

                      Do you seriously not see how you’re buying into the dehumanization of the kid, here?

                      It doesn’t matter if you’re wrapping it up in talk about how there should be responsibility (although only for the woman) and discouraging bad behavior (at the price of the lives of innocents).

                      This is flatly wrong.

                      That some idiots in the supreme court forced abortion on demand on to the nation is no excuse for doing further evil, either by pretending males have zero choice in conception or by decrying those who work to protect the innocent’s very lives on the argument that it will encourage future bad behavior.

                    9. Yet that is exactly what you give the ‘sperm donor’. The ability to create a child, and then abandon him, right up until the point he’s forced to at least partly financially support the child.

                      I’m trying to follow your logic. She has control over her body. If she doesn’t want to risk getting pregnant, she can keep her legs together. He has no control over her body, only his own. If she wants to kill their child, he can’t stop her, and so his only option is to keep his dick out of crazy.

                      Life isn’t fair. By being the one who gets pregnant, the woman has the greater risks, which means she either has to be responsible for herself and be willing to say no or let those responsible for her say no.

                      And anyone who tries to take up the slack, for the child, is doing wrong in your mind

                      No, I think other people should take up the slack by getting the child out of the custody of the woman too foolish to say no, too ignorant to use birth control, and too selfish to marry the man who knocked her up (or if he isn’t willing to, too lacking in judgment to sleep with a responsible man).

                      When I was pro-choice, I thought any woman who wanted an abortion was exactly the kind of woman who shouldn’t be allowed even prenatal custody of her child. The only thing that changed when I became pro-life is that I decided until artificial wombs become an option for fetal adoptions and so the mother’s custody can be terminated immediately, the child shouldn’t die because he crapped out in the lottery of life for his egg donor and incubator. I certainly don’t buy this notion that the mere act of not murdering one’s child washes away the selfishness of extra-marital sex and of condemning one’s child to all the pathologies of single parenthood. (Poverty, crime, obesity, becoming a single parent, lack of education, increased risk of sexual and domestic assault …)

                    10. I’m trying to follow your logic.

                      No, you’re really not.

                      I know you’re familiar with both biology and the relevant moral logic.

                      Children are not property, or an entitlement, or something that has worth only in relation to your desires.

                      And I know you are aware of that. I’ve heard it from you, for years.

                      So there really is no place further to go.

                    11. ‘I’m trying to follow your logic.’
                      “No, you’re really not.

                      Accusations of bad faith constitute unworthy debating; it is unnecessary to the point you are attempting to make and, as a form of ad hominem attack serves primarily to diminish your rhetorical ethos.

                      If you cannot make your point without calling your opponent willfully obtuse then you cannot make your point.

                    12. If you were declaring that you did not understand why someone would connect you, RES, with wallabies, I would likewise point out that, based on your prior behavior, you were using at best a rhetorical flourish.

          2. Which destroys family formation.

            A surprisingly large percentage of guys are unwilling to shoulder the burden of supporting, much less raising, some other guys’ kids. So those moms tend to stay single.

            As for the “you don’t really love me!” card … the “I don’t really know you” card trumps that, but girls are not taught how to play it.

            1. As for the “you don’t really love me!” card … the “I don’t really know you” card trumps that, but girls are not taught how to play it.

              Which is what scares me a lot.

              There ARE defenses out there.
              Good ones.

              They’re either mocked– example, the song “good-goodie-two shoes”– or socially gutted as unacceptable and not taught.

              Related is the “trust me” one, where it should be OK to demand that someone publicly pledge themselves to the person they’re demanding trust of…but it isn’t.

              1. Related is the ‘trust me’ one, where it should be OK to demand that someone publicly pledge themselves to the person they’re demanding trust of…but it isn’t.

                Happily I am old enough to have passed through that stage before modern liberated* ideas became the norm.

                Daughtorial Unit accepted the principle of “sexual relations are okay between people in a committed relationship” except her idea of a “committed relationship” was that it meant nothing short of marriage.

                She also routinely groused that the present standards did not give a girl as much wiggle room to put a guy off without completely rejecting him; saying “my father would kill me” was far more polite than telling the suitor the truth: not yet, maybe not ever.

                *liberated … from common sense and all understanding of human experience prior to this moment.

                1. She also routinely groused that the present standards did not give a girl as much wiggle room to put a guy off without completely rejecting him; saying “my father would kill me” was far more polite than telling the suitor the truth: not yet, maybe not ever.

                  Which is probably where the “girls ONLY do brutal rejections” thing came from. (besides it feeling like that to some of the entitled)

                  Which makes guys more willing to be manipulative and abusive, if they don’t give up entirely as a bad bet.

                  Which mostly limits the openly available to bad, worse and looks-like-the-prior-two-but-is-really-OK folks…

                  *shudder* It’s enough to make me think the demonic is literally involved, when I’m not wanting to scream to the sky because there’s SO MUCH PAIN and all the little steps make sense, if greedy sense.

                  1. “Which is probably where the “girls ONLY do brutal rejections” thing came from. (besides it feeling like that to some of the entitled) “

                    There is also the complciting factor on the guys end, the whole “persistence” package. That is, if you keep on long enough, eventually she’ll give in.

                    A more pernicious idea to spite any formation of a stable relationship I can hardly imagine. If you don’t know how to take “no, thank you” as anything more than “you’re not trying hard enough!” then the problem is *you,* lad, not the lady in question.

                    To your latter, the Infernal hardly needs to stir the pot much. We are all of us flawed vessels. He can reap what comes of that with little effort. Pain and suffering are a part of being human- even great and terrible pains. Strength comes from overcoming pain and suffering. Without it, we don’t grow- at least not as much as we could have. That isn’t to say one should seek it out, just to grow stronger. That’s just crazy talk. *chuckle*

                    For all our faults, though, there is a seed of grace in every human being as well. It is only that the way we are made, we notice and remember threats more than simple kindnesses that happen every day. Looked at onther way, the perplexing thing isn’t that people can be cruel, and are in many cases. It is that folks exist that are willing to endure the pain and daily disappointment of choosing to be little heroes to the people around them.

                    There are all sorts of reasons to do evil. They are obvious and require little to no thought, or ethical rumination at all. Whole lives are spent in the pursuit of transitory pleasures. Yet despite all that, we do not live in a hellscape. Far from it, in fact. Looked at that way, the evidence of the Almighty is rather obvious, too. *grin*

                    1. There is also the complciting factor on the guys end, the whole “persistence” package. That is, if you keep on long enough, eventually she’ll give in.

                      Paired with that is the whole “playing hard to get” thing on the girl’s part. Requiring persistence to “prove” that he’s “really serious” and not just looking for a quick fling. Maybe there are some cues that reveal the difference between “playing hard to get” and “really not interested” but for anyone who has issues with social cues (like, say, me) they’re going to be indistinguishable. And maybe today “playing hard to get” is passe but it was definitely a thing when I was younger.

                    2. “Maybe there are some cues that reveal the difference between “playing hard to get” and “really not interested” but for anyone who has issues with social cues (like, say, me) they’re going to be indistinguishable.

                      They feed on each other, but yes, there are social cues that differentiate. I’m about as deaf dumb and blind to such things as one can get, and I never received the social education or intuition that most folk seem to either get or recieve with Mother’s milk,

                      But what you don’t get by nature or nurture you can learn through hard experience. It’s a bit like wandering through a strange house in the dark with no shoes. You get mangled toes a lot, but eventually you get a sense of where the edges are.

                      Now I may be out of practice in the whole feminine interaction game, but a lady who is interested in you has a whole arsenal of clues going from simple to intercontinental ballstic clue bats. A lady who leans in to talk to you, constantly finds excuses to touch you, tends to drop whatever she’s doing to pay attention to you, looks you in the eye with a sort of smile on her face, etc., is probably doing the feminine equivalent of the half time show to get *your* attention. A woman who exhibits that sort of behavior likes you. Now she may not be receptive to certain activities or responses on your part- this is a testable thing- but the interest is there. At least from what I recall.

                      Furthermore, there exist the female equivalent of you and me, who has issues (or complete ignorance of) how social cues work. These tend to be all over the map, but they can be an absolute treasure if you can sit down and discuss things with each other. They get it.

                      It’s complicated, yes. But for the right one, it is worth it, and yes, all the headache and heartsickness that came before.

                2. I went with “Mom will lecture you, after which you will want daddy to kill you.” It worked. I wasn’t really hit with the problem until college age. But not by the college guys. Apparently being in a non-traditional gender field meant I was fair game. Nothing happened. Their comeback of “you are of age” did not carry any weight. I’m over 60, my mom’s still alive, and she still can be intimidating; cue the waterworks. No way was I crossing her at 18, 19, 20, …

            2. Or with cold hurt fury and contempt, “You obviously don’t love me, or you would never have suggested that.”

              Um, yours probably has some advantages.

              But I was hard-nosed enough about that sort of thing that my parents — while adamantly in favor of saving sex for marriage — apparently felt it was important in a Dating Talk to impress upon me that “nice guys ask,” so if a guy suggests sex and takes no for an answer, don’t react to him like he attacked me.

            3. Highly underrated, and a part of the infantilization that the left attempts to force on women from birth. Also, smart women have a whole handbook of ways to let a man down gently, or even avoid the situation to begin with.

          1. Considering the single greatest factor in whether one will be an unmarried mother is being raised by an unmarried mother, you could equally suggest that the pregnancy centers that only place 1% of the children in adopted homes are making sure they never run out of business either.

            1. I have a proposal for you


              Much better than penalties for child murder, and for creating a bastard (both patents. Bring back the public stocks) the creation of orphanages, social indoctrination toward chastity and penalties for both paid and unpaid prostitutes (and their customers). No, the tangled mess of a rotten, Marxist Society is too great. Best to just keep the slaughter houses going.

              1. Being barren as the bloody Sahara, I’d just like the ability to adopt a child without dealing with a public social services who discriminate against white, straight, married Christians or private agencies who demand scores of thousands of dollars, between their inspection fees, placement fees, the mother’s medical expenses, and my favorite one charged by a local agency — a publicist fee to help sell yourself to the birth mother because when there are 36 barren couples chasing every adoptable infant, she gets to choose.

                For there to be children to adopt, however, there have to be mothers who both don’t want to murder their children but also don’t think that motherhood is a viable option. That’s a damn hard sell when the system, both public and private, treats her as a terrorist to be appeased. Many of the kids in foster care could had been adopted as infants instead of waiting until their parents proved themselves unfit; is it really so heinous to suggest to a woman that if she can’t figure out a condom, a diaper might be beyond her ken?

                1. Adoption is almost impossible unless you want public servants crawling all over you.
                  It’s damned Rosseau. “Natural parents are better for some mystical reason.” SPIT.

                2. Yes. We filled out the paperwork. Never turned it in. Found out was pregnant. Waited to see if miscarriage again, didn’t. Sister did turn in their paperwork. BIL statement when their first miracle biological child was due … “Will be $14,700 less expensive.” At $15k, their adoption of their oldest child was inexpensive private open adoption, ’89. They had just paid off the adoption, when their 2nd child was born.

                  Know of co-workers who adopted twice, in ’90 and ’92, through child services … one was $30k, the other was $35k, both high needs infants, that came with life time state medicare. I don’t know how the children are doing now almost 30 years later, lost contact with co-worker when company division was shutdown.

                3. The real problem is the government wants you to rent children from them. They want 100% control over them, over you, and the right to yank the kids around anytime and anyway they want.

  10. ignorant people are easier to rule (so they think)
    keep ’em gullible and fill them with stupidity
    explains why they hate folk thinking for themselves

    1. That only seems true in the short-run. Long-run the ignorant are more susceptible to stampede, as Ceausescu learned.

      Persuading people is difficult work, and entails the risk of discovering yourself wrong. But long-term it offers significant advantages.

      1. Bingo, ignorance is a form of chaos and anyone unleashing chaos thinking he can control it will get a visit from reality.

        That is as true from would be nobility as it is for me and my sore shoulder.

        1. I would find their argument more persuasive (not persuasive, merely more persuasive ) if they displayed any capacity for learning from mistakes, their own or others’.

  11. Ask me how furious it makes me to hear these children talk about how protecting yourself is evil because the man will just seek another victim.

    Now that’s where they’re wrong. They’ll seek another victim whether you protect yourself or not. On the other hand, if you do a good enough job of protecting yourself they’ll never threaten anyone ever again. You’re not just protecting yourself. You’re protecting everyone they would have attacked after they got done with you.

    1. Alas, our progressive courts frown strongly on private citizens exterminating pests when they get “bitten”. Perhaps they feel threatened that if we destroy enough bad apples that they won’t be needed any more. Or maybe they feel threatened because they plan on being bad apples themselves and want to proactively eliminate their threats?

    2. Some years ago the local college had a rapist scare. The way the furor worked, it was never made clear that anyone had actually been raped, but that didn’t stop the school from stirring the student body into a near-panic anyway.

      I was with a group of female students who were discussing what they might do if they were attacked. My advice was, “wait for them to get into position, put your hands on either side of their head, gaze into their eyes seductively, and then do your best to lever their eyes out with your thumbs.”

      Several of them screeched variations of “but I could never harm another human being like that!!!”

      My reply was along the line of, “Lay back and think of England, then…”

      1. WAY back when, I went to a thing the college had on self defense and the guy said that women often aren’t willing to hurt someone, even if they are threatened. Most of the presentation was about getting past that and making sure everyone there understood that you have to be willing to hurt someone and you aren’t wrong if you do.

        He included an anecdote about a woman getting into her car and a friend of hers deciding to scare her because it would be funny. So he runs up behind her as she’s got the door open and grabs at her and she slammed him in the door over and over and basically beat the crap out of him… and she was right to do that.

        Fiction or not, the point of the story was that you were *right* to seriously hurt someone even if it turned out their intentions weren’t what you thought. If you’re going to defend yourself effectively you can’t loose that very first moment by waiting to find out if you’re dealing with a rapist or an asshole.

        Permission matters, and it was about given women permission to harm another human being.

        1. Once upon a time, I attended a college where there were a somewhat-tended set of of woods between the campus tavern and the upperclassman dorms. It was also a major shortcut. Naturally, predators occasionally lurked in the shadows. One particular lady worked the closing shift at the tavern. Jumped by one lurker, she made a serious effort to geld it by kicking it repeatedly, only to discover it had friends. She managed to outrun them, as she was rather fit. (At least two other ladies were not so fortunate. There were several other “almost” completed attacks.)

          Well, a bunch of rather fit young men of Army ROTC and the Reserve had about enough of that nonsense. Camouflage is an art, requiring much practice, as is stealth in woods. Just by sheer coincidence, an unnamed bunch of cadets and reservists decided to “practice nighttime field craft” on their own.


          Remember “the forest came alive and took him” from “Predator”?

          Heh. Alien amateur…..

          Several rather …disheveled… lurkers wound up on the doorstep of campus security. They may have had some “bruises and contusions” in various non-lethal areas. Some may have required medical attention.


          Oddly, no one ever accounted for exactly who was on those unauthorized “field exercises”. But campus was -very- safe from such nonsense for quite some time afterwards.

          1. Makes me think of the story about how some local hoodlums decided to raid the tents of an SCA event during the night (apparently thought they were a bunch of hippies, easy prey, probably with a good pot stash), and were surprised by the heavy fighters. With swords.

            1. Invading an armed camp is always chancy. Best is to use overwhelming force and far larger numbers than your opponents, and you will likely still lose people.
              any bets that one of Vizini’s Classic Blunders is Don’t get in knife fights with Oyster shuckers, Butchers, and Fish processors? Add attacking an SCA event to that list.

        2. > If you’re going to defend yourself effectively you can’t loose that very first moment by waiting to find out if you’re dealing with a rapist or an asshole.

          Preach it!

          The problem with trying to teach people about self-defense scenarios is that too many of them want to take their time, chew the situation over, second-guess intentions, etc. And they get upset when you tell them their window of opportunity is, at most, two or three seconds, and by dithering they already lost their chance.

          1. These all come under “do something useful now, instead of the perfect later as there may be no later”. When attacked, neutralized the attack then determine what kind of attack it was.

            1. Or punish you for just revealing that you’re armed without then shooting to kill (or wound).

        3. Well, that was one thing spouse and I managed to train out of our daughters very early on. Assuming they ever had it in the first place. They scare ME sometimes…

      2. ‘but I could never harm another human being like that!!!’

        A man who sexually assaults you has already tendered his resignation from the human race and enrolled among the animal kingdom. Inflict all the harm you can manage.

          1. A friend took his daughters along on hunting trips. They learned how to dress out small game and deer, and cook it when they got home. He went over conservation, and “if you kill it, you eat it.”

            Later he was telling them how to defend themselves should anyone break into the house. They were 7 and 9.

            “You *did* tell them they should call the police afterward instead of dressing out the corpse, right?”

            “Um, maybe I should go over that…”

            Last week the 9-year-old objected to having to go duck hunting. I told him he should have known a chihuahua wouldn’t be much of a retriever.

            [things are different in small towns…]

      3. After Virginia Tech, Flat Stat U’s administrators insisted that we discuss our feelings about the incident on campus and talk about things the admin could do to make us feel safer. My suggestions – solid doors that open inward so they can be barricaded, rope ladders and larger windows so we have a secondary emergency outlet, permit campus carry for those with permits – were Not Approved.

          1. Their solution was to put “No Weapons Allowed on Campus” signs all over the place. One of the older students, a Gulf War II vet, groused that now he’d have to leave all of his brain at the apartment instead of just half of it.

            1. There was a cartoon back in the day, before the school shootings mess that I can recall from our campus newspaper. One had a critter thinking, “I want to shoot some people, but I don’t want to break the law by carrying my shooty thing on campus, oh what shall I do?”

              The other, a student thinking “I don’t want to get mugged, but the campus carry policy is ‘NO.’ I’d better pick up a pocket knife or some mace instead.”

              The caption read, “Which one looks more likely to YOU?”

              Unfortunately, the carry policy did not get changed. Fortunately, the Ag campus had rather more relaxed rules…

          1. Okay, I can see that, but I’d think additional exits would be a positive in both types of emergency.

          2. As far as I can remember, about half of the classroom doors in the schools I went to opened inward, half outward.

            All the doors are any particular school were the same, though.

            I specifically remember the doors in junior high opened inward; they had flip-down stops that were easy to trip over when they were propped open. The ones in high school opened outward, and latched to the outside wall.

        1. Perhaps they’d accept requiring administrators to occupy classroom doorways, providing meant shields for those left dangerously exposed by their whims?

    3. Not to mention that if it becomes a generally known fact that, say, “40% of women carry a gun,” the risk-averse criminal might very well decide not to take the chance that the woman in front of him is one of the 60% that doesn’t and instead just go home and watch internet porn.

      On the other hand, if he knows that 99% of women won’t protect themselves for fear of making someone else a victim, well 1% may be odds he’s willing to play…

      1. That does comport well with what criminologists have found. Harsher punishment is much less of a deterrent than a higher risk of being caught. If you think about it, most criminals are people acting out of a stupid laziness. They don’t want responsibility be it a job instead of just stealing or building relationships instead of assaulting to get what they want. Criminal punishment is a form of responsibility.

    4. OTOH, by accepting the mantle of victim-hood upon your own head you gain social power, a sort of (anti-)heroes’ journey. You will be free to accuse others without evidence and yet have your every claim defended by virtue of your having been victimized. You will be empowered to demand Social Change without being ridiculed.

      Whether you will like that Social Change once it occurs is unlikely, but what the hey, right?

    5. Fortunately I managed to keep that nonsense out of Darlin’ Daughters head.

      When she was in her early teens she accompanied CINCHOUSE to her teaching job in an urban school. One of the male students decided some intimidation of the “new kid” was in order. Said student back pedaled quickly when she dropped back into a horse stance (did I mention the blue belt she had at the time?).

      In High School she had a rep as tracking down bullies and explaining to them that if they went after their favorite victim, they were going after her as well. Girls were informed that she did not pull hair and slap if forced into a physical fight. Be prepared for snap kicks and full power punches. Never had a fight, in or out of school (I had indoctrinated her to never start a fight, but always finish it, and we (Wife and I) would deal with the administration)

      Now days an attacker has a choice (hers, not his) of pepper spray followed by a few well placed low kicks, and ASP baton, or a Glock.

      (to paraphrase Foxfier, Proud Daddy moment)

      1. ” Never had a fight, in or out of school (I had indoctrinated her to never start a fight, but always finish it, and we (Wife and I) would deal with the administration)”

        We indoctrinated our son for the same. We do not believe in zero tolerance. He also had permission to protect someone else. Again, never put it to the test as in an actual fight. But that doesn’t mean he didn’t interfere. He was just creative about it. So that when questioned about incidents, he was “Wait? What? I didn’t know they were fighting! I just walked between them to ….” going to X class, saw so & so to talk to them, going to my locker, going to my gym locker, grabbing a towel. Where everyone else slid away, he was the most unaware person ever. He wasn’t bigger than any of the participants, either.

        We’d get the story from him with a big grin on his face. A heartfelt thank you from the intended victims parents. The administration got his perspective with a straight forward honest report, enough to be plausibly deniable. He never “lied”, exactly.

        Bullies learned to lay off victims when he was around.

        Yes. They did try going after him through us. I cheat. I called “mom” (as in Bullies). Not of a matter of stopping them from bulling our kid. They were targeting the house and vehicles. Targeting us. We knew who it was. We caught them at it. I tattled. It stopped cold.

  12. Anyone who watched Blazing Saddles and took away that Lili von Schtupp was portrayed as stupid was either not paying attention, had an agenda, or both.

    And that wasn’t a lisp, either.

    1. at one time there was only one black guy on the Billings Montana police force (might still be, lost contact with Kittles). His wife was a blonde and her personalized plate was “ITSTWOO”

  13. Oh, I am deeply and profoundly offended when people don’t just swallow my bullshit without question. Ever so offended, hurt, objectified, oppressed, mispersoned, seen clearly as a serial bullshit artist that has no actual artistic skill. I fear I may swoon. I live in constant unrelenting fear I may swoon, despite long periods of typing out bullshit without swooning. I live in a climate of fear, created by you, that I might swoon to super death.~

    In all seriousness, you’ve hosted a fairly welcoming community. I appreciate the value y’all provide as a sounding board. Sometimes I am full of shit, and have somehow managed to overlook that fact.

    1. It’s not YouTube, but the Huns are a good reminder it isn’t time to just burn it all down on a regular basis…at least for me.

      Knowing you’re not alone and some people see the same problems is a huge thing getting you off the cliff.

    2. We’re seeing something along the indicated lines in Europe. Every group that suggests caution is a “right-wing fascist” organization, according to our betters. Hasn’t stopped people from joining them, and exposes more of them to radicalization than would otherwise be the case.

  14. Blazing Saddles was a brilliant attack on racism and bigotry. I’ve no doubt at all that it was a million times more effective at changing people’s opinions and behavior than any possible scolding could have been. Only someone with no empathy *at all* could watch it and not catch the idea of just how demoralizing and horrible it would be living with racist attitudes toward you day to day. Sure, you were laughing, but that just gets your guard down.

    It’s funny because it’s true.

    The true thing isn’t funny, it’s funny when it’s exposed. The discomfort of having it exposed would cause people to become defensive and to harden barriers *except* that the jokes subvert that reaction. And still, the discomfort is part of the reason that you laugh so hard.

    It’s what comedy is for. It’s how it works. It’s the gosh-darned court jester who’s the only one allowed to tell the King he’s a fool.

    1. And it is now being banned on college campuses for being racist.

      Which tells you about the intelligence of our educated betters.

      1. Teaching people they can’t fight back, not even with laughter.

        It does make me wonder if I should order dvd’s of that and a couple of other movies, before we can’t anymore.

        1. I did that a few years ago. Half wondering when the progs will start up “fire departments” to burn all the “incorrect” things. Not just pulling down statues and such, but burning books and other media… and the people who have them.

      2. We saw it a few months ago on cable. They carefully muted and blurred the lips of every ni, nig, whatever. Not sure what time it was on (watched it on DVR several weeks after it aired), but the censorship was annoying.

        “Nobody move unless the _____ gets it” loses something.

        1. Last time I saw “Blazing Saddles” on cable TV, they’d also bleeped out the “Kansas City faggots” line. And most of the other ethnic humor, which pretty much defeats the whole purpose of the film, no?

  15. And yes, there’s a lot of nonsense written by Catholic priests in the Americas around that time. They were, they thought, excoriating the world, and never thought that the future would take them literally.

    Let me guess, it boiled down to the explorers being insufficiently pure in their motives?

    1. and abandoning G-d’s work in the lust for gold. Having seen this stuff, it’s not LITERAL. yeah, sure, okay, I’m sure a lot of Spaniards did that, but the only people who saw it as universal were the ones trying to saints.

      1. *faint cough*

        Of course, one might look around at what people of good will do these days, and how often “abandoning (our shared goal)” actually means “aren’t doing what I think is best.”

      2. I never got lust for gold.

        I mean, I get lust, but lusting after gold seems cold, lonely, and not nearly as exciting as the other kind.

          1. Never had all that much gold. Nor very much of that rather boring paper that my betters keep telling me is “just as good.” Nor the high quality body form.

            Hmm. Probably a good thing. I ended up with only three kids to raise.

        1. Common lesson taught by all in my early life, “wealth should serve a purpose.” The purpose being, what you should spend your life on of course. That was up to you.

  16. Like the buying “Manhattan for beads” is never explained, in the sense that beads were currency for those people, and frankly they were fairly expensive for those buying it, too.

    Not to mention that at the time, Manhattan Island was essentially 15,000 acres worth of swamp land, not exactly highly desirable real estate. A lot of these lessons like to make it sound like the Dutch bought New York City for $40, skyscrapers, museums, and well-landscaped Central Park included.

    1. There’s a nice history book called The Island at the Center of the World by Russell Shorto, and the whole prologue talks about how the book—an exploration of Dutch Manhattan—came about because they finally got around to translating the records from that time period. As in, they’ve had these records for hundreds of years, and prior to 1970 or so*, the only translation they had was a partial, non-expert one from the 19th century. That’s where they got the “$40 worth of beads” story, and it’s not only a bad translation, it’s flat-out incorrect.

      Turns out that the actual price was a lot more, in goods and such, and it wasn’t a purchase price so much as a rental agreement. Manhattan was a hunting island, not someplace the local tribes lived, and what they wanted was a certain amount of access *and* the agreement that the renters would host them and their friends on an irregular basis. And that held for a while, even, so it’s not like they kicked the tribes to the curb and told them they were screwed.

      *The story behind that is great, too. “We’ve been going through our archives and found this entire set of records in 17th-century Dutch. How are we going to find out what’s in them?” (half an hour later) “Hi there, [friend], I just got my degree in 17th-century Dutch, do you have any leads on a job that might make use of this?”

      1. *The story behind that is great, too. “We’ve been going through our archives and found this entire set of records in 17th-century Dutch. How are we going to find out what’s in them?” (half an hour later) “Hi there, [friend], I just got my degree in 17th-century Dutch, do you have any leads on a job that might make use of this?”

        Himself has an odd sense of humor.

        1. A brutal one at that. Left a mark in my psyche for a while.

          Remembering the short story (eventually first chapter of Mind Killer and another omnibus book) by Spider Robinson: “God is an Iron” (In case anybody else is as brain-fried as me tonight, a felon commits a felony.).

  17. I remember in SG: Atlantis, 5th season, when the head of the Atlantis mission is found after hours, he’s wearing a 3-piece Brooks Brothers suit with tie. He’d worn it so often over the years, it was casual wear for him. That’s how he got comfortable.

  18. Dates are rape, bad sex is rape, being looked at by a guy you don’t like is rape

    You forgot ‘regretting it the morning after is rape’

    1. The amount of rape fantasies normie women have is quite disturbing. And yes, I think this accusations stem, at least in part, from rape fantasies.

      1. I’ve read/heard the suggestion that it’s because removing your agency also makes nothing your fault. And also perhaps more sympathetically, when you manage other people every moment of the day, the idea of not even making decisions or needing to be in control of *that* is subliminally attractive.

        Personally? I don’t get it. Can’t. Won’t. And frequently wall romances that are even a little bit “rapey” and that’s a lot of them anymore.

        1. Others here can probably provide more but my understanding is that the latter is generally true. And the idea of post coitus rape does make a lot of sense if looked at as self protection, at least psychologically.

          It’s one of those things that done right can be freeing but can easily be screwed up or made evil

      2. Quite possible. Another factor in it could be a deep seated desire for a man who is competent, confident, in control and unashamed of that. Given the dearth of such in modern public life, I can see it being possible.

        Of course from the other side, there is the deep seated desire for a women who is classically feminine. *shakes head* Between the two, that’s a rabbit hole that goes down for miles.

        1. Another factor in it could be a deep seated desire for a man who is competent, confident, in control and unashamed of that.

          And wants the targeted character, don’t forget.

          Add that to the idea of what a “strong” woman has to be– a controlling a-hole who likes sex and thus only says no as a power thing– and there’s basically nothing left.

          Although Buffy did a good variation by adding in protectiveness, and Reasons to Not Go There, into Creepy Stalker-ish #1. (Plus, the actor that plays Angel is simply impressive– he can be both an adorable puppydog, and a wolf.)

          1. Agreed. With all of this, you could write your own tropes page based on male/female social mating practices. Except they probably already did.


            Yep. Pretty much. Tvtropes already did it is a trope, too. *chuckle* Might be a few little details to iron out, but it’s out there.

  19. One of the main women in this movie, Lil Van Schtupp (Madeline Kahn), is portrayed as stupid and talks with a lisp.

    Did she even watch the movie? Lil was supposed to be a sharp and effective femme fatal. She was not stupid in any sense.

    We stopped wearing aprons in the measure that a pack of t-shirts at walmart is $10. Nothing to do with sexism.

    We did? I still wear one for wood working and gluing as well as cooking. Different aprons, yes, but still do.

    I have actually been told I was “pretty smart for a woman.

    I’ve been told I was pretty smart for a conservative, although usually in the negative form: “You’re a conservative? But you’re smart.”

    but certainly creatures that needed looking after, as though they were children.

    So Portugal at that time was a feminist culture? Because modern American feminism pretty much believes that based on their actions: laws they want, #metoo, safe spaces, and so on.

    1. I’ve been told I was pretty smart for a conservative, although usually in the negative form: ‘You’re a conservative? But you’re smart.’

      In Progressive-ese, “pretty smart for a conservative” is pronounced, “Ray-cist” although some dialects pronounce it “Sex-ist.” Some folks will employ both pronunciations just to ensure the meaning is understood.

    2. I’ve gotten the smart bit before. Person was a ‘insert tv personality comedian’ fan. Getting to say that I had a more advanced degree, worked for same company for longer, and had more publications was gratifying.

  20. It’s the schools, it’s the schools, it’s ALL about the schools.

    Everything else is a holding action while we re-take the schools.

    And if that ain’t what it is, we’re lost. Utterly and irretrievably lost.

    1. If it was Catalina, I feel your pain. I’m reconstructing master folders with over 800 files now hiding on my hard-drive.

      1. Somehow organizing my files feels a bit like reorganizing my workshop. It offends me slightly in a similar manner. Personal AI secretaries need to be a thing, soonest.

  21. “I had two classes after dark in college”

    So did I; 7 – 10 PM. Professor was furious an academic councilor scheduled a freshman female for that class. Said I was fine walking back to the dorm by myself. He insisted on having his two TA’s walk me back. Next class, he took me aside because the TA’s reported that they had to escort me back to the front door, that I didn’t have a key to get in the other entrances. Told him, correct, that until my folks could come up to sign for one or I couldn’t get one for another 8 weeks. You had to be 18 or over to get assigned an outdoor access key, without parental permission (regardless of gender). Doors locked at 10 PM. I’d never seen someone turn white. Not only was I a freshman female, I was under 18. I got escorts home all term. Something that the university was keeping mum on, was there had been a murder of a female in one of the dorms (not the one I was in), the prior year. Murderer had not been caught. Signs pointed to a predator working campuses looking for weak points and opportunities. That didn’t count the reported assaults on campus. This was waaaaay before cell phones. Even general handheld radios aren’t common.

    “Ask me how furious it makes me to hear these children talk about how protecting yourself is evil because the man will just seek another victim.”

    My response to this is: “How do you figure they could just seek another victim after I was done self defending?” Hint. Attack me and when I stop them, they ain’t going anywhere because I am damn sure going to make sure they can’t come after me when I leave, or because I called the police; or die trying.

    1. Welllll, to be fair… no, overgenerous, because they probably don’t know this… there is the whole thing about how a lot of defensive gun uses are “assailant discovers prospective victim is armed and backs down.”

      This is by no means to suggest that the rest of their argument has merit.

    2. My response to this is: “How do you figure they could just seek another victim after I was done self defending?” Hint. Attack me and when I stop them, they ain’t going anywhere because I am damn sure going to make sure they can’t come after me when I leave, or because I called the police; or die trying.

      Recently read the comments on a facebook discussion about a guy who is going to jail for stabbing to death the guy who was stabbing him. He got the knife away from his attacker, and stabbed back. They decided it was “excessive” so he’s been charged and is going to jail.

      It was freaking horrifying how few people had a concept of “deadly force” not meaning “you are already dead before you can kill them back.”

      1. Prosecutor needs to be stabbed to death. And the jury needs to go to prison for the period they sentenced this guy to. It’s the only cure for the rot these courts are showing.

    3. My response to this is: ‘How do you figure they could just seek another victim after I was done self defending?’

      If they can assail another victim after you’ve defended yourself, you aren’t defending yourself sufficiently.

      1. Maxim 6 – If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

        1. Heh.

          So violence should be your last resort for the same reasons that you always find something in the last place you look?

          1. I had the latter discussion with some friends a few months ago. A suggestion was jokingly made about continuing to search for an item after you’d already found it just to mess with that saying.

            1. I have had this quite literally happen. Because I found {item}, but got dristracted. Forgot I found it. Kept looking. Had it in my hand the whole time. *facepalm*

    4. Girls who are brought up to be good girl liberals often have a _really_ hard time with the notion that if you kill your attacker, you don’t just protect yourself, you protect everyone who would have been a victim of that perp in the future.

      They wonder where all good men are? Well, some moved on to try to find women who appreciate a bit of chivalry.


      1. Also, what good are such women when the children need to be protected and the gentleman is not near? What good are such women when he is sick or injuried, and needs the care and protection a good woman provides? What good is such a women in defending *herself* such that she is not made hostage against him?

        The intelligent gentleman averrs his appreciation for honest, forthright, and practical femininity, not weak-willed childishness.

    5. *nod* Basically the same situation at Ft. Benjamin Harrison, outside Indiana, when I was there for tech school in the late 70ies. Open post, largely wooded … and the guys in my student unit wouldn’t let any of the females go anywhere alone, after dark. (Daytime was OK, lots of people around, normally.) Either one of the guys walked with us, or one of the students with a vehicle drove us.

    6. I participated in an escort program when I was in school along with some other ROTC types. Wish I had thought of the “camouflage night exercises” described above”.

      There was one guy “suspected” of being a stalker. Pictures of him at various parts of the day in various parts of campus may have been taken, and prints of supposed photographs may have been in the process of having cross hairs drawn on them for possibly slipping under his door when he was kicked out of school (no reason given) and moved out of the area.

      1. One does have to beware the tendency of do-it-yourself Justice to metastasize into something really bad.

        The above “Field Training Exercise” series was cancelled by the participants, and simple obvious escort work substituted, because of just that. Someone Grokked that Nietzsche bit about the Abyss gazing back into the viewer, before things got out of hand.

  22. “Ask me how furious it makes me to hear these children talk about how protecting yourself is evil because the man will just seek another victim.”

    The first time I saw that argument it was on tumblr. And it was just appalling how many likes and reblogs that had.

  23. Well, some of the North American colonists came looking for gold–the initial Jamestown crew, for example–but yes, it’s virtually impossible to argue that anywhere close to a significant minority of the North American colonists were treasure seekers.

    bad sex is rape,

    Of course it is. Girls’ve been taught by the movies and books they consume that consensual sex is always amazing and results in multiple orgasms for all the parties involved. Also, thanks to the Sexual Revolution, words like “cad” and “lecher” have gone out of style. And their parents have left their raising up to the culture rather than doing it themselves.

    So, when they hook up with the random dude they met at the party and he gets what he was after and leaves them high and dry, they feel like they’ve been violated, and in a way they have been–they’ve been used as a living sex toy, instead of being treated like a human being. But they’ve been propagandized into thinking that consensual sex is always awesome. So, if they don’t manage to break out of that paradigm, they naturally come to the conclusion that they’ve been raped.

    So much of the stupidity of the modern age is the result of people being taught to have unreasonable expectations and then running into the real world.

    1. There was a case a year or two back of a woman who accused a celebrity of “rape,” after a date where he gave her the wine of his choice, took her out to a restaurant she had no input in and didn’t particularly like, then had sex with her despite the fact that her “yes” was obviously reluctant and not heartfelt.

      Now, much of the commentary afterwards focused on the fact that obviously she hadn’t been raped. However, too many commentators went from there to “…and thus he didn’t do anything wrong.” But he did. He was a cad. Assuming her account was accurate, he wanted sex, was going to do the minimum required to get her to put out, and had no interest in getting to know her or having a long-term relationship. There’s nothing illegal about being a cad, though it’s still wrong. It occurred to me, however, that in an era where the idea of being a cad has been banished, the word “gentleman” is only used disparagingly or ironically, and non-consent is the only sexual sin left, the woman may not have had any words to describe how she felt other than “rape.”

      1. Ding. One of the very few positives of the MeToo movement is that it understands that there is something *wrong* with hookup culture.

        Of course, it completely misunderstands what and why.

    2. “Also, thanks to the Sexual Revolution, words like “cad” and “lecher” have gone out of style.

      Might I suggest “metrosexual,” “feminist-ally,” and “male feminist,” as acceptible modern substitutes?

    3. All of that in spite of the overwhelming evidence that people — women in particular — experience the most satisfactory sexual relations in the context of a “committed long-term relationship” (aka: marriage.)

      1. And I am sure that you are shocked–shocked–that the entertainment industry, which is riddled with sexual predators of various stripes, makes sure to poo-poo such notions.

        1. Someone really needs to ask those in Hollywood what they have against women getting sexual satisfaction? Are they such old-fashioned prudes that they don’t like the idea of good sex?

  24. Testify, Sarah.

    1) Home schooling is the One True Way. Your kid will actually learn stuff instead of just suffering and growing older.

    2) “Ask me how furious it makes me to hear these children talk about how protecting yourself is evil because the man will just seek another victim.”

    Clearly they’re doing it wrong. That man should be so crippled after you’re done with him he’ll need help to use the bathroom.

    1. Clearly they’re doing it wrong. That man should be so crippled after you’re done with him he’ll need help to use the bathroom.

      Dead men don’t need to use the bathroom.

      1. True. >:D

        But after the funeral is over, nobody remembers the dead rapist. If he survives the ass kicking his chastened condition will be an educational example for many years. [Q: What happened to that guy? He’s messed up! A: Rapist. Some woman broke his ass. With her boots. Q: Dayaaaam…]

        1. I put a line like that in a story:

          “The only thing you’re worthy of is my boot up your ass!”

          She had momentarily forgotten that she was wearing high-heeled shoes. If anything, they made her threat even more menacing.

    2. 1) Simply recognizes a universal truth. Parents are the first and most important teachers to their children. The responsibility lies with *them.* It is bound up in the whole idea, “parent.” You care for and provide for your children, yes, but you also educate and prepare them for the world. The lessons they will learn on their own will be possible because you taught them *how to learn* at an early age.

      1. This is one of the universally STUPID things about Liberals that really get up my nose sometimes.


        In the Real World, where the rubber meets the road, WHOSE JOB IS IT to protect you? Whose job is it to educate your kids? Whose job is it to see that they are fed and sheltered and looked after properly?

        It’s -your- job. No one else’s.

        Liberalism at times seems like a gigantic cult seeking to fob off their responsibilities on everybody else. Can’t be bothered to learn math and babysit the yard-ape? Send him to Uncle Sugar’s Public School. Too timorous or too high-nosed to consider sullying your lilly white hands with self defense? Uncle Sugar has you covered with cops and gun control. Can’t raise your lazy ass from bed in the morning? Uncle Sugar has welfare and food stamps for you!

        Oops, Uncle Sugar ain’t getting the job done very well? Your kids are stupid and hungry, and some guy just punched you out?

        Too bad so sad, Liberals. Maybe you should have thought this through a little better, eh? Responsibility doesn’t move, its still YOURS and no one else. But now you’ve given away most of your power to government and they don’t care a single damn about you or your yard-ape children.

        Which is how you go from California to Venezuela in one generation.

        1. I tend to think of Responsibilty and Freedom as two sides of the same coin. Not opposites. Inextricable. Can’t have the one without the other. If you have the freedom, the responsibility *always* goes with it. And vice versa. This is how (at least one way or part of it) liberals went from proponents of free speech and “keep the government out of my bedroom,” to pro censorship and throwing their sexual deviancies in our faces. They favor control over freedom, thinking they will always be in control. And with that control, responsibilty bows out, because the ruled are not free to follow their own minds.

      2. Yeah. You are going to have a time investment in your kids anyway, because you want them to have the tools they need to survive and be successful.

        The education bureaucracy is only theoretically sound if you can forecast what an economic participant is going to need fifty years into the future. Then break down what they need into chunks, assign each chunk to an education expert, give everyone the standard uniform “what everyone needs to know” education assemblyline style, and leave that as a finished tasks.

        Problem one is the impossibility of doing the forecasting. Problem two is is that the national uniform education provides very little economic value*, because economic trades founded on educations require that people have different skills. Problem three, even if the teaching experts were really expert, treating the job as finishable or needing outside expertise screws you over in the long term. Problem four, there is an argument that this is an area where experts cannot be created in the way we are attempting to create.

        I’m not convinced we wouldn’t be better off repealing the child labor laws. Or at least many of them.

        *This is trickier than I first realized when I had my breakthrough insight. Skills wise, you want to be a generalist for survival and a specialist for economic value. Basic numeracy and literacy are defensible as survival skills that also make everyone more valuable. Alternatives provide those better.

        1. This is one thing (just one of a colossal pile of many different things) I don’t have good answers for. Education works best the smaller scale it is. Local and below, at the family level reflect the reality of the situation, where the responsibility lives as The Phantom mentioned above. Some localities and families are going to be crap at this. Ergo if we’re going to make education a state thing (and I really think this is a bad idea), keep it as simple as possible.

          Straightforward practical testing and that’s it. I tend to favor the classical approach, but that’s just me. Math, logic, history, composition, keep it simple. Test out at any age. Prereq is pass the previous test. Nothing more. Education gets more sloppy and useless the larger the system gets. Keep it small, keep it simple, train skills and use the learning pyramid. Memorization for facts and base skills, then implementation. Works for languages too.

          If your local teacher box produces crap results, take your education funds elsewhere. Keep the state and fed government as far away as possible, let local zones work it out. Failing areas will collapse, as they should, from lack of funding.

          Perhaps I am way off the mark. But is they system we have all that much better?

          1. Education works best the smaller scale it is.

            While school bureaucracies and unions work ‘better’ the bigger scale they are. Everything has to be dictated from the clueless morons at the top down.

            Jimmy Carter’s Department Of Education has wasted forty years and almost TWO TRILLION DOLLARS!! making our public schools worse than they were in the 1960’s. They could have hired 75,000 teachers for 40 years with that money.

            Why are teachers the ones left sucking hind teat? Why do two-thirds of the members of the ‘California Teachers Association’ never set foot in a classroom?

            Why are there unions for government employees, paid for with OUR TAXES? They’re using OUR TAXES to extort more money FROM US!!

            What does a ‘school board’ do? Why do we have thousands of them, each staffed with five to a dozen overpaid bureaucrats, when NOBODY CAN TELL WHETHER THEY’RE DOING THEIR DAMN JOBS OR NOT?

            Pardon the rant.
            If you want to learn, the worst schools and teachers in the world won’t stop you. If you don’t want to learn, the best can’t help you.

        2. Possibly a duplicate, but WP seems to have swallowed this while declaring it a duplicate comment … Stupid WP.

          The Education Establishment faces a fundamental contradiction at the heart of its mission. The most basic and essential skills required in the marketplace are those of the autodidact: the self-directed acquisition of skills needed for an immediate problem. That is a set of skills inherently in conflict with the Education Establishment’s institutional goal of making itself indispensable. Fortunately for the Education Establishment they have an ally in corporate HR departments as both seek to maintain their function as complementary gatekeepers.

          We see similar problems in the Welfare Agencies who, if successful at their presumed purpose, would eliminate the need for Welfare Agencies.

    3. Home schooling has the advantage of not having to adhere to a mandated schedule, so that you spend X number of days on a subject and then move on, without regard to whether the student had grasped the material a full three days ago or needs one more day to gain comprehension.

      Home schoolers spend exactly as much time on a subject as it takes to master it, then move on.

      1. The no-schedule thing is nice. That means there’s none of this arbitrary skipping around, the kid can follow whatever rabbit hole they want. Study the history of corsets.

        The -really- nice thing is that you can discover the child’s learning style and teach them the best way -for them- to learn. Some kids learn on paper, some on computers from YouTube, some from lectures. All different.

        A side benefit is that they’re not busy playing monkey-dominance against all the other kids. Your kid is coming home exhausted and depressed all the time from school, that’s likely one of the reasons.

  25. I’m currently teaching a class on genocide and political recovery. One of the issues we address is identity (taught in addition to offense). When I point out to them that we have the privilege of *choosing* our individual identity for the most part, in large portions of the rest of the world, the state decides your identity for you whether you want it or not (hence the state using that identity to determine the genocide target). The idea that somebody else would not pay attention to their desires in regards to identity has been an eye-opening experience for them.

    To their credit, while expressing sometimes extreme frustration with the cognitive dissonance I’m forcing them to face, they are taking it in and processing it. For the first time in several years I’m optimistic about the levels of common sense I’m seeing in this year’s freshmen.

    1. In high school they’re being told stuff that will make even a dippy fourteen year old roll their eyes. Has a sharpening effect on some, they get tired of hearing obvious bullshit all day long.

    2. I take it you are not teaching a course on out to carry out genocides and mass murders?

      Because we will need education that provides that skillset if we are going to address AGW. 🙂

      (Yeah, I’m not being serious. I do believe that understanding how to carry out genocides gives a lot of insights into prevention. I also believe that mass killings are a tool in the foreign policy toolbox. Frankly, I even want people working on solving some of the open problems in the general field of mass murder. There are other problems I don’t want people working to solve. I definitely do not want academic programs turning out a bunch of credentialed experts. )

  26. ” (And yes, there’s a lot of nonsense written by Catholic priests in the Americas around that time. They were, they thought, excoriating the world, and never thought that the future would take them literally.) ”

    Here lies something I’m unfamiliar with, and would like to hear more about, in the usual succinctly distilled SAH way (because that’s way more interesting than looking it up).

    As to anti-teaching… pretty good rule of thumb is that once you get three generations from the farm, you lose contact with reality, being that which actually feeds and houses and clothes you. Kids at that remote don’t even get grandparents’ stories of the old ways and the hard times, thus have no frame of reference when being told that today they are experiencing ‘hard times’.

    1. we could TEACH them, anyway.
      Oh… there’s a strain of Catholic priest which excoriates everyone for sinful waste and greed. It comes from “The enemies of the soul are three, the devil, the flesh and the world.”
      If you’re a secularist, reading it with no context, you can view everyone they’re talking about as obsessed with gold and greed….

      1. Grumble Grumble

        Those Catholic Priests get things wrong all the time.

        It’s “The World, The Flesh and The Devil”. 😀

        More seriously and as a side-note, in his “Four Loves” C. S. Lewis commented that “the World” can include a person’s own family.

        IE A person trying to better himself (mainly morally) may face “So you think you’re better than your own family”. 😦

  27. Being offended is entirely a learned behavior. We are taught to be offended, and what to be offended by. The government schools indoctrinate their prisoners hostages students to be offended by everything their leftist masters find inconvenient about the world. Undoing the damage will be a long, hard road, if it’s even possible.

    1. *musing* You know, taking offense is even useful.
      It’s the reaction to “this is unacceptable.”

      If the lines are drawn correctly, you cut off a lot of predatory behavior.

      …which kinda points to who would want to weaponize offense.

  28. There is a decided lack of education in our education system anymore. It drives my wife (teacher) crazy that so much time is being devoted to so much other than teaching like behaviour issues and testing standards and not to actual education.

    As far as aprons, I still wear them. Admittedly I am a little older than I would like to be (or possibly not old enough yet), but I still wear one in the kitchen when working with stuff that is going to splash and splatter. And when I am working on something like my daughter’s playhouse or dance floor, I wear a construction apron simply because it holds all the little things I need. It’s handy.

    1. Oh, and it doesn’t help that schools keep switching to the latest trendy teaching fad. In the 16 years my wife has been at this particular school district they are now on their 4th different math series. There’s no consistency. By the time the kids have been in it for a couple of years and are finally understanding and applying the concepts, everything changes again. I so much want to just pull our daughter out and homeschool her, but there is no time.

  29. The offense culture that is being transmitted through colleges and public schools is a symptom of a society that is too comfortable. A society that has gotten lazy. Which inherently distorts what we value.

    Such as taking prosperity and freedom for granted. Then believing socialism is a good policy.

Comments are closed.