No Scapegoats

Posted on by Sarah A. Hoyt

First let me lay two things out before I even start the post.

1- I’m not a feminist, not in the sense of reacting to insults on “feminism”. Did I ever call myself that? I don’t know. If I did it was in my early teens before I realized it was just a flavor of Marxism dressed in a pretty skirt and bows.

2- There is right now, in the US, a movement among the right, which for the purpose of this post is defined as “to the right of Lenin” that if it continues will fashion it into the Left’s idea of the Right. And will make it non-viable as a political movement, thereby giving the left its much needed next burst of energy.

The problem with this is that the left as it exists and the right as the left is working to refashion it — yes, I’m convinced it’s infiltrators, and people repeating nonsense without thinking — are neither viable, useful to humanity movements. From both of them will come nothing but death. Oscillating between the two will destroy civilization, and lead to a long, slow crawl from tribalism again. (If we make it. Most cultures stay stuck in tribalism.)

The right the left is trying to make ascendant — which is what they always thought we were, but now know at some level we aren’t, and that terrifies them — is just as authoritarian as the left, and is what the left keeps accusing us of: sexist, racist, homophobic.

Today’s post points out how we’re slipping into the first, and what’s fundamentally wrong with that. Honestly, the terms of engagement on that are so wrong they’re not even wrong.

But, again, please realize at the start of this, I don’t react to things that are maybe too broad in saying “Women do this” Or “women are guilty of this.” Because most of the time I can see that a lot of women are. I might say “Not all of us” but then I move on.

Also I am one of the first to admit there is such a thing as toxic femininity. I’d say our business world is choking on it and it’s destroying it. (A lot our institutions, including the Supreme court, to an extent.) BUT it is not what the skinsuiting right identifies.

In fact, the attempts at pushing us into sexism are so wrong they’re not even wrong. Which is why I’m always shocked and appalled to stumble on them repeated by people on our side. Note I clipped the name from the screenshot, because I don’t want the person mobbed. I think he’s roughly on “our side”. He just swallowed a lot of sh*t and is regurgitating it all wrapped in his hopeful-not-thought-of stereotypes.

But my reaction to his tweet was immediate and visceral. Because he was trying to make me, and every woman sin-eat Marxism. He was making us into the scapegoats who could then be safely subdued and kept infantilized, and that would make it all right.

I’m going to paste the tweet now. Note he uses “feminine” not “feminist.” (Using “feminist” would be wrong because it would be a small portion of Marxist evil. Using “feminine” IS evil.)

My reaction to this, in the Discord group in which it was posted was to immediately answer with “Fuck you, no. I’m not your sin eater because I was born with a vagina. Fuck off with that shit.”

I don’t know how much people here know this, since the few times I do swear is on the blog, but I don’t swear. My characters sometimes do, but it takes really life-and-death situations or truly punch-in-the-gut emotions.

My visceral reaction surprised ME so I had to unpack it.

First of all he’s right about the process of weaponized empathy. He’s wrong about EVERYTHING ELSE.

Also he’s tweeting this in reply to some ass saying he wants socialism now. Femininity and feminism have nothing to do with this, except in the sense that feminism is a small portion of Marxism (yes, it is. It was from the beginning. Fighting for equal rights under the law is not what “feminism” is, nor is “feminism” aiming for that at any time.)

What in heaven’s name made him jump from “socialism” to “femininity”? There are some rats in head there that have been carefully planted at a guess by mobis pretending to be on our side.

Let me make it very clear: Marx was NOT A WOMAN. Communism is in no way feminine. In fact, using women to advance their purposes was a brilliant move for destroying the west.

Just as weaponized empathy was.

But let’s begin at the beginning: WHY ATTRIBUTE WEAPONIZED EMPATHY TO “feminine”? What sense does that make? Has this man ever met a woman? Or let me put it another way, has he ever met a woman who wasn’t pretending to be sweetness and light? Has he ever let himself be in an unguarded enough situation with a woman to realize she wasn’t a Victorian upper class stereotype?

Because that’s what he’s using: Victorian Upper Class Stereotypes. Women as sweet, gentle creatures who don’t want anyone, even enemies to suffer.

This wasn’t true even in the Victorian age or even in the upper classes. As you’ll find out if you read any biographies or auto-biographies of women in the Victorian age. Hell and damnation, people, even Victoria herself wasn’t like that, despite all her pretty language.

I have spent most of my professional life fighting this idiotic, completely anti-reality stereotype ON THE LEFT. Because the left/feminists have swallowed this hook, line, sinker and tinkling little bell at the end. Even though they are the embodiment of “this is wrong.”

You know this stereotype on the left because it leads to the never end of dreary feminist SF in which the solution to all of humanity’s issues is to eliminate males. And then women, sweet, caring, gentle women rule the world as the angels they are, with no war, no strife, and everyone cared for and looked after PERFECTLY.

I was very lucky to have been raised in a milieu that was a patriarchy, but where women weren’t dissembling. Most of them were working class too, which means under the gun, under fear, under oppression (real oppression. When a married woman needs her estranged husband’s signature to work to feed the kids and there’s no divorce, that’s oppression.) and nakedly themselves.

And then I was sent to a magnet school that was girls-only. Oh, dear Lord. if you want to see true war and carnage, by all means, make it a “country of women.”

I might be killed by a group of masked women, in the dark, for giving away club secrets (I’m joking, I’m joking) but guys, women are far meaner than you, more ruthless and at many levels utterly immoral. Or at least amoral. (And for those of you who are protesting even now. No. I don’t mean we are like that normally. We’re thinking beings. But present a man and a woman with the same unbalanced conundrum “kill a hundred innocents to save your newborn child.” The man will hesitate. Half the man might not do it. No woman will pause to think. She will gladly kill all hundred, as they plead for mercy. If she’s a good woman, she will feel guilty after. But in the moment, she will do it.)

We are creatures of bare claw and fang. We have to be. We live at the hard edge where life meets death. Each of us has, if not in fact, the potential to produce life and that life appears in the world as a completely helpless, mewling creature. We risk our lives for them. They are, in a way I can’t explain to any of you not a mother, for the rest of their mortal life, a portion of us. Arguably the most sensitive portion of our anatomy. Even as adults. Even though we know they’re not perfect.

I heard it described as having a piece of your heart forever in someone else’s body. The most important piece. They’re not wrong. (And in ways it meets the uncanny. If those pieces of my heart are troubled I can sense it and it affects me.)

Even those of us who try to be good have to work at it. I’ve had my kids in difficulties that could be solved by murder, and I had to be talked down from it. Even though I knew it would destroy my family. (This was the famous scene “Honey, if you don’t want this to devolve into the type of scene where they find five heads in the toilet and never find the bodies, you’re going to have to take time from work and go to the Middle School. Because if I go, I don’t answer for my actions.” … and he, a sane, rational man in time crunch at work heard that and immediately left to deal with it. This is what women are. He gets it. Be told.)

Don’t take my word for it. You don’t have to.

Go read historical accounts of the life in seraglios and what happened to other concubines when the son of one of them inherited. (Or worse, the other concubines’ children. SHUDDER.)

Go read unvarnished biographies of female rulers. Bloody Mary gets called that because the protestants won, or we’d have blood-soaked Elizabeth. They were just as bad as each other. Ruthless.

Go read, closer to home, how the women of plains Indians tortured prisoners. In fact, in any tribal area, the women are the ones torturing prisoners. And the men will turn away, horrified.

Go read Kipling’s Female of the Species.

Or just, you know:

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
   An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.

Women are not kind, gentler. Women are creatures of overkill. Why? Because we’re weak. We know that if we don’t utterly destroy the attacker, and he limps up and comes after us again, we’ll die.

Or holy hell, our kids will die.

Frankly the most amazing thing about Judeo-Christian morality and law is not that it conquered wilding males, but that it got women to more or less human, and to AT LEAST pretend to virtue and altruism. (Oh, we have plenty of altruism. Real one. Most of us would die or starve for our mate and families. But extending outside that group? Nah, brah. Not without a higher faith.)

So his first point is wrong. And from that everything else if wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, miles and miles of wrongitude. So wrong it is not even in the same universe as right.

And you’ll say “But Sarah, we’ve seen women pleading for all this. For letting criminals go for–“

Yes, yes, you have. And this is where we get to the truly frightening bit of what women are (Girls, you can beat up behind the bike shed later.)

Women are enforcers of the status quo. Women are the unifiers by obeying what they perceive as high status opinions and ideas.

This is inevitable, because we’re creatures of evolution. For most of human (and probably pre-human) history, women were traded between tribes, captured, stolen. This went on into the twentieth century when the tribal cultures the west interacted with stole women of the west. (And still goes on, look you — glances meaningly at England.)

This happened not because all men are evil (Rolls eyes.) Because what women are and what they can do is so precious that barbarous men fight over them.

Without us there is no next generation. No more future. For any primitive tribe under the edge of starvation and war, women are the ultimate resource.

So women got sold, traded, given away.

And if you’re bristling, men were also not valued as individuals. Just as members of the tribe.

It’s just most men never left the tribe they were born into. If their tribe — or band — were ambushed they were killed. The end.

Women on the other hand had to learn to survive and thrive while changing cultures, climbing the hierarchy.

Part of the reason autism in women is far less diagnosed than in men is because women seem to have a sixth sense that allows us to figure out what the “high status” posture and position is anywhere. (Some of us just choose to oppose it anyway. But it takes a while to work up the courage, to be fair.)

Because our ancestresses that could climb very quickly and ensconce themselves in the heart of the ruling clique had more daughters who survived, this is an instinctive thing to us. It takes thought and effort not to do that. (Though like all instinctive abilities, it has levels, of course. And Odd women are most likely to break it.)

So you hear a lot more women than men flap lips on the weaponized empathy that the Marxists loosed on the west in order to destroy us, because it is perceived as the high status opinion.

How could it not be? It’s pronounced from the pulpit, from most “expert” seats. From the ranks of academy. All the “good” and “smart” people proclaim it.

And women are the enforcers of tribal unity and the status quo. It is women who perform female circumcision in Muslim countries — and are vocally for it — and it was women who found their daughters feet.

But the problem is not WOMEN. Women are just reacting to their instinct to fit in well with society (though even that is breaking.)

The problem, at its root is Marxism. Including the nonsense idea that criminals are “society’s fault”. It is high status male weaponizing the women.

Fight Marxism wherever you find it, and most women will turn on a dime.

Marxism is a problem, not “feminine energy” “entitled” or not. What the hell even is this “energy” bullshit? Are we New Agers now? Or Muslims? Are you going to be blinded by my hair-rays if I’m not veiled?

Make no mistake, that cute little screed above leads exactly to women in burkas. And that’s the GOOD result. He’s not saying that because he senses it would be a step too far, but he likely believes it.

Because if women are such kindness and light that they will coddle the enemy who is destroying their sons or will destroy their potential sons? Well, the only cure for that is to confine the silly things, treat them as unthinking toddlers, and cover them up so they don’t tempt other men, and and and–

THESE ARE MY MIDDLE FINGERS. I’m not your sin-eater for Marxism. I’m not your scape goat for the evils of the last 100 years. And while I have no daughters, I have daughters in law, and I might have granddaughters. You’ll put any of us in a burka over my fucking dead body, you assholes.

Turn back now, while you can, and think about the type of ideas you’re falling into.

Yes, the last century was horrible, but none of these assholes was a woman:

Nor was Mao, or Pol Pot or Castro.

There is toxic femininity that is the morality of the serraglio. Me and mine above all.

Most of us, civilized, try to be good, women can control our most base impulses. But none of our impulses are towards forgiving enemies and letting criminals out. They tend to be more along the lines of “Do they make pencil sharpeners I can stick this person who is threatening my kid into feet first?”

Oh, sure, a lot of us lie about it to men. At least men who aren’t our husbands and who don’t get to see the beast in full rampage.

This might be a mistake. They get these illusions.

See this gentleman going on about masculine fire and female grace. Where the hell is this coming from? Are these people human?

HAVE they had mothers and sisters? Have they met a woman… EVER? (Do they actually think the stripper loves them? Don’t answer that.)

I’m going to guess I wouldn’t meet the definition of “grace”. For sure not physically. I trip over my feet while standing still.

And emotionally? Oh, I’m quite capable of grace and mercy. Because I am a Christian and believe in forgiveness as I hope to be granted forgiveness. But I won’t give it till I am sure you’re not going to kill me. Because I’m a woman, and weak, and know I won’t survive a second attack.

Again, stop this now. Stop this nonsense of adopting the Victorian Upper Class — and the left’s — view of women. We’re not creatures of light and sweetness who should either — for the Victorians — be protected at all costs or — for the idiot left — be put in charge of everything.

I don’t care if the right is more inclined to protecting — while blaming us for all the horrors we did not create or inflict — it’s still not considering us full human.

Humans are creatures of primal shadow and desperate survival. Yes, we can be kind, even gentle. But that is the wonder of Western civilization.

It is not natural. It’s not free-floating energy. And women’s “natural state” is not kind, gentle and peaceful “grace.”

If you’re not man enough to face that, you’re not a man, merely a little boy who stopped soiling his diaper.

I’m demanding you grow up now.

Or things are going to get very bad. For men, for women, for the whole human race.

No one but the totalitarians win from this delusion.

260 thoughts on “No Scapegoats”

  1. Re the screenshot guy’s bullet list up top:

    The rise of The JAG is not a “feminine” thing, it’s a “lawyer” thing. Warfare conducted with a JAG in the decision loop, and with actual prosecutions for “even with the purest intent, stuff happens”, is just playing to lose, which the U.S. military has achieved high marks at so doing since… well, Grenada maybe? Panama? The win achieved at the end in Iraq in spite of all the efforts of JAGs was thrown out the window by the Sotoero administration, which then forced us to need to go back in to get Daesh. And those JAGs are still in the loop, which does not bode well for the next Great Pacific War.

    That item on his list is just wrong.

    Liked by 1 person

    2. All of it is wrong. It’s a Marxist weaponized empathy walk, somehow attributed to those of us born with a vagina. Pardon my swearing. It’s not just wrong, it’s a fucking attack, and one that aims to do the bidding of the left.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Agreed, completely. This is a classic “historical arrow” trope written in bullet points, with individual bullets possibly having some passing contact with some aspect of observed reality, but altogether being purely a fiction designed to sell the preferred narrative about the preferred scapegoat – and an you note, all the better if the scapegoat is an integral part of society, so fracturing is more likely.

        All the bullets have other explanations (open borders immigration from self interested use of motor-voter fraud to pack the electorate, as well as swamping the red states with the third world; lackadaisical policing from the need to build fear and loathing across the lower opportunity social classes to support the revolution) and some are just straight standard commie-ness (the redistribution one – I mean, really).

        So if these are all he’s got, all he’s really doing is hauling out that scape goat with all these “grrrl power” stickers pasted all over it, trying to trick humans natural search for patterns with this false breadcrumb trail.

        People can make dumb choices for completely separate and unrelated reasons.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Agreed. Those are not strictly feminist, but leftist activist behaviors. OK, yes, so women prefer that guys not, oh, crush our hands when we shake, and don’t knock us over when they slap our backs. Otherwise the list strikes me as being effeminate and leftist rather than “stuff females do.”

          Liked by 2 people

      2. It makes me want to laugh bitterly. That list is things I’ve stood against all my life.

        We don’t want “gentler” as in “soft”. We want “rational self-control and awareness that it is wrong to crush bones when someone tells you NO.”

        Liked by 1 person

    3. The old JAG show was about the old JAG duties. It was about clearing out courtmartials, and about making sure that military people in civilian trouble got representation. Same thing with the original iteration of NCIS, which was about just investigating Navy crime stuff.

      I literally have no idea why things were allowed to get so out of hand, or why JAG officers signed up to be political commissars.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Because those who agreed to become commissars got to keep their jobs and pensions. What you reward you get more of. We rewarded “I vas only folloving orders” instead of oathkeeping.

        Quelle Surprise.

        Like

        1. Addendum: the single most important thing Donald Trump may have done is to openly and visibly reward those people who really and actually stood up and paid an actual price for their principles. The Marine O5 over Afghanistan was one, and now we have another example, also an O5, over at the Air Force.

          https://redstate.com/chase-spears/2025/07/26/from-relieved-to-risen-hail-to-the-new-air-force-undersecretary-n2192122

          On Thursday, former Space Force Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier was confirmed as the Undersecretary of the U.S. Air Force.

          Once upon a time, debate about military culture, policy, and strategy was allowed—expected, even. Commanders had a duty to speak up when they saw threats to the force. But that era ended in our time. The Space Force responded to Lohmeier’s warnings not with debate, but with retribution—relieving him of command. This was not due to complaints from subordinates. There was no investigation, just removal under the vanilla ‘loss of trust and confidence’ language that commanders hide behind to avoid public accountability. This officer’s career was ended not for incompetence, nor for failure, but for violating the dominant narrative. That kind of political punishment has chilled honest discourse across the Department of Defense. It silences loyal dissent, stifles creativity, and punishes moral courage.

          This Is The Way.

          Like

      2. JAGS were out for blood against the rank and file during the late ‘90s.

        And part of being oriented to the fleet was learning about bonafide heroes who were given prison by JAG officers looking for a feather in their cap during Vietnam.

        Like

  2. I don’t remember which book it was in, but C. S. Lewis said (roughly) that men are “in charge” of the household because women would be worse than men in the defense of the household.

    IE “Don’t let the Women Get You.”

    Liked by 2 people

    2. He said women will (and should) be protecting their children and family. A man would be better at “diplomacy,” outside the family because his first impulse wasn’t to automatically attack a perceived threat.

      BTW, the new Fantastic Four movie uses that as a plot. Galactus will destroy Earth, unless they give him Sue’s firstborn. According to one review, Reed Richards does the, “one life against billions?” thing and Sue tells him where to put it. The rest of the film is, “How do we get rid of Galactus before he can destroy Earth?”

      Liked by 2 people

        1. Welllll…I’m not so sure about Biden. As one of my characters will observe shortly after the 2020 election: “Joe Biden is barely sentient.”

          Like

      3. Oy. I recall a very frustrating period dealing with an educrat who didn’t want to provide services that she was bound by law to provide.
        I’d battle, get everything hammered down, and we’d go to the conference to sign paperwork.

        When the educrat would make a couple of disparaging comments about our kid that would send my wife into the stratosphere and blow everything up. And I’d have to start over.

        Worse, my wife would get mad at me for not defending our kid and trying to calm her down and focus.

        This went on for MONTHS.

        Liked by 1 person

    3. He said women will (and should) be protecting their children and family. A man would be better at “diplomacy,” outside the family because his first impulse wasn’t to automatically attack a perceived threat.

      BTW, the new Fantastic Four movie uses that as a plot. Galactus will destroy Earth, unless they give him Sue’s firstborn. According to one review, Reed Richards does the, “one life against billions?” thing and Sue tells him where to put it. The rest of the film is, “How do we get rid of Galactus before he can destroy Earth?”

      Like

  3. Yeah.

    Basically, recent decade, I had my attention directed in certain ways, and I noticed some behavioral tendencies in women that make sense, and are a bit frightening to me.

    Which partly comes to a desire of control of environment ‘where My Children are’, and to know that one is in good standing with one’s Circles. Which, men have also. Men can also die a bit from not being right with their own social circles and monkeysphere.

    I’ve never myself really functioned very well in a man or boy type war band way, I think. Anti-social loner, bad in my social function at many developmental stages, and I only really have book know how. There’s an intensity or certainty or need in some of the female examples that seems like it may preclude some of the warband type stuffs.

    Anyway, mapping a sex onto an ideology is aggregate thinking, and is kinda of the bad. Believing in aggregates via ideology seems to be an evil influence in every way it can be done. At least, when it comes to being a primary way of knowing.

    And, well, fractal wrong ideas of the left, and the inherent contamination that comes with having a lot of people rapidly move from left to right, especially when they are moving for sake of utilitarian advantage.

    The feminists are kinda an insane and evil ideology. For basic process reasons, that are true in the same way that they are also for other evil ideologies and evil religions. Nazi ideology aggregate model of aggregate problems caused by aggregate jews are basically similar to problems caused by aggregate men. Aztec magical theory of human sacrifice is basically also a sacrifice theory like much of feminism’s policy goals.

    Aztecs were trying to protect the sun.

    Feminists teach that their symbolic leader figures are an important part of overturning the patriarchy magics that oppress all women.

    One consequence, is that they are readily manipulated to most value specific elite women, who may personally make common cause with male serial rapists. The male serial rapists are very disordered and driven, and so serial rapists are often the male politicians who are most incentivized to play along with feminist political rituals. The feminists can offer social enforcers, who can suppress the accounts of rape.

    IE, sacrificing a bunch of less elite women for the theoretical accomplishment of a smaller number of more elite women.

    I’ve come to understand, via all the stuffs of fractally wrong, that rejecting a lot of ‘common sense’ elements of tertiary style theory, are for me a religious calling. The Truth that Jesus is risen from the dead, and calling us away from sin, is precisely related to it being a sin to merrily discount other individuals in favor of worshipping this or that or the other theoretical idol.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I was apparently a bit excitable yesterday, but I could have worded some claims better.

      “behavioral tendencies in women” was not meant to be all women, and is definitely not all women that I know. I think it may be more often truer for some of the subsamples, and I know less about how true my subsample impressions actually are.

      Liked by 1 person

      2. I think you did just fine.

        Those of us who are trying to pay attention to reality recognize that various groups sharing one or more characteristics may *quite legitimately* be noted for exhibiting behavioral tendencies.

        Speaking of observed behavioral tendencies is not the problem, the problem usually arises in getting lazy in one’s thinking and acting as though those tendencies are entirely descriptive, even *prescriptive,* for the entire group in question.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. There are a lot of bitter harpies who have adopted “the cause” (and maybe a cat or twenty) in place of children.
        And they are rabid.

        It wasn’t some patriarchy that made Frau Merkel open the borders of not only Germany, but the EU.

        It wasn’t patriarchy that made an all female Swedish government declare themselves a moral superpower, and invite the rapists in.

        Like

  5. Apropos of nothing much, the weird 1700’s romance/sf/fantasy/politics writer, Eliza Haywood, also wrote a book called A Gift for a Servant-Maid, that is a nonfiction advice and instruction book for inexperienced servant girls.

    At the back, there’s an amazing section on how to choose good meat and fish at the market (which apparently includes sniffing kidneys and bird beaks, and also goes into how to prod meat to figure out if there’s something wrong with it).

    If you read this section, you will easily be able to understand that, duh, pre-modern people did get concerned about the freshness of what they ate. Because they didn’t want to get sick or have food taste nasty. Duh.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. But yeah, in the cooking section right after that, Eliza is a strong believer in boiling EVERYTHING. I thought that was a Victorian or Regency problem, but no.

      OTOH, given the amount of parasites that were probably in your pre-modern meat or fish, maybe it’s not a bad idea to boil everything, including that veal you just paid so much money for. At least, if you were in the economic tier where a maidservant was being sent to market and was also the cook.

      Maybe if you were a French chef in a wealthy household, you got access to a better class of London meat.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. So, Priscilla Presley asking Leslie Neilson “How hot and wet do you want it?” is just sensible Georgian advice?

        Like

  6. Nothing sends me more spare with suppressed fury than A – very silly women who believe that everything before the early 20th century was basically Handmaid slavery with powerless, helpless women, and B – present-day men who are so angry about that form of Capital-F Official Feminism (which they blame all kinds of woes on, rightfully or wrongfully) that they claim our right to vote out to be rescinded.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. They update from an outside source, instead of by evaluating against internally stored values.

        Internal storage could be out of date, or the evaluation step could err, and that would be taboo.

        And the performance creates the magic. So being unable to perform means not Doing Something TM.

        The schools are pretty bad, seemingly. The strong horse theatrical performers are also a bad influence on everyone.

        If a change in behavior can be expressed simply, it feels easier, and so it is easier to hypnotize oneself into thinking it feasible, productive, or desireable. Of course, a change expressed in a sentence or two is truncated, usually missing all of the higher order consequences of such a change.

        (Let me be more explicit. The archives of this blog document me doing, thinking, and saying a lot of stupid things. Mad technocratic loud-mouthery is definitely something that I have done too much of.

        It is disappointing that other people also still need to learn those lessons. I am still sinning in this way, also.

        It is also quite annoying with the recent lunatics, etc., but fixing my own stuff is a bit more productive.)

        Like

  7. How do I know Sarah is right? My favorite Saint is St Olga (look her up). If I need the Dragonette to stand up for herself, I offer to reach out on her behalf (you don’t want me having that conversation). When we started dating, I almost started a fight because someone was being an asshole to hubby’s kids (hubby – the Marine – wanted to let it go).

    Violence in defense of me and mine is just and right.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Oh, thank goodness. There’s a roasting section after the boiling one, and then there’s also stews and fricassees and puddings. And meat pies, yum! With a very good explanation of how to make a flakey, buttery piecrust, instead of one of those coffin crusts that medieval people favored.

    I was happy to learn that you can make a nice lamb and raisin pie.

    I was not happy to learn that neats’ tongues make the best minced meat. But she was already using a big quantity of raisins, currants, and apple along with the meat, so it’s a good transitional mincemeat pie description.

    Her secret apple pie ingredient was one quince for every six apples. Which does sound good, I won’t lie. And she has a very good idea of how to make other kinds of simple fruit pie (unlike the Great British Baking Competition people, yes, I’m pointing at you folks).

    There’s even a section on pancakes (UK crepe-type), fritters, and bacon and eggs (as a dish together, but she likes vinegar and pepper on her eggs).

    Apparently you’ve boiled a fresh fish enough when its eyes drop out of its head.

    Also you can tenderize meat by hitting it with a rolling pin. (Presumably a pre-modern skinny one that is just a stick, like the French use for pastry.)

    After all that, there’s a section on how to wash and get stains out of table linen.

    Seriously, this book talks about so much, including the ticklish question of how to deal with your boss’ husband hitting on you, and when to quit a job.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I second the quince-in-apple-pie! I came to it by experimentation, but it adds an incredibly delightful aroma and a little bit of extra flavor that takes said pie from good to Great.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. What the heck??? You can get fruit stains out by RUBBING THEM WITH BUTTER and then BOILING THEM IN MILK as a pre-treatment????

    I guess I missed that part of Downton Abbey….

    Also, she advises servants to let laundry water SETTLE FOR THREE OR FOUR DAYS BEFORE USE, because apparently London water fresh from the well would usually have a yellow cast that would mess with the table linen.

    Clay, maybe? Iron? Or the water table was already contaminated with poo?

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Hear, hear! I agree wholeheartedly. My feeling on your poster boy (after flying middle fingers) is that he has never interacted with a woman honestly. Either he is unmarried/attached, or attached to a woman who knows only how to manipulate him. Women in general, fight dirtier than a man understands. Have to, we aren’t as big and strong. That means more social manipulation, more backstabbing, more underhanded weaponry.

    I’ve had a close friend comment “God, I’m glad she’s a friend!” after watching me go after someone trying to fleece one of my sons. If I could have reached through the phone, he would have been singing soprano for life. Only comes out when the kids are threatened, though they are more than capable of handling themselves.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. I don’t often get the talking points 100% correct, so I try to remember to shut my pie hole and go back to the Book. Not often enough; but more so lately.

    I responded to what’s his name’s post the day he posted it. He’s just surrounded by people who “wanna look macho and #$%^”. But I agree he’s mostly correct. Like the rest of us, just needs a swift kick now and again to get back in our own lane.

    Like

  12. There’s general laundry hints too. It’s not just table linen (or undies). Also ironing and starching. Seriously, the explanations are very good here. And special explanations for muslin, lace, and silk stockings.

    And they’re already using bluing, to make whites look whiter.

    There’s also warnings to beware of being trafficked into prostitution, in the guise of being hired as a maid.

    https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Present_for_a_Servant_maid/_TonMhsOPHsC

    Seriously, this book is amazing as a resource.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I just started browsing the book on Google Books. The amazing thing is, this is a book for your basic maid. The ones everyone today, especially historical fiction writers, assumes would be illiterate. Unless the housekeeper taught lessons and read to the lower servants daily, the literacy of the day was much higher than is often currently assumed.

      But, then again, only 30 years after this pamphlet/book, the fairly literate Colonials across the pond were arguing in editorials and letters up and down the seaboard for and against taxation, rebellion, etc.

      Unfortunately, historical fiction still falls for the “lower classes are mostly illiterate” trap.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I think it depended. There were a lot of neighborhood women running teeny schools for the littlest kids, the whole Mother Goose, Gammer teaching school thing. So you’d learn your letters and numbers, and Bible stories, and basic stuff, and probably one kid in the family would teach the other kids. Poor kids whose parents were ambitious would go to those kinds of schools.

        Sending boys to grammar schools was much more serious, because they’d start learning Latin, and the teacher was almost always a man. (I think in some English places, they still had anti-nun laws against women teaching Latin, but I can’t remember anything solid about that.) There did start to be boarding schools for girls in a small way, but servants wouldn’t be going there. Future governesses, maybe yes. Either of those two school paths meant spending some cash.

        And after grammar school you’d either be working, or you’d be off to a more serious public school, and then to university, if you were male, and to some kind of finishing school or French convent school if you were a woman.

        There was that Georgian chick in Ireland who started a Protestant school for little kids in her area, but wouldn’t let Catholic kids attend it. It was good for the local Protestants, though.

        Like

        1. Future governesses, maybe yes. 

          The governess job, IIRC, was regarded at least in the 1800s as one of those jobs that a middle to upper class woman could do if she was widowed, unmarriageable for some reason, etc. that would be “proper”. So they might have gotten enough education to manage a household.

          Like

      3. I can’t speak for the 1700s. But even by the early 1800s, it’s believed that most people in the US were literate. And as someone observed the other day, the most commonly read book among American citizens at the time was the King James Bible.

        That literacy rate was likely superior to the one in the British Isles. But it still suggests that the idea of a largely illiterate population in the Isles isn’t correct.

        Like

        1. I don’t know what the specific locations for different uses of the term are, but in some cases “literate” meant Latin, not the local language.

          Like

  13. Apparently according to statistics, children of divorced or separated parents do better when the father has primary custody. I wonder if this is not just ‘survivor bias’? I.e. the system is so strongly predisposed to put the kids entirely with the mother, to the complete exclusion of the father, that any father who both has the inclination and capability to successfully navigated through it simply represents a far above average parent, rather than there being any underlying superiority of fathers to mothers for the average single parent?

    And with the number of thumbs on every single scale, I wonder just how much of everything we are seeing is some form of just that: survivor bias?

    Like

    1. Well… boys usually need a father as a model, and girls usually need a father to help them understand that men aren’t supposed to be scum. And maybe even some bad fathers fill the position of “head monkey” for helping your inner primate feel better.

      Of course, I suspect that abusive fathers will mess up everyone in the family, in a similar way.

      But yes, usually a father with custody has money, a good job, and maybe a stepmother. Plus the mother is probably likely to be unusually bad, or at least having big problems, if the father gets the kids. Maybe that makes the kids more likely to be happy about being with the father.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. We saw an old Lewis last night, and one of the mothers was described as “just this side of Medea”. Way too appropriate.

        Liked by 1 person

    3. I think it really depends on the Dad. From my personal observation, my son’s mental health improved drastically after the divorce and I gained custody. I don’t think he would be alive today if his Dad had gotten primary custody.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I can agree. It more seems to me that the current incentives are heavily aligned for the father to leave and more or less vanish from the kid’s life. And I suspect that mostly filters out the fathers who are not both highly motivated and capable.

        Which is why I’m thinking that is a signal of the tilt in the system, rather than necessarily anything intrinsic.

        Liked by 1 person

  14. My wife was a chemist. When she was in grad school, she went to one meeting of the women chemistry grad students. She heard lots of bitching about real grievances with the way they were treated by the male professors and grad students and asked, “Clearly we need to change the men’s behavior, so why don’t we invite them here to confront them with what they’re doing wrong?” That got her laughed out of the group, and she concluded that they were only interested in complaining and not solving any of the problems they were complaining about.

    She only ever had a problem with any man once, then she set him straight, but didn’t hold it against him if he changed his behavior. (She did the same to me BTW, and I appreciated it.) At one Christmas gathering of our extended family, she told me of watching all the other women in the kitchen, exchanging gossip and plotting, and thinking, “What a cabal of witches!” She had many female friends in her life, but preferred the company of men, saying they were much more straightforward about who they were and what they wanted.

    Like

    1. Heard of this. Never experienced it myself.

      Not even in the extended family. Trust me, I have a huge extended family on my side, or did. Grandma A, would not have put up with the above from anyone. That included her side (dad) and mom’s side because we had both families together every holiday, and family gathering.

      Seriously, when I married? What’s this we have to switch holidays between the two families, BS? I adapted. It was a bit of a shock.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. What a concept! Actually telling a man/men what is bothering them. Males seem to miss the import of subtle (and not so subtle) clues. They sense something is amiss but have no idea what it is, the reason for it, or what to do about it.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Men did not evolve to do subtle. “Ugg! Hit it with a rock! Gronk! Drive that spear into its ribs! Watch those horns! MOVE!” Clear, immediate, efficient communication. Subtle don’t get the job done. Subtle means everybody goes hungry.

        Liked by 2 people

          1. “Boy, the laundry sounds unbalanced.”

            Me, trying to put together one last piece packing something. “Uh-huh.”

            *Angrily gets up and messes with the washer.*

            Me, having just finished. “You didn’t say you wanted me to do something about it!”

            Liked by 1 person

            1. As the older one in my circle of friends, I used to provide Husband Translation Services for the guys who were dating or freshly married. Example: Guy gets up and starts walking away. Gal calls out “You going to the kitchen?” Me: “She wants you to get something from the kitchen for her. Ask what she wants.”

              Liked by 2 people

              2. Newly married couple:

                Her (out of the blue): We’re going to need a bigger truck.

                Him: What?

                Her: We’re going to need a bigger truck

                Him: We don’t need a bigger truck (goes off on the expense)

                Voices start rising.

                Me: She means when you have the kids.

                Liked by 2 people

      2. It’s amazing how useful the phrase “Men are not psychic” is.

        On a slight tangent, you know the term “feminine intuition”? Turns out it’s more accurately “subordinate intuition.” Basically, if you are in a lower position in the hierarchy, you’ll spend a lot more attention on the person or people above you, looking for clues as to what they need. The more dictatorial/abusive that person or people are, the more able you are to pick up subtle cues, because your life and safety literally depend upon it.

        There are also entire cultures based on indirectness, but in the US, we’re a mishmash of all interactive styles, so this is working on the assumption that you’re not from a purely indirect cultural background.

        So if you have to be hit with a clue-by-four in order to tell what’s going on, congratulations! You probably haven’t been in a nasty enough situation to have to pick up those subtle cues.

        (Autism and its neurological cousins are another scale entirely.)

        Liked by 1 person

        1. It’s amazing how useful the phrase “Men are not psychic” is.

          Like most things, it’s a two-way street– and it ties in to the “subordinate intuition” thing.

          I wish that it wasn’t so dang common for Things To Go Bad and the people in charge scream, “why didn’t anyone tell us?”

          And then, if you’ve been on this road enough times, you bring out the signed and responded to places where you, and a lot of other folks, did tell them.

          And were dismissed.

          I sat through a lot of very drunken rants where the guy says “she never said anything,” and every dang one of us knew she did, but he decided she didn’t Really Mean It, because…she hadn’t left, yet. So it couldn’t be that bad.

          :headdesks a lot:

          Liked by 2 people

        2. Trust me, I’ve been subordinate. (A LOT). It’s more a defect in perception. I get obsessed with “I’m doing this” and to get into my loop you have to hit me. HARD. Metaphorically. And then be SUPER CLEAR.

          Liked by 1 person

  15. It’s annoying I see “staunch conservatives” dislike getting scapegoated but turn out their real anger is people aren’t blaming their favorite scapegoats.

    But then I suspect they aren’t really conservatives, just disaffected leftists trying to infiltrate because they can’t engage in self-flagellation as the Left demands.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I think the existence of Real Conservatives TM, and the question of who can be the conservative police are ones that are kinda interesting.

      I find a lot of the newer ‘converts’ pretty suspect, as well as a lot of the established media people who found career more difficult to navigate.

      There is a subsidiarity argument that ideology and factions can and should be a pretty individual thing.

      IE, that people can aggree with me on specific points or for specific fights without committing themselves to never thinking I am wrong, or to committing themselves to thinking that I am always both sane and correct.

      I am not a life long whatever political, because I had no politics in the womb, and frankly my politics as a minor fails to be entirely impressive or sound (1). I am arguably not a staunch whatever, because I ensemble goals, and admit ‘goods’ that can at times be in conflict with one another. I’m too fanatic to easily see a lot of balanced market baskets of goods, and at the same time not fanatic enough for excellence as an extremist.

      (1) I have had an unhealthy relationships with politics for much of my adult life.

      Like

      1. Simple solutions to complex problems are always wrong.

        Today’s problems are the solutions to yesterday’s problems. Going back to yesterday’s problems will not be an improvement.

        Complex questions never have simple answers. Hell, most simple questions don’t have simple answers.

        “If everybody would just…!”

        Liked by 1 person

        1. And how many of us Have Not Thought “The world would be a better place if everyone did what I wanted them to do”?

          Note, I hope that most of us would realize that the above thought wouldn’t work out the way we think it would.

          Liked by 1 person

        1. To be painfully fair, there are a lot of things that have simple solutions. Easy ones, too. That anybody can see, and do.

          They don’t tend to stick around as problems, because it’s an easy fix that anybody can do that actually works.
          “The trash can is full.”
          “Oh, OK, I’ll go take it out.”

          Liked by 1 person

          1. There are also others, that are simple and easy, but perverse incentives keep them from being realized.

            Like securing the border. Becoming energy independent. Securing the voter rolls. Not funding obvious boondoggles. Not selling control of our ports. List continues.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. …. dude, no, those are not “easy.” They can be described as simple, but holy crud, those are a lot of work, and upkeep.

              Like

      3. Calling for a Franco, a RETVRN to The Glory of Rome and a bunch of other things that will likely get them kneeling in front of a ditch while minions of some dictator they helped get into power chamber a round? Yeah, very simple. :-o

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Calling for a Franco just goes to show how ignorant they are. Franco ended up in a civil war that the other side pushed into being. He had been put in figurative exile in a remote command where it was believed he wouldn’t be able to interfere with the plans of the leftists, only to build his place of exile into a solid powerbase. And he ascended to leadership of the Nationalists only after the deaths of the three other men who might have taken the spot – two in plane crashes, and one executed by the communists. He effectively fell into the position of power that caused him to lead the Nationalists to victory in the civil war.

          No, if we ended up with a dictator, it would likely be someone who had been maneuvering for the job for a long time.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. One thought about Franco.

            Others may have won the war, but he was able to “win the peace”.

            He kept Spain out of WW2 while keeping Hitler out of Spain and was able to make peace with the Allies after Hitler was gone.

            Best of all, he arranged for Spain to become non-Fascist after his death.

            Not a nice guy but Spain could have had a worse leader.

            Like

            1. And my gut feeling is that part of it is because he fell into the job instead of being the kind of person who had actively maneuvered for it beforehand.

              Liked by 1 person

  17. The Jacksie whom you screencapped would have been far nearer the truth (and his PROPER use of ‘feminine’ later indicates this might be nearer what he had hoped to convey) if he’d used ‘effeminate’ in the first sentence. Femininity, as I recall, is a property of women and ladies. Effeminacy, by contrast, pertains essentially to catamites.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. “The right the left is trying to make ascendant — which is what they always thought we were, but now know at some level we aren’t, and that terrifies them — is just as authoritarian as the left, and is what the left keeps accusing us of: sexist, racist, homophobic.”

    Yes, I agree. Because holy cr@p some of the howlers I’m seeing out there from “The Right”…

    I was raging on about this the other day. Some loonie at a “conservative” paper/blog/whatever was saying A) that young people’s disposable income has been rising since 2000 and B) they all waste it on k-pop and stuffie keychains instead of spending it on their households and getting married/ going to church/etc. Can’t remember the outlet or the writer, some woman or other. I think I posted a big long rant here.

    This is exactly the kind of “Conservative” a Lefty would conjure up, some kind of droid that bangs on about nothing but religion and family purity and baking bread.

    So your contention that we’re starting to see this type of crap because it’s enemy action, this definitely rings a bell with me.

    Besides which, the Left and the Right forms a circle. You keep going Left and you find yourself on the Right. Totalitarian central planning and control of the masses are the same on both sides, only the flag changes colour.

    For true -radicalism- that will really shake the squares, try proposing a tax cut. You’ll start taking fire from all sides.

    That’s how you know you’re over the target. [Insert pic of Slim Pickens riding the b0mb from Dr. Strangelove.] YEEEEE Haw!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Well, left of the communist variety seems to sync to a central ‘clock’, desync into warring factions when they lose the clock, and have a bunch of strong horse reasoning.

      Stalin broke the clock a bit, and not only Trotsky, but also Hitler and Musoulini.

      The big problem with Biden and Harris for the American left is in so obviously being weak horses, when the theory demands that there be strong horses doing the magic. They doubt inside, and find themselves drifting to seek a strong horse.

      They’ve told themselves that they have to do X, because Trump is a bad but strong horse. So they presume that he is a stronger horse than many Trump backers did. They identify as thinking that politics is of primary importance, and solely a simple problem of good and evil. Politics is important to them enough that the good or evil in their reckoning is cosmetic and pro forma.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. Houses were expensive, and a bunch of venture capitalists went and bought most of the houses. And the kids have student loans, although at least now the loans and payments on them are no longer taxable.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Yeah, but the interest rates are higher.

        My eldest has been told that the only way he’s immediately entering a four-year college upon graduation is if the school is paying for it. He is an insanely good academic-STEM prospect, and if they don’t acknowledge that, they don’t want him enough. Student loans are a mug’s game now.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. School loan interest rates in the mid to late ’70s were the same percentage as it would have been for the parent’s plus loans for our son late ’00s. Difference? Ten year 6% annual, fixed, start 6 months after graduation (or quitting), on $9k ($29/month, worked like standard house or car loan), is a whole lot different than 6% monthly variable, payment starting immediately on distribution, for loans on school costs that started at $19k/year and increased each year for the next 5 years; we got off cheap. “Still only 6%.” My thoughts on the parents plus loan scam are not printable without a lot of censoring. We, the 3 of us, got him through without loans.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Acknowledging that in the last decade+, since we got our son through, college costs and loan options, have not improved.

            Also, start looking for scholarships and cash awards, now and through the college years. You do not know how much those little $500 small awards helped. “Oh, good! Books just got paid.”

            Youngest sister and BIL took the “pre-pay discounted rate for class credits” to pay for all 3 of their children to get through college. But they still had to pay fees, books, and room and board. Youngest two got some help with campus jobs or late (senor year) sport scholarships. It’s not like they didn’t pay for those credits, just they’d been paying for credits since that option became available through 529 state option (oldest was 2?). By the time their youngest was a senor, the “banked credits” had ran out and they were paying current per credit. Any 529 presumes there will be someone in the future using the funds for college. Otherwise penalties happen when withdrawn. Huge problem, IMO.

            Like

    3. AlextheChick (former Moron over at Ace’s blog, and frequent poster on X) copied a post just the other day on X where an older woman (possibly a boomer, though I don’t recall for certain) was mocking a twenty-something for working two jobs so that she could (among other things) afford to have dish towels that matched. How wasteful!

      There appears to be a disconnect of sorts right now between older generations – particularly the boomers – and the younger generations, where the older people assume that things are just like they were when the older people became adults. So you can get a used car that’ll run decently for several hundred dollars, and find a fixer-upper home in the city for reasonable amounts of money. You might have to scrimp and save, and skip extravagant expenses like matching dish towels. But you can make it work. And if you can’t, it’s your fault.

      This is not going over well with the younger folks because the cheap used cars and the affordable fixer-upper homes at a reasonable price don’t exist – at least not in a neighborhood where sirens aren’t heard every night.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Affordable fixer upper homes also still exist in small towns and rural areas — or at least they did 4 1/2 years ago when we bought ours — as do reasonably affordable used cars of late 90s through mid 2000s vintage. However, they tend to be located in areas where the economy isn’t all that great and jobs don’t pay as much. Our affordable fixer upper home is in a very small (under 400 population) downstate Illinois farm town where a lot of local jobs have dried up in the past 20 years. There are still young families in town and a K-5 school, and we actually do see kids out on the street riding bikes, playing ball, etc. with no adults in sight; but most residents are probably over 50 (like us) and if/when the school closes or consolidates with a bigger district that will probably be the end of that town.

        Like

      2. Yeah. We sometimes have trouble with this, and we had our share of troubles earlier in life. But picking up real estate flyers for local housing in our small town is very educational.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. One of the things I keep having to point out to folks– my age or younger, even!– is that getting two jobs is difficult because most entry level jobs do not do regular schedules. And it’s horrifyingly common to schedule as if you are trying to actively induce health issues in people, such as having your two longest shifts of the week with a six-ish hour gap in the middle of the night.

        Liked by 1 person

        2. 20+ years ago, there was a job that I took where one of the things they told me at the hiring interview was that the schedule wouldn’t be the same every day, but it would be consistent week-to-week. Even then, managers at a lot of places would only come up with the schedule the week before, so this was a definite planning perk.

          The fact that there are places now that will change the schedule the day before or even the day of is horrifying.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Did they stick with it?

            I’ve heard a lot of folks who got hired at a lower rate exactly because “the schedule is set in stone, no changes, and yes we can form it around these absolutely required things that you listed out.”

            And it lasts maybe a month before they’re being randomly moved around.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. I kept that job for a couple of years before I moved out of state. They only changed things well in advance, with permission. That company as a whole went down the tubes, but our GM was awesome and fought the stupid as long as he could stand it.

              Like

        3. Yeah. About the only way most people can get two part-time jobs that don’t eventually have conflicting schedules is if one is exclusively during the day, and the other involves working a night shift that others don’t particularly want to work (and thus management is all too happy to schedule an employee that *wants* to work at night).

          Your sleep schedule is going to be a mess, though.

          It’s also worth noting that many employers are actively hostile toward the idea of one of *their* employees holding down a second job – even if they’re only giving the employee ten hours a week.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. “noting that many employers are actively hostile toward the idea of one of their employees holding down a second job – even if they’re only giving the employee ten hours a week.“

            –

            Even when the other “employer” is college classes. Or reverse. Did not have any problem with employers, partly because when in school second round it was the employer who pushed me into going back. Then when they moved, the second employer I hired on half time and they knew I was in school full time. Now, other students OTOH, …. Those that were also working, no problem. Those that weren’t? OMG! PIA x10.

            Liked by 1 person

      5. None of that was true when WE were starting out, and we married early, so we hit “last of boomers”. Houses were expensive, etc.
        BUT at least the job market wasn’t cacked.

        Like

        1. Depends on where you were back then.

          Even recent history. All 4 of the married nieces have owned homes, in fact one niece has two homes (not for long, it is the whole buy bigger, move, sell older, pay back down payment borrowed to get upgrade. Inlaws for the loan, but reality check, either set of parents could have.) All 4 have (had, suspect the “new loan” will be refinanced as soon as rates start dropping) very small interest rates. All the homes are in the greater Portland, Oregon/Vancouver, Washington metro. The other two nieces are renting studio apartments (Portland, OR) and nephew has an apartment (type unknown, Madison, WI).

          What is interesting currently is the whine from local PTB. Seems the older folks aren’t selling and downsizing, allowing families to move into the school neighborhoods. Our neighborhood still has very few families with children. More now than when we moved in. More families now because grandma or grandpa, has either died, or been moved into assisted living and the house sold; about half of them to families. Neighbor just sold, young couple, no kids, yet. Why are we old folks not selling and downsizing? Because we’d be spending as much or more than we can sell for, for interest rates we don’t want to pay; why would anyone do that? Same happening in mom’s and my sister’s neighborhoods. Full disclosure? We just added sprinkler system, redid roof, new countertops, painted exterior, will be doing interior painting (I ever get off my ass to do so, I despise painting) and due for new flooring (out with carpets!!!!!!). We are not moving … Ever.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Job market not cracked?

            Depends on where you were. PNW between Helen and Owl, jobs weren’t easy. Even computers/IT despite being the “mini-silicon-valley”. Better then than now locally. At least now options to work remote, or were. Reality I lived. Retired now so really out of touch with job market.

            Like

  19. To your original point, anyone who thinks the female is the gentler of the sexes has never appeared to be threatening(and sometimes not even) whilst coming between a female and her cub(s) – human or otherwise. Try picking up a new born kitten if the momma doesn’t know you . . .

    Liked by 1 person

  20. I saw that post on X and it bothered me, a lot, but I was having trouble articulating an answer. Your answer said every thing I was going to, and more concisely. Many thanks.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Too many women and men both think that the opposite sex should shut up, do the chores, and be compliant. I don’t think it’s a chromosome thing, more like a power thing.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. (This is half-said in jest, but there may be a kernal of truth in it?) So essentially, a preference cascade needs to be set off to channel the craziness of women into at least pretending to act in ways that are not destructive to the continuation of civilization? We’d rather not have a return of barbarism, but there is a limit to how long the purple-haired man-hating cat ladies can screech before society itself is endangered (via population collapse) and men start to become barbarians again. Of course this only works if women stop thinking of their cowed soyboys as “high-status” and there are enough men showing an alternative “high-status.”

    Like

    2. It would help if everyone dug out manners again. Stop casually swearing every fourth word, talking on the phone in public, and dress like you actually respect people around you. I don’t want to see anyone’s underwear in public. Ever.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Stop lecturing the girl who’s repeatedly mentioned how she wishes she could get a date and that she wishes more guys were like you about how there aren’t any available women. (Haven’t had that one happen to me, have seen it.)

        If you ask for a direct answer, don’t be brutal when they give it to you, especially if they double-checked and made sure there wasn’t anyone else watching. (Done that one a few times.)

        Stop blaming other folks for your own bad taste in temporary mates. (“WOW! I exclusively date whores or man-whores ,why is absolutely every one of them a whore?!?” Everyone else: headdesk)

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Man, if some guy told me that first one, I’d put him permanently in the “will never be interested, don’t even try” category.

          Like

    3. Swap out “women” for “normies”, and you’re basically describing the transition that’s going on right now. “Winning” means convincing the people who follow the crowd that your side is ascendant.

      Liked by 1 person

    4. Hours have passed between you posting and me reading, but I’m offering my $0.02 anyway.

      The purple-haired man-hating cat ladies are self-limiting – they will die alone and lonely and *not* having left behind a large family that loves them.

      If men choose to become barbarians because of the purple-haired man-hating cat ladies, that’s still a choice.

      I think we should be more concerned about the young and about people who may be nearly ready to #Walkaway. Yes, tell them true things. But be absolutely certain that those things are true.

      Liked by 1 person

  24. having society demand gentler men is in women’s interest.

    as it makes women getting badly hurt by men less likely.

    and let woman’s societal pressure enforce this.

    like in the temperance movement.

    but the rest of his points are just evil ideology that has nothing to do with gender.

    Like

      1. Then why attach the word “feminine” to it? It didn’t originate with women. It’s not an actual “female/feminine” strategy historically. Marx, Engles, and Lenin were most decidedly not women. The only reason to call it “feminine” is to attempt to attach it to women for purposes of blame.

        Liked by 1 person

  26. Another ‘mass’ shooting today and all I could think was:

    Of course it’s in Manhattan where all the sheep are disarmed, and

    Of course all the Leftroids are going to bleat for Moar Gun Control, like that has ever worked in the whole history of the whole history.

    Other than that, it has taken over the media and they just keep repeating the same few facts over and over and over. Even Fox.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. I am reminded once again of the article that appeared a while back in one of the (British, I think) newspapers, written by a woman who had decided she was going to do the feminist thing, and start a media company that only employed women. And how EVERY SINGLE DAY there was another woman crying in the bathroom due to the antics of one of that woman’s co-workers. And the only days there weren’t women crying in the bathroom were the days when men (brought in for contracted work) were in the offices. When that happened, the women all became the sweetest, nicest, most attentive individuals you ever might see – albeit sometimes mixed with sexual assault (the author recorded one instance in which one of the female employees grabbed the hand of the male contractor she was pursuing and basically forced his hand onto her breast; the author also noted that the female employee’s tactics worked in the long run with this particular contractor).

    Like

  28. There is also a running claim that women don’t think through things and plan for the future, only men do…… I have to wonder how exactly they think families function.

    Liked by 1 person

    2. If these people could see inside my head, they’d see plans, contingency plans, and plans within plans to cover the rest of my life. Even more once the kids started coming. Even if most of the plans don’t end up being used, they served their purpose as backup options.

      These are people who have never truly met a woman.

      Liked by 2 people

  29. I don’t often agree with Mrs. Hoyt’s columns, but I fully disagree with this one. The current leftist push is driven 100% by women, and by feminism. The single largest voting issue they have is their demand to kill their children. They drug themselves with hormonal birth control that messes with their heads from childhood. They primarily go along with the agenda set forth by the media as the mainstream one, as it is part of the feminine survival instinct: submit to your conquerors for your own survival. The facts are, women are the primary voting block for the Marxists. Every single poll and analysis shows this. Women are the ones standing around cheering as men beat them in sports. Women are the ones saying they pick the bear and living their lives with nothing but hatred for men. No, it is not all women. But it is primarily women. If it were only men, this movement would have died before it was born.

    As would every other Communist and socialist movement. “It was always women who were the most faithful adherents to the Party” -1984.

    Like

    2. So you are exactly as fucked in the head as the trans advocates: looking at obvious men and calling them women.

      Also the pro-life movement is primarily women. Because gullible men like you went along with it because the left told you they own all women and define what women want.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. 100% –

        The poster is a dang troll.

        (Made sure to read all the responses before commenting. Everyone said it better I would. And without the profanity. I’m not that good with profanity, even written, I’d have to look for words.)

        Liked by 1 person

    5. So…not all women, but some women, form a movement that is primarily women, so we can define all women by the insanity of some women, and therefore we can control the destinies of all women.

      Which is, of course, the goal and intent of the best of men, like yourself, who only want what is best for all women, and by this convoluted logic eliminate from existance those women who do not conform to your vision.

      Idiot.

      Liked by 2 people

    7. I think you missed the young women who have voluntarily tanked fencing and swimming careers to protest having to compete with trans. And all their families supporting them. And the large numbers of women who want all this to stop – and voted for Trump.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. Ah yes. *Nod* Also failing to ask “Cui bono?” Who benefits from women being beaten over the head from kindergarten on that they need to conform to this death-cult?

          Why, it couldn’t possibly be men who prefer easy access to sex without consequences, not to mention evil people of both sexes (see Hillary and others) who profit off others’ misery. Right?

          When you see evil being done systematically, find out who’s pulling the strings. And then find ways to mock them relentlessly. If, that is, you actually want to solve the problem instead of indulging in “X group is all culpable and I am so morally pure I will Do Nothing.”

          Liked by 1 person

      2. Pro-lifers, too. And that’s just the spokesmen.

        Pretty much any organized group is going to have a lot of women making it work.

        Because women do tend to end up in the “maintaining” areas, while guys tend to end up in the “Specific Goal” areas. Both sexes need to do both things–JUST DO IT!– and yes you have to take out the trash preferably without being nagged even if you’re gurr big strong man!, but it’s a tendency.

        Liked by 1 person

    8. …and your “right-wing” response is collective blame, a common left-wing tactic.

      Because you’re a staunch conservative of course…

      Liked by 1 person

        1. Or the classic Moby (I mention that a lot, but then I keep seeing stuff like this) going “hey I’m a Staunch Conservative let me suggest something that Marxists or other Leftist propose as a Solution to the Problem… but I’m still a Staunch Conservative. Really.” (…does WordPress have the eyeroll emote like X has?)

          Liked by 1 person

      2. is english a second language for everyone here ? The “offending” text NEVER once blames a group or a GENDER for anything … you are making up a strawman just toi burn it down …

        Like

        3. … here, I’ll quote the part you seemed to miss:

          Also he’s tweeting this in reply to some ass saying he wants socialism now. Femininity and feminism have nothing to do with this, except in the sense that feminism is a small portion of Marxism (yes, it is. It was from the beginning. Fighting for equal rights under the law is not what “feminism” is, nor is “feminism” aiming for that at any time.)

          What in heaven’s name made him jump from “socialism” to “femininity”? There are some rats in head there that have been carefully planted at a guess by mobis pretending to be on our side.

          Let me make it very clear: Marx was NOT A WOMAN. Communism is in no way feminine. In fact, using women to advance their purposes was a brilliant move for destroying the west.

          So, care to respond to the actual words?

          Like

  30. Pingback: Instapundit » Blog Archive » I DON’T NORMALLY SWEAR IN MY BLOG POSTS. BUT ENOUGH IS ENOUGH:  No Scapegoats.

  31. So this explains why I keep seeing all those comments on Instapundit calling for repeal of the 19th Amendment…

    Liked by 1 person

    1. …. and it also explains Orwell’s “It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party” quote from “1984” (women attaching themselves to the high status group). Insty commenters love to trot out this quote ad nauseam on any post concerning crazy feminazi activists, but more often than not, they seem to be citing it as “evidence” that all women are inherently irrational crazies who should never have been allowed to vote or get anywhere near any position of power.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. John Derbyshire has commented that when he was living in the “People’s” “Republic” of “China” back in the early 1980s (just a few years after Mao’s death) if he wanted to know what the latest twist in the Party line was, he would go and ask his female acquaintances. They were always up on the latest turn in orthodoxy.

        Liked by 1 person

  32. It’s so easy to blame groups, not individuals. There’s a reason identity politics works (for some definition of “works”).

    The Left has been screaming “white patriarchy” for so long. Is it any surprise that it’s coming into existence (or “forefront”, if you prefer)? If you’re going to do the time, may as well do the crime.

    That’s not in any way good, but it’s hardly surprising.

    Like

  33. Thinking further, I wonder if the root problem is we’ve got a social structure that punishes women select minorities for growing up and treats men as pariahs?

    So the average female never gets the opportunity to grow up, and the average male grows up seeing the females around him treated and acting like privileged children.

    What I don’t know is what, if anything, to do about all the adult children wandering around now. I suppose the first step is still to bring down the bureaucracy that’s been acting as their fake parents and hope they figure it out on their own?

    The bitter pill about all of this has been the slow dawning realization that even once ‘my’ side wins, I’ll still be a pink ape, still apart from the tribe.

    What was that saying? Life’s a bitch and then you die? Certainly feeling that right now.

    Like

    1. Being officially a woman and a minority, I can TELL YOU they hate us with a burning passion. Us who stand out. So most women don’t. Most women pretend. It’s safer for their kids.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I would argue that keeping someone in a helpless childlike state is not mutually exclusive from hating them with a burning passion.

        I have seen the ones who were hiding, as you say. And I’ve seen ones that never had a chance to know anything else. And I have seen the ones that do not care that there could be anything else so long as they are part of the thing now.

        Those last ones scare me. I cannot wrap my head around how they think. As near as I can tell, they are simply running a fundamentally incompatible value set to my own.

        And now there’s a big push for mass age verification online, which I expect will function as mass identity verification. Scan your face or your state ID to gain access to anything considered inappropriate for younger audiences, Tea style…

        Liked by 1 person

          1. Absolutely. I just don’t have any idea what to do with or about them. Every plan that starts with ‘get rid of X, I and Z’ always ends pretty horrifically. The only thing I can think of is ‘create a society where The Thing is truth, justice and freedom’

            But they will still be doing it because it is the thing, not because they believe or even understand it. And I fear they are the lion’s share of people too.

            I suppose that is really what’s eating me, knowing that whatever the outcome, the best I can be is part of the island of misfit toys. But that’s also not the worst outcome, either.

            “Hey sarge, how’d I get dragged into this?”

            “You ‘volunteered’.”

            “…Right.. Guess if I couldn’t take a joke, I shouldn’t have joined.”

            Liked by 1 person

            1. “But they will still be doing it because it is the thing, not because they believe or even understand it. And I fear they are the lion’s share of people too.”

              You have to make peace with that. Some percentage of people are just going to follow the crowd. Some of them are wired that way, and others haven’t bumped into anything to make them care. That’s okay. The West has been successful largely because we’ve found ways to get people to do the right things for the wrong reasons. It’s one of the basic principles of Christianity, capitalism, and the Constitution.

              Liked by 1 person

        2. Which, as we already saw with Tea, will be the largest security hole you ever saw, for the average person, and bypassable for anyone with modest skills.

          Liked by 1 person

      2. Women do a lot of support– and they’ve spent generations trying to insist that women need to be able to single-handedly fight off a mob of folks stronger than her, or she’s weak and worthy of being a victim. Totally deserves it.

        Isn’t it “strange” how this just happens to strip their targets of a support network?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. “Why’d you start a fight with ten other people?”

          Me as an undersized junior high student, staring at the principal, driven mute by bruises, shock, and adrenaline. Thinking: (You cannot possibly be that stupid.)

          Apparently they could, or at least be wilfully ignorant, because it was far more convenient for them to blame one ostracized kid than accept they had a school in which mobs of students would single out one to beat.

          Liked by 1 person

  34. The feminist movement reminds me of the nineteenth- and early twentieth-century temperance movement. Both started out with some good points and were trying to deal with some real problems. (As the son of two alcoholics, I know what booze can do to a family. But I was reading a social history of early America and showed my father a description of how much people drank in pre-Civil-War America as a matter of routine. His eyes went wide, and he said: “Those people would have had me on the floor!”) Alcohol did and does a lot of damage, and I honestly can’t blame people for wanting to Do Something about it.

    But unfortunately, temperance got largely taken over and used as a skin-suit by women whose primary, even if only subconscious, motivation was not to ameliorate the evils alcohol does—but to get back at men. This led us to Prohibition, with bad results we’re still dealing with a century later. Same for feminism. Once the real problems had been dealt with as much as they could be, the sane ones went on to do other things, and the ones who were still in the movement were the ones with a permanent mad-on at men. Many modern militant feminists would have been marching with the WCTU back in the day.

    Like

    1. Now extend that to women’s rights, minority rights, gay rights, labor unions — basically, any movement that can portray itself as Oppressed! vs. Oppressors. In the beginning, they can do a lot of good, but the most fanatical activists are constitutionally incapable of declaring victory and moving on. Their entire identity is dependent on The Great And Glorious Struggle. They have to find (or invent) new giants to tilt at after the old ones have been defeated. Hence the ‘trans’ activism; gays aren’t sufficiently Oppressed! any more.

      Liked by 1 person

  35. I see what you’re saying, Sarah . . . but as a practical matter, is there really much daylight between you and the potential Lefty agent provocateur you quote? He’s saying women are innately inclined to Leftist behavior, you’re saying that women are innately inclined to be conformist and defer to high status, which for the past half century has meant Leftism.

    In practice, their idea leads to either “blackpill” despair or “reasserting male authority” (how that is to be accomplished left unspecified). Your idea leads to either the same despair or “making conservative ideas high status” which seems about as easy to accomplish.

    Either way you have to completely capture and reform the media, primary and secondary education, the universities, government bureaucracies at all levels, and popular culture. Simple!

    I think I understand why Elon Musk wants to colonize Mars. It’s the simplest option.

    Like

    1. There is a ton of daylight. We didn’t get here “because vagina”. We got here because the Marxists worked to change what was considered “high class.”
      FYI that’s ALREADY changing, and women are changing with it.
      It’s not ALL women of course, and this applies more to “What we say in public” than how we think and vote.
      He’s an idiot who thinks women are somehow inately evil. Men are conformists too, just less inclined to pay lip service in public.
      And no, we’re not sweetness, ligth and inclined to love of our enemies.

      Like

      1. and that guys post never once blamed women for anything … you created that strawman to burn it down …

        Like

      1. But then this raises the question, “How did women switch to Leftism in the first place?” If they enforce conformity and status, then why support this nonconforming movement which upended existing status arrangements? And if the answer is “because Leftists in charge of education, media, government, and culture persuaded them to,” then we’re right back to the blackpill position that the enemy is everywhere and all-powerful.

        Like

        1. No, we really aren’t; because time exists and society changes across that dimension.

          Trying to fight against communists in 1925 was a hopeless battle reduced to pathetic rearguard actions. Trying to defend communism in 2025 is an equally hopeless battle involving equally pathetic rearguard actions.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. But then this raises the question, “How did women switch to Leftism in the first place?”

          That demands the question, “why are you acting like even a sizable portion did”?

          Seriously, who is telling you this?

          Would it, by chance, be…the guys selling their position as high status?

          Who have spent so long saying all the counter examples don’t count that it’s been a joke for decades that so and so is “not a real woman”?

          Why are you believe the folks who insist a dude in a dress is a real woman, but a mother of 6 who refuses to kill one of them for being disabled is not?

          Liked by 2 people

          1. That demands the question, “why are you acting like even a sizable portion did”? 

            Seriously, who is telling you this?

            The voting statistics. The Dem party, and every communist left wing party in the Weat, has women voters as their primary demographic. The female swing to leftism in all age groups is well documented. These parties would not exist if it weren’t for women supporting them.

            No, it’s not all women. But it is a majority of them. The stats on any election in the West tell you this. Yes, women are leading some fights, and especially the fight against abortion, but women caused it as well. There would be no men in women’s sports without the majority of women cheering it on.

            Women are not “forced” to vote for Dems. They do it because for the majority of women, killing their kids is a sacred ritual. The Dems are spending tens of millions of dollars trying to figure out how to win back young men because they already own the majority of women, and the opposition to their insanity is coming from men.

            Yes, any discussions using generalities is going to necessarily talk about people who are in a group who do not match those generalities. I’m sure there are even some leftists that are not completely insane. But to pretend that this is not a consequence of feminism, and not driven PRIMARILY by women, is ignoring every bit of data on the subject that we have.

            Like

                  1. Well, I’m 65+ and have been on the internet for a while, but I had to look it up.

                    But then I never heard of the Rock Star that the term is named after.

                    Like

                    4. In 2004, the performer Moby suggested going onto conservative forums, claim to be conservative and be disappointed with W because he paid a girlfriend to have an abortion. Was a lie, but the idea was to sow discontent/misinformation amongst their enemies in the hope it would cost W a few votes.

                      Not long after every conservative platform was full of Lifelong Republicans and Concerned Christians who were supportive of things that sounded like it was pulled from the DNC platform or Communist Manifesto.

                      Liked by 1 person

            2. BS

              Polls are flat out manipulated. At best they poll takers are being punked. The election polls were way off. People lied. If I was called? I’d lie through my teeth. Mom would. Sister would. Mom’s friends would. Even most of the nieces, now that they are over 30, married, and children futures to protect. Just in certain circles I know of mom’s friends, they would lie too. The only meeting where you can discuss politics, not an ounce of TDS, and ridicule the usual demorat suspects and not take backlash. Yes, I know of other poor souls who have bad case of TDS. They have no idea I voted for him. I am not stupid.

              Like

              1. People lied. If I was called? I’d lie through my teeth.

                To add to this: There is No Such Thing as an anonymous poll. Doesn’t exist. Consider that the poll takers have to keep track of the numbers they have called, even past the end of the poll, so they don’t call them again too soon. If they have the phone numbers, they can mine out your data.

                Liked by 1 person

                2. I might have told them I’d crawl over broken glass sprayed with lemon juice to vote Obama out of office. Even if his opponent was Satan. At least I’d vote for HONEST evil.

                  Like

                  1. … you *do* realize that, had you recorded that call, you could have put the mp3 up on itunes and we’d all have bought it, right?

                    Like

                3. What? And have them confirm I’m a crazy cat lady? Oops.

                  Also, they’d be wrong. Hubby and son are worse than I am. Five cats and hubby has talked about getting kittens to raise upstairs with the semi-feral adult cat brought home from the golf coarse. Because he’s “lonely”. He and the other 4 have a mutual house division pact.

                  But I am the type who’d get the text/email “Give us money or we’ll expose all your pictures online!” When all my pictures, online and off, are of the pets! Or the wildlife pics taken. I mean, seriously?

                  Liked by 1 person

            3. The voting statistics.

              We have a secret ballot. There are no “Voting Statistics”. We can in some states see if people voted at all, but not for whom.

              There are either verbal surveys done as people leave the book, or phone surveys. Both of which then take the data and manipulate it based off of a bunch of assumptions to get what is then reported. Not usually tested in those states where you can find out age and sex of voters.

              Especially not since literal physical assault has been on the table for saying the “wrong” thing for longer than I’ve been alive.

              They’ve been scrambling to explain this since I was a kid in the ’80s– “oh, well, we projected this result, but the actual result was totally different. All those ‘likely voters’ must have decided not to show up, or a bunch of people who weren’t going to vote did’. And that’s besides the known fraud.

              Liked by 1 person

                1. Yeah, at most we can say “this registration voted.”

                  …there use to be a regular thing in Washington where folks got a ballot for their dog.

                  You know, funny, heart warming story, ha ha how funny.

                  Made me wonder how many of the dogs voted.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  3. In Oregon the best supposedly they can do is who was mailed ballots and what ballots were returned. Supposedly not how various ballots were voted. Not 100% it is the ballot itself that is tracked, but the signed, dated, envelope the ballot is mailed back in.

                    Liked by 1 person

                2. Sarah, voting laws, just like gun laws, are so local that it’s impossible to know without looking by state. In Texas, when we vote in person, the process is that we literally have to sign the voter roll as we’re given the ballot.

                  But….

                  Absentee has a different process. Someone still has to sign it, but there’s no poll worker there.

                  And finally, it doesn’t matter nearly as much what the laws written somewhere are, as how they get enforced. And in the deep blue cities like Houston, the shenanigans are epic.

                  Liked by 1 person

                    1. Add Oregon, Washington, and California. Now all 3 have super majority demorat house and senate, with a demorat governor. And baring a miracle it will not get better. The ONLY thing stopping Oregon’s governor is the state constitution. And there have been attempts to work around that.

                      Like

            4. Yes, any discussions using generalities is going to necessarily talk about people who are in a group who do not match those generalities. I’m sure there are even some leftists that are not completely insane. But to pretend that this is not a consequence of feminism, and not driven PRIMARILY by women, is ignoring every bit of data on the subject that we have.

              The problem is that you are not looking at the data, much less testing it.

              At some point, when you end up dismissing every point along the way that does not come from people who hate you and want you to believe they speak for All Women, you are responsible for the lies you’ve accepted.

              Try looking — well, anywhere that isn’t curated by these people who hate you.

              Look at the March for Life.

              Look at the actual crowd– yes, there are a lot of guys in some locations.

              Because that’s where the violent opposition is.

              Get a good look at the zoom out, and you find it’s mostly women.

              The opposite shows up at progressive protest/riots– there is a face level of women, and behind them a bunch of dudes.

              But you’re believing the folks who tell you that the second one is where “most” women are?!

              Liked by 1 person

              1. Look at the March for Life.

                Look at the actual crowd– yes, there are a lot of guys in some locations.

                Because that’s where the violent opposition is.

                Get a good look at the zoom out, and you find it’s mostly women.

                The opposite shows up at progressive protest/riots– there is a face level of women, and behind them a bunch of dudes.

                That’s an interesting dichotomy. And typical apparently: The leftists using women as shields, rather than shielding them from attack.

                Liked by 1 person

                1. Dates back to the 60s ant-war movement: “Chicks Up Front!”

                  Based on the fact that men are trained not to hit women. Not sure it still works.

                  In Ringo / Kratman’s “Watch on the Rhine”, they put in a scene where it even still worked on the “decent” former SS Sergeant.

                  Liked by 1 person

              2. Yes. Because I also see how they handle everything. Their entire political system is built around hating men and worshipping women. The Dem party literally had their entire website with every group they support, and “men” were not on it, though women were. They spent twenty million dollars trying to connect with men because their party politics are literally just “straight white men are evil” a thousand times over.

                The leftist culture of hating on men is so ingrained it is one of the most basic aspects of their movement, and modern women, for the majority, are supportive of it.

                And sure, women started the Walk for Life, and every other anti-abortion movement out there. They’re also the ones out killing more humans than every war combined with abortions. Roe was a woman, remember?

                Who do you think watches The View? The show that shilled for both Biden and Kamala and calls men useless multiple times per day? It’s the most watched show among women. Who makes millions of TikTok vids screaming about how the world ended when Trump was elected? The same demographic making videos about choosing the bear, because they don’t believe men do anything good, because that’s what they’ve been taught their entire lives.

                Which demographic has a legal advantage in courts? Has an advantage in universities and schools? Has an advantage in being hired? It’s women. There are literally quotas to promote them in everything, they are automatically assumed to be the right in any legal case (especially a divorce), and they primarily vote for the party that continues to further their own institutional power.

                The majority (which, keep in mind, could be as low as 51% and still be a majority, though it’s actually more like 60-65%) of women support every leftist movement and cause. They are the teachers putting up Pride flags and sexualizing kids. They are the ones demanding we show empathy to illegals and let them freely invade. Yes, that means there are tens of millions of women who are against it. But it also means that there are tens of millions more who support it.

                Like

                1. At no point did you bother to engage with my arguments, and you are amply demonstrating a flat inability to even observe reality.

                  The tiniest of little reality checks– which side has the rapist on it?– would break your vortex.

                  And yet you are refusing it.

                  Congratulations on joining the Marxists, I guess. Goldstein hate group is down that way, if you hit the “scream at Lake Michigan” guys you’ve gone too far.

                  Like

                  1. Those…females do exist. We see them every day, on TV, Yoo-Toob and Tik-Tok. The Karens. The ‘cis-male’ haters. The hysterical screechers. The blue-haired land whales with half a hardware store stuck in their faces.

                    They are not ‘all women’, probably not even ‘most women’, but they are a critical source of Democrat support. Although the Democrats have gone and punked them by shifting their support to ‘trans’ men and to hell with the actual women who feel threatened by naked men in their bathrooms and locker rooms. Democrats cover up the resulting rapes, too.

                    Like

                    1. Imaginos, you are not stupid.

                      Please stop acting as if you are.

                      Everyone here can see what I actually wrote.

                      Kindly respond to the actual words.

                      Like

                    2. What she means, because she never explains and htis will start a fight, is: Imaginos, yes there is a very vocal group of female idiots.
                      DOES NOT ERASE THE REST OF US.
                      Even the left admits married women vote like males. I’ll say so do a good number of single women.
                      There are idiot men as well. Stop pinning stupid JUST on us. It’s the Marxists. It’s always the Marxists.

                      Like

                    3. :points straight above:

                      When someone comes to a post that says “look, yeah, there’s some vocal idiots, they’re not everyone nor are they responsible for all idiotic behavior,” and responds to someone pointing to evidence that MOST women are not with the idiots we’re pushed to treat as normal, by acting as if they were arguing there ARE no idiots… they already started a fight.

                      “ALL MEN ARE RAPIST!”
                      “Most men are not, and in fact are strongly opposed to it, here’s evidence contrasting the rapist group with the strongly oppose rape group.”
                      “MALE RAPISTS EXIST, ACTUALLY!”

                      Like

                    4. Imaginos, as long as we have a legal system where this meme represents actual reality, your analysis (and, frankly, Skyblade’s) is correct. We know the meme represents reality because we have actual cases, such as President Trump’s, or Justice Kavanaugh’s, where this HAPPENED. And there’s plenty more cases (aka data points) where this can be shown to be true. Basic rule of science: Data beats hypothesis.

                      https://accordingtohoyt.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/1798108315754958848.jpg?w=927

                      Until these cases are laughed out of court with sanctions for anyone bringing them, the Marxists aren’t beaten.

                      I’m sure I’ll be called stupid, but ‘And yet it moves’.

                      Like

                2. “Roe was a woman”

                  A woman, by the way, who NEVER HAD an abortion, and later in life greatly regretted her “place in history” and went to great lengths to undo it.

                  In 1970 Roe (real name Norma McCorvey) was pregnant and went looking for an abortion clinic in Dallas, but the only one available had recently been closed. Two (women) attorneys decided to use her as a plaintiff in a lawsuit against Dallas DA Henry Wade, who had closed down the clinic. Roe/McCorvey ultimately gave birth to a daughter whom she placed for adoption.

                  In the early 1990s McCorvey became a born again Christian and a pro-lifer, and later joined the Catholic faith. For much of the last 20 or so years of her life she was firmly in the pro-life camp. She did reportedly, shortly before she died, express disgruntlement with how the pro-life movement “used” her, but she had also complained of being “used” by the pro-abortion movement. I suspect both sides came to see her more as a symbol of their cause than as a real flesh and blood woman who had a rather turbulent life beyond the case that made her famous.

                  Like

                3. You are using a metric shitton of words to say that so long as progressives say they own some group they’ve defined you will believe literally they tell you.

                  You would eat shit out of a can so long as a progressive told you the label said Beef Stew.

                  There is no demographic electoral college.

                  Like

                4. To take your points in order, because they represent such a surface level reading of things that I kind of have to chuckle:

                  1. Their entire political system is built around hating men and worshipping women. The Dem party literally had their entire website with every group they support, and “men” were not on it, though women were. They spent twenty million dollars trying to connect with men because their party politics are literally just “straight white men are evil” a thousand times over.

                  Well, duh – that’s why the only demographic they haven’t been losing with is upper middle class to upper class white women with university degrees, as well as the 60+ crew that think TV and newspapers are truthful. Women of every other demographic have been falling away from them in the last several years as the sheer crazy has been on display.

                  1. And sure, women started the Walk for Life, and every other anti-abortion movement out there. They’re also the ones out killing more humans than every war combined with abortions. Roe was a woman, remember?

                  Roe, who has publicly said that she regrets the case? Again, look at the demographics involved. Abortion concentrates in very specific demographics/areas, similar to violent crime. I would argue that they are both symptoms of the same underlying causes – a breakdown in the family structures of urban blacks, engineered by Lyndon Johnson via the Great Society programs. Again, look past the surface into the specifics. Consider also that the single highest motive for domestic murder is “boyfriend demands abortion, girlfriend refuses”, then extrapolate from that into how much of the abortion industry is being fed by dudes who want to have sex but no kids, and whose girlfriends are not up to reisting the pressure. Now consider that this is after decades of propaganda about abortion being not only safe but meaningless, with a fetus being just a polyp. No, women in general are not backing it, except for childless, middle class to upper class white women with university degrees.

                  2.Who do you think watches The View? The show that shilled for both Biden and Kamala and calls men useless multiple times per day? It’s the most watched show among women.

                  Women who watch cable TV during the day dude. Basically the over 60s. It’s for the old ladies who still think Bill Clinton was a nice man unjustly accused because that’s what the newspapers and TV said about him.

                  1. Who makes millions of TikTok vids screaming about how the world ended when Trump was elected? The same demographic making videos about choosing the bear, because they don’t believe men do anything good, because that’s what they’ve been taught their entire lives.

                  Algorithm-chasing chasing attention wh0res, amplified by a bot army to get served up to your screen. Keep in mind, this is based on prominence on a Chi-Com controlled algorithm designed to disrupt US society, on an app that is banned in China. You’re taking a deliberate memetic attack as a mass organic movement.

                  1. Which demographic has a legal advantage in courts?

                  Family court is totally out of whack, though it appears to be shifting. The rest of the legal system? Rich people who can hire better lawyers and have the resources to not be destroyed via the process.

                  1. Has an advantage in universities and schools? Has an advantage in being hired? It’s women.

                  Admissions advantage, sure. Now check the dropout/transfer out rates from anything challenging, and the earning potential of the degrees that the vast majority of them get. Longterm, they are being screwed. Same as blacks who get in via affirmative action.

                  1. There are literally quotas to promote them in everything

                  Which is illegal, and at least in the US, that is starting to be enforced.

                  1. They primarily vote for the party that continues to further their own institutional power.

                  Did you even see the polls last election?

                  1. They are the teachers putting up Pride flags and sexualizing kids.

                  So what you are saying is that people who want power over kids gravitate towards positions which give them power over kids? The same way the pedo rate in public schools is orders of magnitude above that of the general population?

                  1. They are the ones demanding we show empathy to illegals and let them freely invade. Yes, that means there are tens of millions of women who are against it. But it also means that there are tens of millions more who support it.

                  You really haven’t been paying attention to the polls, have you?

                  Liked by 1 person

            5. I will address this specific point.

              “For the majority of women, killing their kids is a sacred ritual.”

              You only get to this assumption if you (a) assume that a majority of women favor legalized abortion (or describe themselves as pro-choice), and (b) ALL of the women in that group think that it should have no restrictions. Well, plus assumption (c), that believing as described in (b) means that you think it’s a sacred ritual. While there absolutely are people who think that way (and they disgust me) you do yourself no favors in the debate by lumping everyone in that way.

              The reality? At most we can possibly accept assumption (a), but only under the caveat that “pro-choice” doesn’t always mean what we think it means. The abortion lobby puts immense time and resources into making us think that that not only is abortion necessary to support women, but also any belief that any type of abortion may be permitted — including things that most sane, rational people do not consider to be abortion — equals abortion on demand, any time, any circumstances.

              Most people who consider themselves pro-choice (whether or not you or I would agree with that term) actually just think that it should be permitted in limited circumstances. Or that a child who has already died should be eligible for surgical removal from the mother. I wouldn’t call this abortion, but the lobby wants you to think it is, for their motte and bailey. And then people who don’t understand the issue (men and women both!!) become convinced that in order to help vulnerable women, they must vote for the candidates who think killing prenatal children is totally okay all the time.

              The real stats? People who favor no restrictions on abortion hover around 18-20% of the population. Men and women both. In fact, this statistic is generally not sex-linked at all. When it comes to Medicaid funding, only 36% of Americans favor Medicaid funding being directed towards abortion services — with no distinction made between “medically necessary” versus fully elective, nor gestational age. For all we know, most of the people in that 36% are only okay with it in the “motte” part of the motte and bailey.

              NPR, ever so conservative, also arrived at 18% as the total proportion of Americans who favor legalized abortion in all circumstances. Heck, they even found a plurality of Democrats (30%) agreeing that life begins at conception!

              The majority of Americans, men and women both, think that at least some abortions are wrong. Our job is to get them to understand that the rest are, too.

              And because I actually back up my arguments, all above statistics can be found via the links at: secularprolife(dot)org/gender

              Liked by 1 person

              1. Quite famously, the Gutenmachwatever institute did a survey that found something like 60% of women are pro-abortion rights.

                …they did this by defining abortion in such a manner that the Catholic Church would be pro-abortion in teaching that medical treatments which endanger the child are licit.

                Which was also the last time they published the definitions they were giving folks.

                Liked by 1 person

                1. Yep. They want you to think that any restrictions on abortion (and again, at least 80% of Americans agree that there should be at least some restrictions) will cause rampant maternal death. Heck, you and I have talked about how they count abortion-related maternal deaths in the statistic for childbirth deaths, so they can push the story that childbirth is more dangerous than abortion. Of course if you compare x to x+y then the latter will be greater.

                  The Marxist types Sarah talked about push these kinds of narratives, convincing all sorts of people that the majority of women agree with X so in order to support women you have to agree with X. Most of the time this is simply not true. And would-be conservatives latching onto those lies to make women the Great Satan are not helping!!!

                  Liked by 1 person

                2. Let’s see. Pro-abortion include anyone who:

                  1. Ever had a miscarriage. It is now on your medical as “spontaneous involuntary abortion”.
                  2. Anyone who ever has had to have a DNC for endometriosis or because of a miscarriage.
                  3. Have to have the child removed because the child died or can’t survive ever, regardless of the cause – Medical or Accidental. (Can’t survive? The heroes are the ones who continue the pregnancy for the hope of donating the organs when the child does die on birth. But no demonizing the ones who do not make that choice.)
                  4. Ectopic pregnancy, where to continue will kill both mother and child. This includes a pregnancy that can also occur in other locations like the overlies, cervix, or even the abdominal cavity. The last have had successful outcomes, dangerous. The others guaranty death of the mother and child.
                  5. Too young. Extreme high risk.
                  6. Rape.
                  7. Insest. Which is Rape.
                  8. Just because.

                  Yes, being semi-sarcastic items 1 – 4. Reality is abortion does go on your medical record. I know. I was extremely upset (bit emotional about it given timing) when I read that. Also had to have a DNC over same medical incident. I was in the hospital for two weeks trying to keep that pregnancy. Nothing could have been done.

                  100% are for the 1 – 4 medically necessary, including the Catholic church.

                  Where it gets complicated is items 5 – 7. Not the fault of the unborn child. For every abortion due to rape and insest, there should be a corresponding open police report, and hopefully conviction. Too young doesn’t always fall under rape or insest. (I am missing some categories between 5 and 7.)

                  I will argue that 90%+ are against item #8, because people lie on polls. The pro-abortion shrill are the ones we see and hear. Please note, I am not mentioning sex. Women may be the ones affected, but still a sex neutral topic.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  1. And, for all of that, FOUR IN TEN women surveyed SAID NO, NEVER.

                    Almost half of women– no matter how ill informed– went “no. Never. No way.”

                    When polled by a pro-abortion group.

                    And yet we get “women are all pro-abortion” thrown around, often in the face of a large group of women holding signs saying Love Them Both.

                    Liked by 1 person

                  2. In medicine, the terms “miscarriage” and “abortion” are mostly synonymous, and are distinguished with terms “spontaneous” (happening naturally, unplanned) and “elective”. I totally understand how this confuses many people. Pro-abortion activism takes advantage of this to obfuscate the situation and make people think that in order to ensure miscarriage treatment is available, we must vote to have no restrictions on abortion, even when elective and unnecessary. Anti-abortion activists (such as the group I cited earlier) rely on clarity and explaining what the actual difference is.

                    It’s gotten bad enough that now a popular line is that any procedure to end a pregnancy is an abortion. ANY. Including cesarean birth.

                    So according to them, even if we specifically and exclusively oppose procedures that involve killing healthy prenatal humans, that is an attack on women.

                    Most people are capable of understanding these things if they are willing to take the time to listen.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    1. Had not heard that in some circles cesarean live birth is considered an abortion.

                      ** Idiots **

                      Yes, our son was born via cesarean. Highly unlikely he would have survived birth canal birth given the problems occurring – “Push.” Direct connection heart rate flat lined. “Don’t Push.” “Cesarean NOW!” Me? Weak “OK”.

                      Like

                    2. It’s one of the current scare campaigns.

                      “They’ll charge everyone who had a surgery to end a pregnancy, that means c-sections will be charged AS MURDER!!!!”

                      Liked by 1 person

                    3. I’ve also had a c-section. It’s not at all like an abortion.

                      I follow the debate quite closely and I’ve been seeing that line more and more. Pretty soon they’ll be saying that literally anything other than a non-medicated vaginal delivery on the exact due date is “abortion” 🤦‍♀️

                      Liked by 1 person

                  3. Too young doesn’t always fall under rape

                    Oh, yes it does. Look up “statutory rape”. The sex offender registries are full of high school age Romeos added when Juliet’s parents were offended that Juliet was more grown up than they thought. Multiple states passed so-called “Romeo-and Juliet” laws as a result. And the normal pattern is that even when BOTH are underage, HE’S getting charged, pretty much under the same logic that only the woman can be too intoxicated to give consent.

                    When only HIS bad judgement is potentially criminal, expect guys to conclude that good judgement means avoidance.

                    Like

                    1. Yes, there is a history of the Romeo/Juliet convictions even today. Plus sensationalized on various TV fictional series (waiting for one where the girl is slightly older than the boy, and is charged instead). One of the reasons when “convicted rapist in neighborhoods” look at the actual crime. Too many times the “victim” is now the wife, or even husband, and has been for decades. Those type should be expunged from records and lists. Which in this computer age is almost impossible. Although adding “expunged” to the record should be.

                      Reason why I said “not all” was because some jurisdictions have cried fowl the age difference is maximum of 2 years and made it a law. Especially if both still in high school, or one just graduated, but the other is only a year behind. The Romeo/Juliet Law.

                      Heck, I graduated at 17 and started college classes before I turned 18.

                      Liked by 1 person

        4. You are forgetting the ones who aren’t screeching from, everywhere. Forgetting the ones that are on this blog. Who just want to be left alone. You won’t hear from us unless our love ones are in danger. Even then we’ll do what is needed and deal with the fallout.

          Liked by 1 person

    3. Either way you have to completely capture and reform the media, primary and secondary education, the universities, government bureaucracies at all levels, and popular culture. Simple!

      Yes, generally speaking to win you have to win.

      Liked by 1 person

    4. Strive to be the best person you know how to be. When you and I and all the rest of us work on that, even when we individually stumble, it’s actually the only path toward making our society better. Because “society” is a shared illusion.

      And identifying a group, “them over there,” as THE source of the problem easily leads to the “logic” of thinking “If we can just control that group, take away all their ability to choose their own actions, then everything will be great, we will return to the Golden Age.”

      Narrator voice: It did not, in fact, lead to a Golden Age.

      Resist the temptation of the simple “solution.” **Choose** to resist the temptation of the simple solution.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Wasn’t the Golden Age before women ruined everything, and men just kinda sprouted from the ground?

        I would say that the Ancient Greeks had some good drugs, but we are probably mostly talking alcohol, lead, malnutrition, and so forth.

        Like

    5. I’ll try rephrasing it in a way that may work better.

      You know how some guys are super attracted to boobs? Like, absolutely dump their brains on the floor and step on them, level attracted?

      Some gals are that way about “status.”

      And whoo, boy, is it not exclusive to women, or the song about “I like my women just a little on the tacky side” wouldn’t exist.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. You know how some guys are super attracted to boobs? Like, absolutely dump their brains on the floor and step on them, level attracted?

        I’m sitting right here.

        Like

        2. Yeah, well, I’m not saying we need to boot men from being allowed near the levers of power or anything! Just pay attention to how some folks have weaknesses, and adjust for them, and for heaven’s sake remember that it’s not a universal thing- I know at least one of our happily married Huns isn’t actually that impressed by chests, he’s a leg man, and it confuses his buddies because he ended up with a lovely wife who has great quality both, AND is a wonderful person.

          Liked by 1 person

  36. Sarah you really missed the point … most liberal men have this feminine energy … he didn’t lay any blame on WOMEN … you missed his point entirely …

    just becasue some “women” can be savages (hell, maybe ALL women if properly motivated) doesn’t mean that FEMININE energy includes the ability to be a savage … you pointing out what women are capable of in no way changes the fact that feminine energy does encompass the things he listed …

    like a ying and yang both men AND women have masculine and feminine energies …

    You wiffed on this one … badly …

    Like

    3. Can you define “feminine energy”?

      She did not “miss” the point, she quite accurately defied the appeal to MUH AUTHORITY that just happens to make half the species into defective and blameworthy…for that actually done by members of the other half.

      Marxism is a problem, not “feminine energy” “entitled” or not. What the hell even is this “energy” bullshit? Are we New Agers now? Or Muslims? Are you going to be blinded by my hair-rays if I’m not veiled?

      Like

      1. Feminine energy is like in a Rumiko Takahashi anime where a female character gets angry at a male and punches him into orbit? Or when Kaori wields her multi-ton hammer and hits Ryo Saeba with it?

        Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.