Author: Sarah A. Hoyt

A note about Narrative, Gaslighting, and the Patriarchy.

-Synova

“Gaslighting is the attempt of one person to overwrite another person’s reality.”   – Everyday Feminism.

“Narrative :  4.  a story that connects and explains a carefully selected set of supposedly true events, experiences, or the like, intended to support a particular viewpoint or thesis: ”   – some random online dictionary.

Note that the first definition includes the notion that a person has their own reality.  That may have been sloppiness on the part of the article writer at Everyday Feminism, or it may be an assumption of the second definition and that your reality is carefully selected to support a particular viewpoint or thesis.

The article at Everyday Feminism, shockingly, is not entirely insane.  Abusers do use gaslighting.  Many people, women and men, have experienced parents or partners who have insisted that what they knew to be true never happened or happened very differently.  Some who were subject to this as children eventually caught their parents out in their lies and proved that what they were being accused of doing or forgetting was simply made-up to torment them.

This is nasty stuff, no matter if someone is doing it to you on purpose or if, for them, it’s simply a habit of behavior and instinctive rather than malicious.

Note that the lies were provable in those cases, or at least might have been, since they were actually lies. In the 1938 play that gave us the term, the abuser who was trying to convince his wife that she was crazy would tell her lies about small daily matters to convince her that she was unable to remember the truth.

But how does that work when we can each have our own reality?

If your reality, if your carefully constructed narrative to support a thesis of patriarchy and oppression isn’t objectively true, have you gaslighted yourself?  Have you?

I look around me at the claims of patriarchy and oppression and I boggle because they approach pure fantasy.  Oh, certainly there are those who have managed to carefully construct a narrative that supports their thesis of patriarchy, mostly by excluding any broader context or comparisons to lives lived that don’t support the thesis or any modes of power and societal control that doesn’t originate with men and then, to top it off, simply defining our societal systems as “patriarchy,” QED.  After all, your PhD in Women’s Studies has to be good for something.

But lately I’ve been seeing charges and claims of gaslighting made when someone has been led to question their social and political narrative and become uncomfortable.  If your narrative is a lie, it may be uncomfortable for you to question it, but it’s not gaslighting.

If I argue that women have been almost universally encouraged in any career ambition, and given outward and constant support for at least 30 years, hand-held and helped and even had much of our educational system rearranged specifically to cater to female learning styles, and you’re led to question your reality… I am not gaslighting you.  I’m describing the truth of American life.  Not my truth.  The truth.

If I explain the negative effects on boys of all this promotion of girls, I’m describing the truth and I wish you’d listen because the situation is destructive and cruel.

If you go on a tear about how sexually abusive Trump is, how a bad joke is the worst possible offense and a clear evil and how can I possibly not be as upset as you are, and I don’t fall in line with that?  I’m not gaslighting you, you’re attempting to gaslight me.  Because I remember reports of waitress sandwiches and have seen video of Bill Clinton reach back and grab a stewardess’ crotch and, oh by the way, he was multiply accused of rape and sexual coercion and we all know that he treated the intern pool like a sexual perk of office.  So no, brushing off Trumps behavior is not gaslighting you.  Pretending that you used to care about powerful men taking sexual advantage is gaslighting me.

What about rape culture? We live in a country where only predatory criminals believe that they’ve a right to a woman’s body.  Our culture is not a rape culture, it’s so firmly and flagrantly affirming of a person’s natural autonomy over her own body that in order to create the fantasy of a rape culture it’s necessary to insist that “no means no” is proof of rape culture because no women ought to be expected to make her desires, or lack of, known in a non-ambiguous manner.  Which is just unfair to pitiful women, you know.  And rape culture.  This time you’re not even attempting to gaslight me, you’re simply beclowning yourself.

If you go on about how science fiction has long been on Old Boys Club and women now are just making amazing strides and progress, you’re an ahistorical nincompoop, but I won’t accuse you of gaslighting yourself unless you actually believe your own bull shit.

If you stick a video online of yourself having a breakdown because someone called you “sweetheart” you’ve managed to disrupt your own reality to the point that any tug toward sanity would simply be an act of love.

If I explain that the Google memo was a mild and intellectual discussion of slight variations in the distribution of traits and interests of people by gender and not a screed about how women don’t belong in tech, I can wish that you’d feel a tug at the fabric of your reality but I don’t expect it.

Because your reality is really eff’ed up.

But creating these fantasy narratives that carefully conform to a feminist thesis is most definitely gaslighting yourself.  It’s gaslighting yourself good and hard. And when you’re sufficiently shifted to this new reality, the word you use is “woke.”

My biggest question about that, though, is why?  Because there is a sense in which we do create our own realities through narratives.  So why pick the victim one?  Particularly if you’re an American woman, which has got to be the single most objectively privileged demographic on the planet itself, why pick the victim narrative?  Why pick the narrative where you’re a helpless little thing with the world against you?  Is it romanticism?  What is it?

Rock and Roll: The New Madrid Fault System Part II: Some Geological History By Stephanie Osborn

Rock and Roll: The New Madrid Fault System Part II: Some Geological History

Excerpted from Rock and Roll: The New Madrid Fault System, ©2017

By Stephanie Osborn

http://www.stephanie-osborn.com

Images in this article are public domain, unless otherwise specified.

This whole collection of writings started off with an email exchange, months ago. Our illustrious hostess was part of the discussion, and expressed interest in my converting the info to one or more blog articles. Then, when the LibertyCon programmers heard about it, they asked me to give a presentation on same, which I did.

The presentation was a full house, and at the end, there was a request for me to convert it to blogs and/or an ebook. I asked how many would like to see an ebook of the material; virtually every hand in the lecture hall went up.

A little over a month later, with additional research under my belt and factored into the manuscript, the book has gone live. And as promised, I am providing Sarah a series of blog articles on the subject. This series of blog articles is only a small fraction of the material contained in the ebook; it may be considered in the nature of a series of informative abstracts of the information contained therein. For additional information, may I recommend that you check out Rock and Roll: The New Madrid Fault System.

Part II: Some Geological History

As the conveyor belt of Earth’s mantle convection floats the crustal plates around, numerous supercontinents have been slammed together and ripped apart through the geological eras.

Some 1 to 1.3 billion years ago, around the beginning of the Neoproterozoic period or possibly a bit before, a supercontinent formed in Earth’s southern hemisphere. Today, geologists call it Rodinia. It is the very earliest supercontinent we can confirm. There were probably others, but we don’t have definitive evidence yet.

Roughly in the middle of Rodinia was a plate geologists called Laurentia. It was the ancient core that came to comprise what we now call North America.

But about 750 million years ago, only ~250-500 million years after it formed, Rodinia began to rip apart. Why?

Because the presence of the big supercontinent insulated the layers below it. A hot spot developed in the mantle underneath, generating an upwelling in the plastic rocks of the mantle, and convection moving away from the hot spot. This produced an upward force under the continent, tending to crack it apart, and “conveyor belts” to carry the pieces away. This is believed to be why all supercontinents ultimately break up.

Gradually Rodinia broke apart, and the new continents moved away from each other. The new continent of Laurentia was put under tremendous stress, as it was pulled from multiple directions—keep in mind, there was considerable friction to deal with. Faults behaved the same then as they do now, and they dragged and ripped at the plate that had been the heart of the supercontinent.

Multiple rifting areas have formed mid-continent due to supercontinent breakups over geologic history. Only one of these is the Reelfoot Rift, around which the New Madrid Seismic Zone and others formed. The Reelfoot Rift is a failed plate boundary; had it torn all the way through, there would be no North American continent as it currently exists.

The Reelfoot Rift has two principal seismic zones and quite a few secondary zones. The primaries are the New Madrid Seismic Zone and the Wabash Valley Seismic Zone.

The New Madrid grabens

The main graben runs right down the Mississippi River central valley. The northeast end runs diagonally from roughly the Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area to the Shawnee National Forest. The southwest end is somewhat uncertain, but has been identified at least as far as a Mariana-to-Searcy, AR line.

But…there’s more than one graben.

[Map from Van Schmus, W. R., Bickford,  M. E., and Turek, A., 1996, Proterozoic geology of the east-central mid-continent basement; in, Basement and Basins of Eastern North America, B. A. van der Pluijm, and P. A. Catacosinos, eds.: Geological Society of America, Special Paper 308, p.7-32. Note the Southern Oklahoma Aulacogen, which extends through TX, OK, NM, CO & UT; it is also a failed rift produced at roughly the same time and for the same reason as the Reelfoot Rift, which houses the New Madrid fault system. Zoom view mine.]

In fact, there are at least four grabens, or fault-block valleys, but unlike most multiple-graben systems, they do NOT lie in parallel. Instead, they all radiate out from a central stress point. One of these grabens, the Southern Indiana, is contiguous with the separately-identified Wabash Valley Seismic Zone. Several others exist, including the Cottage Grove Fault Zone (CGFZ); the Rough Creek Fault Zone (RCFZ); the Ste. Genevieve Fault Zone (SGFZ); and the Shawneetown Fault Zone (STFZ).

States directly affected include:

• Illinois,
• Indiana,
• Missouri,
• Arkansas,
• Kentucky,
• Tennessee, and

States indirectly affected include:

• Alabama,
• Oklahoma,
• Louisiana, and

The evidence for long-term quake activity along the New Madrid system is mixed. Tree ring growth depicts the 1811-12 quake series, but nothing prior to that, back to medieval times. Yet objects inadvertently buried in previous events—pottery, knapped blades, etc. distinctive to a given period—can be type- and/or carbon-dated, showing evidence of massive quakes in:

• 1450AD,
• ~900AD, and
• ~300AD.

Other geological evidence indicates major quake swarms in:

• 2350BC,
• 3500BC, and

To obtain a copy of Rock and Roll: The New Madrid Fault System by Stephanie Osborn, go to:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B074SJ8ZPT

Fear – by Amanda S. Green

Fear.

It is alive and well and living in the United States. No, I’m not talking about fear of walking down the street at night because something bad might happen. I’m not even talking about a parent’s fear of letting her child play outside or walk home from school by himself because someone might report the child as being neglected. There is another type of fear rearing its ugly head right now. It’s not new but, thanks to the media and social media, it is more pervasive.

The fear I’m talking about is the fear of speaking your mind. No, I’m not talking about those on the extreme ends of the political spectrum. Yes, both sides have their extremists, whether they want to admit it or not. Those folks don’t seem to have any fear of letting their voices be heard long and hard. The ones I’m talking about are those who tend to fall in the middle of the political spectrum. It doesn’t matter if they identify themselves as liberal or conservative, libertarian or something else. These are the folks who don’t buy into either side lock and smoking barrel.

These are the people who would, in many cases, be the voices of reason. We might not agree with them, but we could discuss our differences without the conversation turning into a shouting match. Unfortunately, they are being silenced. No, not by the government but by those zealots on either side of the argument – and it doesn’t matter which argument.

At first, it was simply easier to walk away from the so-called discussions because it quickly became clear that those who said they wanted to discuss an issue didn’t. What they wanted was an echo chamber. There comes a point when you have to realize that no matter how well thought out your points might be, no matter how many facts you have to back your stance, there are people who aren’t interested.

But there are some issues where we can’t just step back. We remember Martin Niemöller and his words about the Nazis:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Right now, if you take to social media, you will most often see the above verse cited in response to what happened in Charlottesville. Those condemning the Neo-Nazis who marched that day, especially the ass who drove his car into the crowd, recite it in support of their cries to take away the right of those same Nazis to march or wear the swastika or, in some instances, to even speak their beliefs.

These same people have taken to social media to crow about how they have identified and “outed” those they identify as being “Nazis” in the march. In some instances, they have cost people their jobs. In another, Professor Kyle Quinn of the University of Arkansas was wrongly identified as one of the “torch bearers” in Charlottesville. He was attacked in social media, especially Twitter. His life was threatened. Fortunately for Quinn, not only was he NOT at the protest, those he worked with knew it. Even when it was shown he wasn’t there, the accusations that he is a racist continued, as did calls for him to be fired from his post with the university. Facts, you see, didn’t matter to those attacking him. Someone on their side said he was guilty so, by God, he was guilty and he needed to pay.

But it gets worse. We are told over and over again not to judge someone by their appearance. How many times have we heard this? So where is the condemnation from the Left for what to happened Joshua Witt from Colorado? Mr. Witt was stabbed because of his haircut. Yes, you read that right. His haircut. Witt had the misfortunate of styling his hair in a way some of the Neo-Nazis do. His crime, other than having the offending hair cut? None. He was, according to his version of events, getting out of his car when someone came up, asked if he was a Nazi. Then the guy stabbed him.

Witt isn’t the only one to be called out – or worse – for that particular hairstyle since Charlottesville. Singer Macklemore found himself being called out on social media for the same hairstyle. The kicker here? He’d changed his style months ago. But those attacking him couldn’t be bothered to check before striking out.

Am I saying I support the Neo-Nazis or any other white supremacy group? Not on your life. However, much as I hate it, they do have the right to assemble – as long as they follow the law. They have the right to say what they want, within some very limited legal definitions. We have the right to point and laugh.

Where myself, and so many others, get uncomfortable is when we see people advocating taking those rights away. It is a very slippery slope they are proposing we get on. If the government decides today to silence the Nazis, they have started on the road to silencing others. That is not what this country is about. If we silence the Nazis, the skinheads, the KKK or similar groups, who next?

This is where the fear comes in. It is much more than the fear of the slippery slope should the government decide it needs to start shutting down free speech, no matter how heinous the group might be. It is the fear of what our neighbors might do, be it through ignorance or misunderstanding or something much worse. We have a group of people who seem to think it is their duty – their right, if you will – to “out” those they don’t agree with. They don’t consider the consequences of their actions. All that matters to them is that they are on the “right” side.

They don’t consider what happens when they publicly proclaim someone is a Nazi and then that person loses their job. What if that person has a family and is the only one employed? What if that person, or someone in their family, has a serious illness and the insurance he had through that employer was what was helping keep them alive until they could receive the surgery or other treatment necessary to cure them?

Or, as in the case of Professor Quinn, what if they were innocent?

In so many ways, the actions of these anti-white supremacists remind me of what happened in Nazi Germany – and in the Soviet Union. Neighbors reported their neighbors for not being good little Nazis or Communists. An air of suspicion and paranoia ruled both Germany and the Soviet Union because you had to watch what you said and did, no matter where you were.

I don’t know about you, but I would much rather have free speech and allow those I don’t agree with the right to spout their hate and stupidity than to face the possibility of the government going the way of Germany and Italy in the 1930’s and 1940’s or the Soviet Union. For those who have so gleefully been pointing fingers and calling names – and I don’t care what side of the argument you’re on – consider this. What are you going to do when those fingers are pointed at you? Because, the time will come if you keep this up. Just as that snowball grows as it rolls down the side of the mountain and shit flows downhill, as one group is silenced, fingers will point to another and then another and then another until you find yourself the target.

Rock and Roll: The New Madrid Fault System Part I: A Geology Primer – By Stephanie Osborn

Rock and Roll: The New Madrid Fault System Part I: A Geology Primer

Excerpted from Rock and Roll: The New Madrid Fault System, ©2017

By Stephanie Osborn

http://www.stephanie-osborn.com

Images in this article are public domain.

This whole collection of writings started off with an email exchange, months ago. Our illustrious hostess was part of the discussion, and expressed interest in my converting the info to one or more blog articles. Then, when the LibertyCon programmers heard about it, they asked me to give a presentation on same, which I did.

The presentation was a full house, and at the end, there was a request for me to convert it to blogs and/or an ebook. I asked how many would like to see an ebook of the material; virtually every hand in the lecture hall went up.

A little over a month later, with additional research under my belt and factored into the manuscript, the book has gone live. And as promised, I am providing Sarah a series of blog articles on the subject. This series of blog articles is only a small fraction of the material contained in the ebook; it may be considered in the nature of a series of informative abstracts of the information contained therein. For additional information, may I recommend that you check out Rock and Roll: The New Madrid Fault System.

Part I: A Geology Primer

The New Madrid Fault Zone is the core of a large area in the central USA consisting of a couple of main faults and numerous secondary faults, as well as other significant geological structures and features. It produced an historic series of severe quakes in the winter of 1811-12 timeframe, and it continues active to this day.

The New Madrid Fault Zone is located in the central United States, roughly along the medial segment of the Mississippi River, from about Memphis, TN running north to at least the confluence with the Ohio River. There are strong indications that the fault zone extends considerably farther in each direction, though exactly how far remains in doubt.

Now let’s define some basic terms, so everyone can understand what’s being said when I dive into the meat of the discussion.

Faults

A fault is a crack in the rock around which the rocks actually MOVE. Stress fractures can occur in rocks that are experiencing non-moving stresses, such as temperature extremes, but these are NOT faults. Only if one or both of the stone blocks on either side of the fault experience movement is the fracture considered a fault.

The surface direction or trend of the fault is known as the strike. The vertical orientation of the fault is known as the dip. The importance of a fault’s dip lies in the fact that the actual source of the quake may not be directly under the part of the fault that shows at the surface.

A quake is generated if the fault has been unmoving for a prolonged period of time, with the cessation usually due to friction between the crustal blocks, and stress has built up sufficient to either exceed the “coefficient of friction” (a physics term characterizing the amount and type of friction between surfaces) between the fault blocks, or to actually shatter the rocks that are hung up on each other. At this point, the temporarily-stationary blocks “slip” past each other, releasing potentially tremendous amounts of energy in an earthquake.

The point where the slip begins is the hypocenter or focus, and it will usually be below the surface of the ground. The point ON the surface, directly above the hypocenter, is known as the epicenter. So the pertinent data to identify any given quake are: the magnitude, the latitude/longitude of the epicenter, and the depth of the hypocenter.

Not all faults, of any sort, will generate quakes, let alone major quakes. Some faults, or segments of faults, tend to experience slow, small, continuous movement called creep. This creep can cause slow deformation of structures on the surface, but will not cause widespread damage.

There are three principal kinds of faults, though there can be combinations. These basic types depend on the direction of movement of the fault blocks on either side of the actual fault.

• The normal fault.

In a normal fault, the main block aka the “hanging wall”—the block above the fault—moves down relative to the secondary block or “footwall” which is below the fault. Such faults are created under tension forces, and movement is produced as a result of continued tension. If the tension is removed, the fault ceases to be active.

• The reverse, or thrust, fault.

In a reverse fault, the main block or “hanging wall” moves upward and over relative to the secondary block or “footwall”, which may remain still or move downward and/or under. Such faults are created under compressive forces, and movement is produced as a result of continued compression. If the compression is removed, the fault ceases to be active.

• The strike-slip fault.

In a strike-slip fault, the blocks move past each other in a horizontal motion. Such faults are under slight compression, mostly in a transverse fashion, meaning the forces are across and at an angle relative to the fault.

• The oblique fault.

An oblique fault combines horizontal and vertical motion in various fashions; it is basically a strike-slip fault with either normal or reverse faulting added in, depending upon whether the overall forces combine to produce tension or compression.

Grabens and horsts

Put in everyday language, grabens and horsts are fault-block hills or mountains (the horsts) and valleys (the grabens). They are formed when several parallel-trending or nearly-parallel normal faults alternate dips (downward angle of the fault), which will in turn result in alternating uplifted and/or down-dropped blocks of stone. Usually the sequence of fault blocks is under tension (extension) in a direction perpendicular to the strike trend, causing them to spread apart, and enabling alternate blocks to slip downward.

Types of molten rock

Molten rock is generically termed “melt.” If the melt is below the surface, it is magma; when it has extruded onto the surface, it is lava. Any rock formed from cooled, solidified melt, regardless of location, is igneous rock.

Plutons

A pluton is a magma intrusion into existing rock. It may intrude into existing rock in any of a number of ways: between different rock strata (layers), where the change in rock layer produces a localized weakness; into cracks in the rock, whether a joint or a fault; into areas of collapse, such as a caldera or sinkhole; or by melting/eroding away the rock and incorporating it into the melt.

Types of plutons include:

• Volcanic magma chambers
• Batholiths—These are, for all intents and purposes, “failed” volcanic chambers where a vent never reached the surface. Some were originally buried quite deep. They are essentially giant “bubbles” of magma that cooled and solidified over eons.
• Laccoliths—These are large “bubbles” of magma that, unlike the more vertical batholiths, are usually inserted horizontally, between existing rock strata; they tend to be lenticular, or lens-shaped. Over time, they, too, cooled and hardened.
• Sills—These are narrow horizontal intrusions, usually following a horizontal fault, joint, or other crack. Being relatively thin, they cooled and hardened fairly quickly on geologic scales.
• Dikes—These are narrow (but often long) vertical intrusions, typically following a vertical crack or fault. Other than spatial orientation, they are similar to sills.

  

To obtain a copy of Rock and Roll: The New Madrid Fault System by Stephanie Osborn, go to:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B074SJ8ZPT

Women’s Work  by Alma Boykin

So, Sarah’s recent posts about feminism, plus some reading I’ve been doing for an upcoming book, got me thinking. What is women’s work? How did it affect women’s place in society? Here are some very, very general thoughts and observations, with a few books for more reading if you are interested.

The idea that women do certain tasks and men do others, and rarely the twain shall meet, goes back a very long way and has a great deal of truth to it. It has nothing to do with “patriarchal oppression” and everything to do with biology. Despite claims in the media within the last few months, human males (the individuals with an X and Y chromosome) do not give birth. They do not lactate. Bearing children and rearing them was the original women’s work, the main focus and goal of women’s lives for much of human existence. There were a lot of other things as well, but anyone who wants to complain because “B culture oppressed women” has to look at women’s and men’s physiology and what it took to survive for most of history. You cannot fight off marauders while chivvying two small children and carrying a third.

Once we get past “having little humans,” the next tasks for women were gathering, a little hunting and fishing, and doing things with hides, furs, and fibers. These were all jobs that could be done with children in tow, or while children napped, and that contributed to survival. You can watch children and spin wool or other long fibers into yarn and thread. You can dig tubers or gather clams and keep one eye on a child. Tubers don’t run, and they don’t fight back. And gathering had a better chance of providing calories than did hunting. Granted, when hunters are successful they brought in a lot more nutrition per pound than did gatherers, and the two together were the best strategy for group long-term survival. But if the aurochsen got away, there were still tubers and fruit and nuts and maybe a snared rabbit or netted fish.

With the so-called Neolithic Revolution[s], and the rise of agriculture, things shifted a little. When you have draft animals and heavy farming, men will have to do more of the work, and their contribution to survival becomes greater. Women were still very, very important, because children, and pottery, and textiles, and some gathering, and processing food so it could be stored, but women’s work became less visible and less obviously critical to survival. And women with small children, or very pregnant, still couldn’t fight well. As long as upper-body strength is critical, guys have an advantage in aggregate. (See Adriana Meyer’s Amazons about the steppe nomads and classical Greeks for an example of where technology made women warriors far more important than was normal among settled peoples.) This change was not because of the evils of the patriarchy, or because a sedentary, matrilineal and matrilocal and matriarchal egalitarian society was cruelly overrun by he-man woman-hating horse-riding Indo-Europeans. Actually, the cultures of Old Europe had some problems with climate change and water-logging of soils to contend with even before the Indo-Europeans showed up. But that’s not Grrrrrrl Power! It’s called Life.

The change seems to have come about because of physical strength, and children. As long as physical strength and pure muscle power was vital for survival, guys were more important in the eyes of the law. Warriors fought, warriors moved around, and warriors could raid and bring in more goods for prestige and better survival. Guys could handle the large livestock more easily than women, especially nursing women, or women trying to wrangle small children. The thought of trying to break a horse to harness with a toddler wandering around scares me spitless. Little kids are fearless. Fearless plus large animals is a very bad thing. And since men seemed more important for survival, and were more visible, they gained more rights because they could carry out the duty of defense. Roman law sealed it, at least in southern and western Europe. Germanic-influenced law was . . . different. And economic realities were different again.

Weaving and making clothes became women’s work, at least in northern Europe. And in places where enslaved women and other crafts workers could be forced to do it. There’s some evidence that the introduction of large frame looms shifted the weaving and making of high-end luxury fabrics to men, much as tailors and professional weavers tended to be men. Once there was cash involved, the fancy stuff moved out of the women’s quarters, sometimes. Women’s work was still important for survival. No kids = no humans. No preserved food, no warm clothes, no safely prepared food, no medicinal herbs, no hens or other small livestock meant very hungry people. Women’s work was always important, but not visible in the sense that it appears in archival records. Archaeological records, yes. Other non-traditional sources, like business accounts, and letters, and law-suits, and other things, oh yes, you’ll find women.

Even in China, which has not been exactly a feminist paradise, women had a lot of rights up until the Mongol conquest and the subsequent Ming Dynasty. Although the neo-Confucian writers of the late Tang and Song Dynasties (roughly AD 700-1250 CE) insisted that women should stay in their proper inner sphere and only concern themselves with matters of the Inner Courtyard, they had few difficulties with women managing the household budget, overseeing household management, buying and selling property for the good of the family, inspecting properties to make sure the tenants were taking care of things, and other “matters of the household.” And filial piety meant that even the Neo-Confucian who disapproved of his mother’s Buddhist practices kept his mouth shut and let her do her thing, because respect for his mother and domestic harmony was far more important than obliterating Buddhist superstition, at least until the 1250s.

When we look at medieval and early modern Europe, we see women working. They did not have the same legal rights as men, or so it seems in many cases, but a little more digging reveals cases like that in Lübeck, the imperial free city on the Baltic, where widowed women who managed property for minor heirs or for absent merchant husbands had the same rights and duties as their male counterparts. They had to help defend the city, they participated in religious and social events, and did business in the name of the family. Nuremberg looks like a patrician patriarchy, and it was, but again, women had to know how to help keep the books and manage the household, which might have ten or twenty members. A good wife, competent in household management, was crucial for the family’s success, and the patrician’s letters and bequests show this. There are numerous accounts of noble women acting as advisors to their husbands and sons, or preparing castles for defense, or defending against sieges. Women had fewer legal rights on paper, but by tradition and necessity they had a lot of clout. They always have.

The New England colonies had the legal tradition of “deputy husbands,” where women were authorized under law to do everything necessary for the family and family-business while their husbands were away. They had to.

And no farm could possibly succeed without a good farm-wife, the bachelor farmers of Scandinavia being exceptions and rather late in history. Women cared for the family, ensured that food was prepared and preserved, raised kitchen crops, cared for livestock, kept the house in good repair, doctored the sick (two footed or four), taught the children, sold extra produce on the market, tended dairies and processed dairy products for home use and sale, made and repaired clothing, and other things as needed. Are you tired yet?

What do all these things have in common? They are sedentary. They can be done with children in arm, or on the floor, or in the house. And they are not outdoors where people can see them. Women were defensive fighters, physically and morally. When Black Jack Ketchum and his gang tried to rob the Gallegos house and estate store at Gallegos, NM, the matriarch got the kids and other women into shelter, then sniped with a rifle from upper floor windows, shot a few of the bandits, and drove them off. The men finished the job.

To read more: Elizabeth W. Berber. Women’s Work: The First 20,000 Years. Great when she sticks with textiles, not so great when she wanders into other areas.

Man Xu. Crossing the Gate: Everyday Lives of Women in Song Fujian. A little heavy on gender-history theory, but otherwise excellent.

Steven Ozment. When Fathers Ruled: Family Life in Reformation Europe. About Nuremberg. The family that lost 9 children before one lived to his first birthday is heartbreaking, but not unusual.

Damnatio Memoriae by Nitay Arbel

The slippery slopes of “damnation of memory”

[See also this earlier PJMedia article by the blogmistress, https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/08/20/remembering-the-past/ ]

Ancient Rome had a practice called “damnatio memoriae”  in which emperors or public figures that had fallen into disgrace were literally erased from view: not only were any monuments to them torn down, but their name was erased from things they had built.

In the wake of the recent push to demolish statues to military leaders from 150 years ago — respected on both sides of the war they fought in — the POTUS facetiously asked whether the Founding Fathers would be next. [Sure enough, some regressive leftist soon answered, “hold my beer!”.]

But seriously: as long as we’re engaging in “damnatio memoriae” by tearing down statues of historical figures who owned slaves etc. — why stop there? Let’s have a look at the sciences.

Karl Pearson held views on eugenics, race, etc. that can only be characterized as vile. He is also one of the founding fathers of statistics, and indeed coined such concepts as the correlation coefficient, standard deviation, and regression coefficients. Are we going to discard these statistical concepts as tainted by Pearson’s odious views? Or are we going to excise just him in favor of Ronald Fisher, who invented or popularized (Student’s t-distribution, ANOVA,…) several more statistical concepts? Oops, Fisher too was big on eugenics and racial stuff.  And if you start digging into Charles Spearman: with all his work on intelligence testing, “if you’re looking to beat a dog, a stick is easily found” (Dutch idiom). So are we, in the name of political correctness, going to have to ascribe the fundamentals of statistics to “an unknown author”? At the risk of Godwinizing, the way Heinrich Heine’s song “Lorelei” and several popular compositions by Mendelssohn were credited “to an unknown author/composer” during the Third Reich because of their creators’ Jewish origins?

Let’s go from statistics to physics. Johannes Stark was awarded the 1919 Nobel Prize in Physics for experimental spectroscopic work that in part inspired the development of quantum mechanics. The splitting up of atomic and molecular spectra in an electric field is known to this day as the Stark Effect.

Yet Stark was also a stark (ahem) raving antisemite, and this wasn’t just a privately held prejudice. During the Third Reich was actively involved in purging Jewish scientists from German academia and attempting to establish an “Aryan physics” purged of such subversive “Jewish” notions as Einstein’s theory of relativity. He was helped in these endeavors by another Nobel laureate, Philipp Lenard, already in his dotage.

So are atomic and molecular spectral lines now no longer allowed to split up in an electric field? Or do we need to rename the Stark effect after some mythical philosopher-peasant of [insert favored minority du jour], the way this happened in the former Soviet Bloc?

William Shockley led the research group at Bell Labs where the transistor was discovered: he shared the 1956 Nobel Prize in Physics with his subordinates John Bardeen and Walter Brattain. He was later said to “have put the silicon in Silicon Valley”. The always eccentric Shockley became an  outspoken racialist in his later years. Does that mean he is no longer the co-inventor of the transistor? Or, worse, are transistors and the microchips based on them now racist? Does that mean that SJWs now only get to use computers based on vacuum tubes or relays? Or do we simply edit Shockley out and ascribe the transistor entirely to his co-inventors?

And since so many readers here are space and sci-fi enthusiasts, I probably won’t need to rehash the story of Werner von Braun and his involvement with the V1 and V2 missiles — suffice to say that he must have been aware of the inhumane conditions prevailing at the Dora-Mittelbau underground factory (a satellite camp of Buchenwald) where the missiles were mass-produced.

In chemistry, I will just cite Fritz Haber as an example. Haber, with chemical engineer Carl Bosch, developed the Bosch-Haber process  for the fixation of aerial nitrogen, which freed agriculture and chemical industry from dependence on guano deposits as sources of ammonia and nitrates. It is hard to imagine how today’s world population could ever be fed without a sustainable source of artificial fertilizer. (Among other honors, this work earned Haber the 1918 Nobel Prize.)

Yet on the other side of the ledger, Haber was instrumental in introducing poison gas on the battlefield. WW I would probably have ended two years earlier (probably with Germany starved into surrender) without Haber.

Does this mean we no longer can use the Bosch-Haber Process, speak of the Born-Haber cycle, … Or that the Fritz Haber Institute in Berlin needs to change its name?

I can go on like this for quite a while longer. Academics are probably second only to artists and politicians in their propensity for virtue signaling and moral preening. Yet in these matters, they let common sense prevail.  A person can be a genius in one area of human endeavor, and at the same time an imbecile or a scoundrel in another. One can acknowledge the latter without gainsaying the former.

Allow me to end on a personal note. Last year, during a side trip from a work assignment, we visited the city of Toledo (Spain, not OH). The famous “El Transito” medieval synagogue was actually on Mrs. Arbel’s bucket list to visit. As we walked toward it, we passed through the Calle de los Reyes Catolicos [“Street of the Catholic Kings”, idiomatically and in context: Ferdinand and Isabella Street]. It was only to be expected that streets would be named in honor of the dual monarchs who finally unified Spain (and who, by the way, also sponsored Columbus’s voyage). However, we could not help being reminded that these were also the very same monarchs who issued the infamous Expulsion Decree, which gave the Jews of Spain the choice between exile, conversion, or death.

But did the thought of being “offended” that the Spanish named the street after Ferdinand and Isabella (and probably another street in most major Spanish towns, plus umpteen monuments) even occur to us? The very concept would strike us —both proud and unapologetic Jews — as bizarre. Ferdinand and Isabella are inextricably part of the fabric of Spanish history — for good and bad.

Vignettes by Luke, Mary Catelli and ‘Nother Mike

So what’s a vignette? You might know them as flash fiction, or even just sketches. We will provide a prompt each Sunday that you can use directly (including it in your work) or just as an inspiration. You, in turn, will write about 50 words (yes, we are going for short shorts! Not even a Drabble 100 words, just half that!). Then post it! For an additional challenge, you can aim to make it exactly 50 words, if you like.

We recommend that if you have an original vignette, you post that as a new reply. If you are commenting on someone’s vignette, then post that as a reply to the vignette. Comments — this is writing practice, so comments should be aimed at helping someone be a better writer, not at crushing them. And since these are likely to be drafts, don’t jump up and down too hard on typos and grammar.

If you have questions, feel free to ask.

Your writing prompt this week is: Greedy

Multiculturalism IS Racism A Blast From The Past From April 2015

Good Saturday morning. I apologize for not writing this in cave symbols, since I know that language is inherited in the blood and therefore can’t be changed as can’t any other part of the culture. Because it’s all in our genes. And that’s why I’m squatting here in my cave, working at starting a fire while my husband and the boys sit in a corner chipping flint implements.

Oh, how I wish that human beings had been designed with the ability to grow and adapt, to learn new techniques, evolve new beliefs, adjust their behavior, create new words to fit new meanings, and thereby change their culture to fit new tech and new times.

Then I might be sitting in a shiny office, (more or less clean. Hey, I’ve been recovering from surgery) typing on a keyboard in a language full of meanings that our stone age ancestors couldn’t even imagine.

Oh, wait. Maybe we can learn and adapt. Or else, I’d be looking for berries while the guys tried to club something to death with their bare fists.

No, I’m not actually out of my ever-loving mind, but I think our culture, our “intellectuals” and our cognoscenti are. Not just out of their minds, but over the hills and far away, staking out a position that Hitler would be proud of.

What prompted this were clashes between two Australian groups, Reclaim Australia and No Room For Racism.

On the face of it it sounds like the nice narrative we are fed every time something like this happens. I haven’t been following the international scene, and frankly it wouldn’t even surprise me if Europe headed for nativism and blood-related nationality. It is what is at the basis of their nation states (even if it’s often a lie. For instance I’d hazard that a lot of people in Portugal – yes, d*mn it, I’ll do the DNA testing. Let the house sell and let me have some money first – are as mixed as Americans. My kids call Portugal the reservoir tip at the end of Europe, which is unkind but somewhat accurate since that portion of land was part of the Celtic commonwealth, before being invaded by Carthaginians, Greeks, Romans, Germanic tribes, Moors (though their contribution in the North is minimal as the North was usually administered by overseers with little or no actual colonization) French crusaders, Viking raiders. Then there were British and Irish merchants due to ties going back before the Carthaginians who would set up trading posts, send their younger sons over, sometimes engage in a bit of raiding, etc. There are unkind proverbs about blue eyed Portuguese, but there are also a lot of them. (Two of my grandparents. A third was green eyed.) And in the end sometimes I think all of us are the result of some girl who tripped (on purpose or not) while evading a foreigner. All this to say that when my dad talks of the “The Portuguese Race” (and boy, does he) he’s mostly talking of a mythical entity. But it’s one they all believe in as hard as they can.)

I’ll even accept that given that most of the programs of blood-nationality parties are to put it mildly socialism (but with the goodies going to a different group) it is accurate to call them fascists.

And my sons at least assure me that the Golden Dawn is honest to Bog fascism. I bow to their knowledge. They read a lot more international news than I do and by virtue of being millennials have friends all over the world. (Ah, the internet.)

However, Australia is not in Europe. And going on the self definition of the groups – and only that. (Note to the idiots who are going to dig out quotes by some figure in Reclaim Australia saying that if you have a tan you should be killed – I’m only going on the group’s self-definition as stated in the article I read.)

So, the protests by Reclaim Australia were according to the article I read for: Around the country Reclaim Australia protesters held rallies to oppose “sharia law, halal tax and Islamisation”, where they waved Australian flags and carried signs saying “Yes Australia. No Sharia”.

Now you can think whatever you want of those goals, but I look at them and think “They want to keep a more adaptable and successful (in raw terms of giving people a better life) culture from being replaced with a medieval nightmare that makes women into slaves, gay people into corpses and denies people the ability to practice other religions/cultures without paying dearly for it, either with money or blood.” (And please, don’t tell me burkas are freeing, and gay people REALLY want to be thrown from buildings, and that the tax to be a person of the book but non-Muslim is REALLY freedom of religion. And don’t try the nonsense that this only happens in rare and isolated places, either. It happens EVERY TIME that Islam gets the upper hand or the numbers.)

While I don’t care if people practice/believe in Islam or not, I think that freedom should be restricted to what we in the west would consider a purely religious arena. Or to put it another way, you have the right to wear the burka, you don’t have the right to make other people wear it; you have the right to tell your gay son he’s going to hell, or even kick him out of the house, you don’t have the right to throw him off a building; you have the right to divorce your wife because she insists on having a job, you can’t honor kill her. Or in other words, you have the right to follow the rules of your religion, but you WILL respect our civil laws. Or, again in other words “Very well, you build your pyre, we build our gallows. When you’re done burning your widow, we’ll hang the people who burned her.”

I don’t know if that’s what Reclaim Australia wants, or if they’re the more extreme form of “no mosques in Australia.”

I don’t care.

I don’t care not because I don’t see a difference between those positions (I do. I’d oppose the latter on principle) but because the group opposing them is not the “pro-islamicization group” or even the “no discrimination against religions group.”

No, the group opposing them is No Room for Racism.

This means that the problem they have isn’t even the problem that’s actually being fought over.

In other words, this is like if you had a problem because your car blew a tire, and someone pulled over and started arguing what type of seats you should have.

It is also entirely predictable.

The left can’t argue the actual problems and their actual causes, so it defaults to insane accusations and running around screaming what are (at least to them, but also to a vast portion of mal-educated young) trigger words: racism! Sexism! White supremacism!

We’ve seen this in the fight for science fiction and the fight for gaming, in the discussions about immigration, and in fact in just about anything that is a point of contention in the present day. I could write the longest, most carefully reasoned essay on why our schools are failing to teach people to read, and someone will quote truncated phrases and call me racist or sexist or (and this is funny) white supremacist.

This is how they’ve convinced themselves the people who want the Hugos to be the award of the majority of fandom again are about pushing women out. (Funny way to do it when Brad’s slate contained about half women.) Sigh.

They should consider not only are those words losing their sting but they DO encourage the people they purport to oppose. TRUE white supremacists in the US and abroad have been considered beneath the touch of normal people. However, when you call everyone who disagrees with you “white supremacists” how are people to know who the real ones are? They will just assume you’re going nuts again. And from that to falling prey to true demagogues is a step.

Anyway, to return to the point of this post – yes, I have one – the problem is that a lot of people on the left have evolved this bizarre theory of race/culture.

I saw it in my kids homework, when they were requested to write about “your culture” but got the essay sent back when they wrote about SF/F geekdom because they wanted “your ancestral culture.”

In my kids particular case the situation quickly became tragic or funny depending on how you look at it, because I descended on them like the wrath of Sarah, demanding they explain themselves.

The explanation went something like this “Language and costumes are tied to your race. Trying to get an immigrant to learn a new language/integrate in the culture he immigrated to is aggression, since you’re supposed to keep your culture, because it’s part of your race. To want you to change is racist.”

(Note to those in SF/F this is much, much worse than the position staked out by VD, the banished one, which if I understand him correctly is that SOME characteristics are inherited and make you more/less competent for industrial civilization. Note also that I don’t even agree with his position, much less the more extreme one. Note also that for his position he is condemned as racist, but the other position makes you enlightened and possibly beautiful and full of the meanings.)

This is the point at which I broke out my broom and flew in circles around their office, pointing out their position was something Hitler would have been proud to embrace. What they are claiming in fact is that there is some ur-mythical-quality to races (and races in this case are defined in the European sense, like my dad blathering on about the “Portuguese race”) which imbues them with their own language and culture. If wanting to change that is racist, and if some of these “races” are better at life than others (understood in the whole system of Marxist reward and punishment) then what will prevent them from in the future deciding to eugenically improve the breed by eliminating the less competent? Or just, as they’re doing now, handicapping them by never teaching them the lingua franca of the age and the technological culture needed to survive?

I didn’t convince anyone, of course, because this is a “religious” belief. I.e. if they thought rationally about it, they’d know that culture isn’t race, because we don’t all speak/dress/eat as they did in Ur of the Chaldees or on that distant day when we lounged about on tree tops eating insects, rodents and berries. But they can’t think about it because in their own blinkered minds, that would make them “racist.”

That is, the admission that all groups of humans (as groups. Obviously every individual is different) can adopt whatever religion/culture they like and be as successful at it as any other group (if they try hard enough) would to them be racist.

While claiming that you’re stuck with whatever culture your ancestors had and that even if you immigrate you have to keep repeating the mistakes of your culture, which caused your country of origin to have problems that caused you to immigrate, THAT in these idiots (apologies to real idiots whom I’m maligning)’s “minds” is racism.

(In other news, Slavery is Freedom, Work is Leisure, and Big Brother loves you.)

And that is what caught me about the confrontations in Australia. Not that they’re clashing over muslims, no. That half of these people think race equals culture.

And that is the epistemological error that can put paid to Western Civilization unless it’s combated every time we meet it.

And we must combat it, or the end result of this will be sitting in a cave, chipping away at flint. And I for one suck at making fires without matches.

Fortunately I also suck at tolerating racism and genetic supremacists of every race. So I’ll continue fighting, long before it comes to that.

In the end, we win, they lose. At least if we don’t allow them to change the meaning of words.