Pages

Sunday, August 24, 2014

Women's Spaces for Women, Men's Spaces for Everyone

Breastfeeding mother of a male infant ordered away from a women's-only pool owned by the city of London because she brought a baby with her, and especially since her infant lacked the requisite vagina:
‘She stood over me and, gesturing to Arthur, said, “Children under eight are not allowed here – especially ones with penises”. I was quite upset and shocked. Then she stood over us while we were packing up and escorted us out. ‘The comment she made was so unfair to Arthur as a little baby – he’s not a sexual being. Kenwood is supposed to be welcoming to women. I’m a breastfeeding mother – I can’t be separated from my son. I understand that they don’t want it to be a child’s playground, but we were just quietly sitting on the grass.’ She was disappointed by the way she was treated during the incident last month. ‘The worst thing was the way the lifeguard spoke to me. I felt that it was not the way to speak to a new mother,’ she said.

The site is owned by the City of London but is run by Kenwood Ladies’ Pond Association, a voluntary group. Its website says the pond is supposed to be a ‘quiet, peaceful place for women and girls to bathe, swim and relax’.
While I can understand the desire to keep young screechy kids away from places where people just want to get away and relax, this double-standard sexism crap is irritating.  Moreover, it is yet another piece of evidence that shows that feminism is, and it was, never about equality, not at least since the First Wave where one can argue one way or the other. No, once again feminism is exposed as being about the craven accrual of privilege for one sex over another.

Friday, August 22, 2014

The Coming Idiocracy

Danish study, echoing others performed in the UK and in Oz, suggests that people worldwide are just getting stupider:
Now some experts believe we are starting to see the end of the Flynn effect in developed countries - and that IQ scores are not just levelling out, but declining. Some believe the Flynn effect has masked a decline in the genetic basis for intelligence, so that while more people have been reaching their full potential, that potential itself has been declining.

Some have even contentiously said this could be because educated people are deciding to have fewer children, so that subsequent generations are largely made up of less intelligent people. Richard Lynn, a psychologist at the University of Ulster, calculated the decline in humans' genetic potential. He used data on average IQs around the world in 1950 and 2000 to discover that our collective intelligence has dropped by one IQ point. Dr Lynn predicts that if this trend continues, we could lose another 1.3 IQ points by 2050.
This comes on the heels of studies that assert that Westerners have become less and less "clever" since the 19th century, with IQ dropping slightly more than 1 point per decade, or 14 points since Victorian times, as increasing urbanization and food availability changed reproductive conditions in a way more favorable to the left-hand side of the bell curve.

So this begs the question: Why the decline? Possible reasons include youth culture, social media, and drug use, which are thought to depress cognitive development, and political liberalism and its offshoots such as feminism. Personally, I find it more than a little ironic the dysgenic association between increasing female education and labor force participation and the overall decline in the cognitive ability of their children. Oh, what we have sacrificed on the altar of maximized individual autonomy.

Another possible contributing phenomenon to this observed cognitive decline is the welfare state, itself another daughter of liberalism which was borne into the West in the late Victorian era. Welfare and similar social redistribution schemes burden (and therefore depresses fertility) the clever and productive to subsidize (and therefore boosts fertility) the dim and less productive. In addition, the decline in popularity of patriarchal family structures in favor of ones preferred (and subsidized) more by liberalism--that is, families headed by women--impede the transmission of social and physical capital from fathers and paternal grandparents to the next generation. And finally, the socio-sexual "liberation" of women set aside restraints on, and consequences of, what was previously immoral sexual behavior. As a result, "chicks" are free to act upon their desire for "jerks" who, among other things, aren't likely to be inclined to invest in the children they sire.

So it seems that liberalism is not only a moral disease, but a social one as well. Mike Judge's 2006 movie Idiocracy was supposed to be satire, but sadly it appears to be predictive instead.

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Never Unjustified

After Kenosha, Wisconsin, police killed his son and immediately ruled it as "justified" after a cursory internal investigation, this man found out something interesting--and took action:
Our country is simply not paying enough attention to the terrible lack of accountability of police departments and the way it affects all of us—regardless of race or ethnicity. Because if a blond-haired, blue-eyed boy — that was my son, Michael — can be shot in the head under a street light with his hands cuffed behind his back, in front of five eyewitnesses (including his mother and sister), and his father was a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who flew in three wars for his country — that’s me — and I still couldn’t get anything done about it, then Joe the plumber and Javier the roofer aren’t going to be able to do anything about it either.

[A]s an Air Force officer and pilot I knew the way safety investigations are conducted, and I was thinking that this was going to be conducted this way. Yet within 48 hours I got the message: The police had cleared themselves of all wrongdoing. In 48 hours! They hadn’t even taken statements from several eyewitnesses. Crime lab reports showed that my son’s DNA or fingerprints were not on any gun or holster, even though one of the police officers involved in Michael’s shooting had claimed that Michael had grabbed his gun.

Wanting to uncover the truth, our family hired a private investigator who ended up teaming up with a retired police detective to launch their own investigation. They discovered that the officer who thought his gun was being grabbed in fact had caught it on a broken car mirror. The emergency medical technicians who arrived later found the officers fighting with each other over what happened. We filed an 1,100-page report detailing Michael's killing with the FBI and US Attorney.

It took six years to get our wrongful death lawsuit settled, and my family received $1.75 million. But I wasn’t satisfied by a long shot. I used my entire portion of that money and much more of my own to continue a campaign for more police accountability. I wanted to change things for everyone else, so no one else would ever have to go through what I did. We did our research: In 129 years since police and fire commissions were created in the state of Wisconsin, we could not find a single ruling by a police department, an inquest or a police commission that a shooting was unjustified. There was one shooting we found, in 2005, that was ruled justified by the department and an inquest, but additional evidence provided by citizens caused the DA to charge the officer.

The problem over many decades, in other words, was a near-total lack of accountability for wrongdoing; and if police on duty believe they can get away with almost anything, they will act accordingly. As a military pilot, I knew that if law professionals investigated police-related deaths like, say, the way that the National Transportation Safety Board investigated aviation mishaps, police-related deaths would be at an all time low.

And so, together with other families who lost loved ones, I launched a campaign in the Wisconsin legislature calling for a new law that would require outside review of all deaths in police custody. In April of this year [the law passed and] made Wisconsin the first state in the nation to mandate at legislative level that police-related deaths be reviewed by an outside agency.
Accountability can be a hard, uncomfortable thing. In the aviation world, if there is a mishap, whether or not people die, the incident is investigated by an outside agency and findings and recommendations are made to prevent future occurrences.  This includes administrative and criminal actions against the professionals involved if the evidence warrants.  Aviation as a whole is better--and certainly safer--for it.

I'd be curious to see the effect of this law on police-involved shooting deaths in Wisconsin. I would imagine that one change that has likely resulted is the transition away from lethal force toward non-lethal methods by police...and if that is the case, then this is the sort of positive change that outside inquests impose on professions.

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Study: Nagging Shortens Your Life

Better to live on the corner of a roof than to share a house with a nagging wife.

Proverbs 25:24
Danish study of 10,000 men and women between 36 and 52 suggests nagging significantly shortens life expectancy. Men, in particular, are at risk:
Ask any married guy on the planet and he’ll tell you, as one man told CBS 2, nagging is “not pleasant.”

But now a new study suggests husbands of nagging wives can actually be nagged to death.

Danish researchers from the University of Copenhagen said having a nagging partner can significantly shorten one’s life, and could result in three extra deaths per 100 people per year. The study also said people nagged by their spouses are more likely to get heart disease and cancer.

“Sounds about right,” said Stephanie Cellitti. “I nag him a lot.”

The study also says men in particular are at risk. Men who said they faced ‘many’ demands from their partner or family and friends were more than twice as likely to die compared to women in the same category who were 34 per cent more likely to die.

“You know, you’re just hanging out, man, and it just starts coming – you know, you try to avoid it as much as you can, but you can’t forever,” said Celliti’s boyfriend, Terry Garcetti.
And Garcetti and Cellitti are not even married yet.
On a tip from Mindstorm.

Monday, August 18, 2014

THIS Is What the 2A Is For

Not for opposing a central government which has gotten too big for its britches--a very high-risk, low payoff option--but for situations like in Ferguson, Missouri, over the last few days.  Via SooperMexican:


As one commenter on SooperMexican's site waggishly put it, note how the woman doesn't seemed to terribly bothered by open display of semi-auto rifles at the ready.  As opposed to OC jokers procuring lattes with rifles at the ready, scaring the bejeezus out of the sheeple--with magazines in and everything--this threatening display is appropriate for the situation.  It's just too bad that it didn't happen on Day 1, not Day 7.



The 2A is about protecting your family, property, or neighborhood when the the police either can't or won't, or won't get there in time, from low-life opportunist scum who want to take your stuff and don't care if they hurt you in the process. In fact, they probably want to hurt you, as "you didn't build that" and their entitled hoodrat culture envies your "privilege".

I just hope these guys never have to seriously engage anyone. For if the looters don't get 'em, the present Administration's racialist Justice Department will want to indict them for their success.  The guy wearing the bandanna around his face is wise indeed.

As an aside, the fine fellow whose shooting at the hands of a white police officer touched off this predictable opportunity to loot and violently protest, was apparently a suspect in a convenience store robbery (after having been caught on video--both unbeknownst to the LEO who shot him) and thought himself quite the artist, crafting raps about murder, drug use, drinking, and fornicating with hos. Classy.

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Legal Supremacy - Rights Exclusive to Women

Janet Bloomfield (aka JudgyBitch) lays out her case:
1. Women have the right to genital integrity...women have the legal right to be protected from having their body parts sliced off. Men do not.

2. Women have the right to vote without agreeing to die...women have the right to vote without agreeing to be drafted. Men don’t.

3. Women have the right to choose parenthood...[and] have three options to absolve themselves of all legal, moral, financial and social responsibility for children they did not intend and do not want. Women may abort the child before it is born, they may surrender the child for adoption without notifying or identifying the father or they may surrender the infant under Safe Haven laws and walk away from all responsibility and obligation. Women cannot be forced or coerced into parenthood, but they are legally allowed to force men into financing their reproductive choices. In many states, men can be forced into financial responsibility for children whom they did not biologically father. As long as a particular man is identified as the father, he will be held accountable. Paternity fraud is legal. In no state is legal paternal surrender permitted without the express agreement of the mother.

4. Women have the right to be assumed caregivers for children...while the law does not specifically indicate that custody will be awarded to women, the defacto result of primary/tertiary caregiver custody law is that women have a legal right to be assumed caregivers for children. Men do not.

5. Women have the right to call unwanted, coerced sex rape. The original FBI definition of rape specifically identified women as the victims, excluding the possibility of male rape victims. When the FBI updated that, it did so in way that includes a small minority of male rape victims but excluded most male rape victims by retaining the “penetration” clause. Penetration of any orifice must occur for rape to have happened. The FBI does collect another set of statistics though, under the category of “other sexual assault” – it’s the awkwardly named “made to penetrate” category, which includes men who were coerced, tricked or bullied into penetrative sex with women they would otherwise not have had sex with. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey similarly considers the two types of assault separately, despite the fact that occurrences are virtually identical. 1.27M women report rape (p.18) and 1.26M men report “made to penetrate” (p.19). By collecting the information under separate categories, following the legal definitions, women have the right to have their rapes called “rape”. Men do not.

Despite insisting that feminism cares for everyone, and wants equality for everyone, the facts suggest the opposite is true. Women have more rights than men and those discrepancies need to be addressed.
While I'm not sure about #2, the link between suffrage and SS registry, I do note that SS registry is a requisite for many other things, like Federal financial aid and Federal employment.

To add to JudgyBitch's excellent list, I suggest:

6. Women have the right to a female sentencing discount, men do not.

7. Women have the right to have violence against them called out specifically in law for special focus and treatment

8. Women have the right to orders of magnitude more research funding for "women's diseases", even when the fatality rates between men's and women's diseases are roughly equal

9. Women have the right to Federally funded "domestic violence" shelters, men who claim that they are victims of IPV are turned away.

I'm sure there are more examples out there to buttress the assertion that feminism long ago ceased being about "equality", and instead is seeks to advantage one sex over the other.

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Liberalists, Meet Irony

News crew robbed in NW DC while reporting on how racist some new apps were for enabling users to Notice that some neighborhood were 'sketchier' than others:
A Washington D.C. news crew says it was robbed in Petworth, Northwest D.C., while reporting on a controversial app that shows users where "sketchy" neighborhoods. The news crew said the app led them to the location of the shoot. While the D.C. news crew didn't specifically name the app they were reporting on, it sounds a lot like SketchFactor, an app that was recently featured in Valleywag, Business Insider and other outlets as an app with a racist connotation. "Smiling Young White People Make An App for Avoiding Black Neighborhoods," Valleywag's Sam Biddle wrote.

"We were doing a story on an app that describes ‘sketchy’ neighborhoods," WUSA 9 crew member Mola Lenghi told his network on air Friday evening. “It led us to the Petworth neighborhood of Northwest, and I’m not going to call it a ‘sketchy’ neighborhood, but as folks were telling us that it was a good neighborhood, and that not much activity happens around there — as that was being told to us, our van was being robbed."

Lenghi showed the van's destroyed lock and says a number of electronics and bags were stolen from the vehicle.
While the creators of the probable app in question, SketchFactor, have been widely accused of the crime of enabling others to publicly Notice, they point out that
"SketchFactor is a tool for anyone, anywhere, at any time," they wrote. "We have a reporting mechanism for racial profiling, harassment, low lighting, desolate areas, weird stuff, you name it."

They add that they tested the app with 100 people in various community groups in New York. The app was a finalist in a city-sponsored BigApps competition, and has several thousand dollars in investment. In addition to user data, the app also incorporates public crime data and trusted sources.

SketchFactor is just one of many products that aim to crowdsource safety information about the areas in which users live and walk - and it is not the first to be hit with the racism label.
Perhaps SketchFactor's creators' real crime was to base their app on subjective "sketchiness" evaluations. Apparently Noticing using cold, hard crime statistics, while just as "technically correct", is politically correct as well.

Monday, August 11, 2014

What Well-Regulated Means

Posted for the edification of hoplophobes and antis on the Left, and for the encouragement and rhetorical armament of civil rights types on the Right, this is probably about as comprehensive an apologia for what "well regulated" in the 2A means as I've ever read:
[Anti-gunners] would have us believe that “well regulated” means thoroughly bound by laws and strictures, but that’s a more recent interpretation of the phrase.
To find out what it meant in the 18th century, we turn to Samuel Johnson’s A Dictionary of the English Language (published in 1755). Johnson’s dictionary was considered by most to be the pre-eminent English language dictionary until the publication of the Oxford English Dictionary some 175 years later. Johnson defines regulate as:
  1. To adjust by rule or method
  2. To direct
If we look up adjust we find:
  1. To regulate; to put in order
  2. To make accurate
  3. To make conformable
And the definition of direct is given as:
  1. To aim in a straight line
  2. To point against as a mark
  3. To regulate; to adjust
Finally the Oxford English Dictionary itself defines regulated as:
  1. Governed by rule, properly controlled or directed, adjusted to some standard.
  2. Of troops: properly disciplined (Obsolete rare). [bolded emphasis mine - EW]
and gives the following example of its use in that sense:
1690 London Gazette No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great allarm in in Daupine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 men of regulated troops on that side.
Now that we’ve determined that “well regulated” means the militia should be properly disciplined and well-functioning, where can we look to find out who makes up the militia? The antis want us to believe the militia is merely an obsolete term for the National Guard, Hence the Second Amendment only applies to National Guardsmen and uniformed soldiers.
Fortunately there are numerous sources available to refute this. During the debates in Virginia on whether to ratify or reject the new Constitution which had come out of Philadelphia, George Mason (sometimes called the Father of the Bill of Rights) said:
A worthy member has asked, who are the militia, if they be not the people, of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation? I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.
During those same debates Founder Richard Henry Lee (writing as M.T. Cicero to “The Citizens of America”) explained quite explicitly just who and what constituted the well-regulated militia:
No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and the soldier in those destined for the defence of the state . . . . Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.
In addition to these writings there is also legislative history, some contemporary to the Founding and some more recent, stating who is in the militia. The Militia Act of 1792 defined militia in Section 1:
 That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.
In fact current U.S. Code contains a definition of the militia in Title 10-A Chapter 13 § 311:
a)     The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
b)     The classes of the militia are—
  1. the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
  2. the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia
Which means that, well, pretty much everybody [Ed - all men, that is...women are not in the militia unless they are already Guardsmen] is in the militia, which in turn means that, in order to protect the country pretty much everybody should have military weaponry. But [anti-gunners have] an answer to that too:
When that was written the world was a far different place than it is now, and the Founding Fathers could never have forseen[sic] how far the development of firearms would come in the future.
After all, their fathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers and many generations before that had never seen anything but old, slow-to-load, inaccurate muzzle-loading pistols and long guns.
Ah yes, the classic “the Founders were unimaginative morons” argument. The only problem is that we have many things which were not around when the Bill of Rights was written, like television, radio, high speed printing presses, the internet, cell phones, video cell phones, Mormonism and Reform Judaism. [Are anti-gunners] seriously going to try and argue that none of these are protected under the First Amendment because the Founders were too stupid to imagine their existence? Of course not! These things are all protected because the core right involved (freedom of the press and religion) is not affected by the instruments used to exercise it. Likewise the core right of keeping and bearing arms is not changed by changes in what constitute arms.
The author goes on to list various high-capacity firearms in existence at the time of the Founding, such as 9-shot handguns, 7-shot flintlock rifles, and 40-shot air rifles with ballistics resembling that of a .45ACP (the latter did much to aid in the success and survival of the Lewis and Clark expedition in 1805).  "Slow to load" they may have been, but they were certainly high-capacity and some variants were very accurate, even by modern standards.  

Clearly, "well regulated" means something much different than what the antis want us to believe it means, their modern readings of 17th-century texts or historical ignorance notwithstanding.

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

About Bloody Time

...Congressional Republicans started calling out Democrats on their overt racial-political warfare:
Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) on Monday accused Democrats of engaging in a “war on whites” in the current immigration debate. On conservative radio host Laura Ingraham’s show, Brooks dismissed the idea that the more conservative GOP bloc's position on immigration is hurting his own party.

“This is a part of the war on whites that’s being launched by the Democratic Party. And the way in which they’re launching this war is by claiming that whites hate everybody else,” he said during the interview. "It's a part of the strategy that Barack Obama implemented in 2008, continued in 2012, where he divides us all on race, on sex, greed, envy, class warfare, all those kinds of things. Well that’s not true.”

Brooks said recent polls indicate every demographic group agrees that the rule of law should be enforced and border security must be improved. “It doesn't make any difference if you're a white American, a black American, a Hispanic-American, an Asian-American or if you're a woman or a man. Every single demographic group is hurt by falling wages and lost jobs,” Brooks said. “Democrats, they have to demagogue on this and try and turn it into a racial issue, which is an emotional issue, rather than a thoughtful issue," he added. "If it becomes a thoughtful issue, then we win and we win big. And they lose and they lose big. ”

Brooks accused Democrats of playing a “political game” and Ingraham said they’re “playing the race card.”
This has been obvious to anyone with eyes for the last 20, 10, 5 years, and certainly since the 2012 presidential campaigns, where there was explicit room for every group under the Democratic tent except for whites, particularly white males.

One gets the sense that we've passed the apogee of Peak Racism/Racialism. If not, it is good to see some return fire against the liberalist Left using their own bullets.  Here's hoping that this public figure has enough grit to go the distance, andn doesn't fold under the inevitable accusations of racism that are sure to come his way.

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Correcting Others

Elspeth had some wise words to share not too long ago about correcting the behavior of others. What she had to say struck a chord with me:
Our culture has conditioned us to hate people “cursed” to be born with a sunny disposition in this age of snark and cynicism. But here is the worst part, from a Christian standpoint. We have actually convinced ourselves that the only way to speak truth or offer correction is from a place of pride, rudeness, and condescension. My kids can tell you that I’m as much a believer in tough love as anyone. I know that some people don’t respond to any other kind, but it shouldn’t be our way of first approach:
Dear brothers and sisters, if another believer is overcome by some sin, you who are godly should gently and humbly help that person back onto the right path. And be careful not to fall into the same temptation yourself. Galatians 6:1
We are inundated with bad news, dire predictions, and negative reports at every turn. No wonder there are so many grumpy, pessimistic people walking about. No wonder my little girl can’t even coax a smile out of half the people we meet from day to day. I’ve had to train myself to stop being so suspicious and be cautiously open instead, and make connections with other human beings, if only for a moment. (bolded emphasis mine)
Quick story: During this last summer visit, some long-running friction between S1 and Mrs. Wapiti came to a head. As one can imagine, dissatisfaction with this friction was not being expressed in a healthy way by my teenage son, and some words were said that were colored by some of the pride and rudeness that Elspeth mentions above.  Part of how this unhappiness was communicated was attributable to a skill deficit in how to express his feelings as a young person, the other part was a direct product of behavior shaped by the coarseness of the media he consumes (few to no limits imposed by the former spouse, much to my chagrin), and the rudeness-as-a-virtuous-art-form youth culture in which he is immersed as a public school student. In other words, he has had scant few opportunities to see constructive conflict resolution, and his role models actually encourage the opposite.

At any rate, it was an opportunity to counsel him on a couple of things I've learned over the years (slow learner, me): First and foremost, and Elspeth was right on the money with this one, is that making and maintaining connections with other human beings, in other words, relationships, is the key to getting along with others in this life. One can't just blunderbuss a heaping helping of  discontent at another person and reasonably expect a warm reception, let alone for that person to make the changes in behavior you seek.  If change in circumstances, or another's behavior, is what you want, you must first seek a connection, and establish that relationship.

Second, is to speak in love and humility, and not lash out in anger and frustration. If your message isn't framed in such a way as to be received by another in a manner that they'll accept your correction suggestions for improvement, well, at the minimum you are wasting your and another's time, and are likely aggravating the situation, not making it better.

The world is full of negative, an unfortunate state of being that I sometimes contribute to here at EW (and something that I'm working on improving, for I'm a reflexive glass-is-half-full kinda guy).  Speaking in kindness and love is not only more effective in my experience, but is something unusual in this world filled with encouragement to do the opposite.

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Real Misogyny

The opposite of love isn't hate, it is indifference:
The shops at the mall haven’t conspired to force young women to misuse their sexuality. Not too long ago we collectively decided that moral constraints on women’s sexuality were unfair, and tossed them aside. What we are seeing now is where this lack of moral constraint is taking us. Women are being tempted by the culture, but they are being tempted to do something any student of the Old Testament should understand. They are being tempted to do things our great grandmothers understood. We can’t even think let alone use the word harlot, yet we have sluts marching down main-street.

While it is true that it is a challenge for a modest woman to find suitable clothing, the reason for this isn’t because men or evil capitalists have colluded to keep modest clothing away from the rack, it is because the vast majority of women are choosing immodest clothing out of a desire to misuse their sexual power.

We don’t help women by denying all of this, or by repeatedly telling women they are beautiful no matter what and begging them to believe it. We don’t help women by adopting their own blind spot regarding their temptation to sin. We help women by manning up and helping them be honest about their own temptations to sin, and we help them by teaching them what God finds beautiful.

The problem isn’t that modern women want to be beautiful, nor is it that they aren’t told enough how beautiful they are, how special they are, or how perfect they are. The problem is that modern women aren’t focusing their desire to be beautiful in the right ways. They shouldn’t strive to be beautiful for the other women around them, nor for the men they meet in public. They should strive to be beautiful to the Lord, and to be beautiful to their own husbands.
I was listening to Family Life Today on the radio recently, and something that one of the guests said was quite interesting: One of the unintended negative effects of feminism upon women (and men) has been a profound sense of abandonment. Not only abandonment in the sense of physical and/or social isolation (which has been on the increase for both sexes), not only abandonment in the sense of a lack of intimate relationships (also on the increase for both sexes), but abandonment in the sense that precious few within the Church or without would bother to keep women from sinning. For various reasons, society and the Church readily lecture men as to the error of their ways, but are very reluctant to do so for women, with the effect that women are then "given over" more easily to their sin with nary a warning or worse, the active teachings of Churchian doctrine.

Dalrock's quote above seems to be of an operative example of the abandonment described by the radio guest.  Contra the bleating of feminist agitators and their cartoonish claims of misogyny behind every tree and under every rock, there is precious little "positive" misogyny (i.e., overt, conscious, intentional hatred of women) in our culture today. However, "negative" misogyny--indifference, reluctance to intervene, and / or speak the Truth when a woman or women is doing something patently stupid, detrimental, and harmful to their mental, physical, or spiritual selves--abounds.

That is real misogyny, the sort that does far more harm due to its insidious nature. Not the occasional catcall or other eruptions of the so-called "patriarchy".

Saturday, July 19, 2014

Please Stop Protecting My 2A Rights, OC Enthusiasts

Pretty much agree with this 100%:
Call me crazy, but I feel one of my responsibilities as a gun rights advocate is to show people that gun owners are reasonable, responsible people who aren’t a threat to the innocent. If I were to, say, walk into Chipotle carrying an AK at the combat ready, I’m pretty sure I’d accomplish the exact opposite. And I really couldn’t blame regular Joe for being afraid of me. Think about it, guys. If a cop walks into Chipotle with a rifle, people will get scared. If a soldier walks into Chipotle with a rifle, people will get scared. If some unknown guy walks into Chipotle with a rifle, especially if he’s carrying it at the combat ready, people are going to get scared. In America, carrying a rifle into a restaurant isn’t a normal act. Right or wrong, it scares people. And you won’t make people less scared of guns by intentionally scaring them with guns.

This has been explained by other writers already, but it’s worth repeating: if someone is carrying a weapon at port arms or low ready, it’s no different than walking around with a pistol out of the holster in a combat grip. Professionals carry their long guns in front when they’re prepared for imminent contact. When I was overseas and outside the wire, my weapon was either in my hands or hanging on my chest. You know, the way OCers carry their weapons inside coffee shops.

Statesman.com via chrishernandezauthor.com

Now, I’m going to do a little compare and contrast. Take another look at the totally non-threatening latte buyer above. Note how his weapon hangs by the sling on his chest. If I ever have a chance to ask him, I’m sure he’ll say nothing in the manner of his open carry suggests he’s a threat.

Now, check out this guy:

US Army photo via chrishernandezauthor.com

Notice that he’s carrying his weapon in pretty much the same manner as the latte buyer. But he is, in fact, one hell of a threat. Because the soldier, probably unlike the coffee shop customer, has been trained how to quickly raise his weapon and engage. The soldier carries his weapon up front specifically so he can shoot people with it. The fact that the open carrier apparently doesn’t know that he’s carrying his weapon in a combat-ready manner kinda suggests he shouldn’t be carrying it in a coffee shop.

I’m 100% pro-2nd Amendment. In fact, I actually support the legal right to open carry in private businesses. I support it the same way I support the Westboro Baptist Church’s right to protest at soldiers’ funerals. I consider both acts to be the height of stupidity. I think the WBC and open carriers are only harming their own cause. Both acts are moronic. But this is America, and people have a right to be morons.

Peaceful open carry rallies where gun owners safely carry long guns slung across their backs on public land? I’m down with that. Blatantly ridiculous, orchestrated confrontations where open carriers walk into private businesses with rifles at the combat ready, just to piss people off, knowing that all they’ll do is create more enemies? No thanks.
There was once a time in our country where firearms were ubiquitous and used as tools of both defense and provision.  After all, one had to feed oneself and their family as well as maintain vigilance from existential threats (like the French, Indians, Redcoats, Redcoats again, Damn Yankees, bandits, Indians again, etc). Furthermore, there was no such thing as a professionalized police force, the culture was relatively homogenous (no diversity+proximity to engender war to contend with) with a resultant high level of interpersonal trust, and women married the soon-to-be father of their children and stayed that way--choice mommies and their criminal spawn were seen as shameful pathologies.  Those times are long gone and are not likely to come back anytime soon. Nowadays, the overt presence of firearms on anyone, to include police officers, is disruptive at minimum, and often quite disorderly, depending on the context. How then, in this cultural and social context, is one to interpret the intent of  OC advocates with combat-ready carries of ARs, AKs, and SKSs?

boingboing.net

Hmmm, not easy to tell apart.  Just as with active shooters, or masked men breaching your door at 2 AM, it is difficult to discriminate between good guys and bad.

The moral of this story is this: Not only do urban OC advocates unnecessarily rile up the hoplophobic sheeple with their aggro high-profile sheepdogging, and therefore pose a very real lawfare threat to the entire body of 2A rights--which as the quoted author suggests has been gaining traction of late--but they are really hard to distinguish from someone intent on causing harm.  On top of this, their demonstrations counter-intuitively expose individual OC advocates to more risk, not less, as they are highlighting themselves as a target, the first threat criminals neutralize. They are thus giving away the primary advantage that CCW holders have should they ever find themselves in the vicinity of a violent crime in progress, one in which the criminals by definition hold the initiative...surprise.

But the reason why I care about this issue is not that OC poseurs might get shot in the course of their posing, but that they stampede sheeple into the arms of tyrannical liberalists who are only happy to relieve the People of their God-given right to defend themselves. Their actions make my family and I less safe and less free, not more.

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

When "Too Big to Control" Meets Gynocentrism

Color me surprised (not) to learn that "free" contraceptive coverage for women is required by Obamacare. Not because the requirement was deliberately written into the law by Congress (it wasn't), but that the law gives "discretion" to the HHS secretary, who then issues edicts for what is, and is not, covered.  Thus the present Administration, always enamored of the single-payer, universal health care paradigm, ratchets its way toward universal coverage by declaring various coverages to be cost-free at the point of delivery to a key liberalist constituency (ht Neo-Neocon):
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act mandates contraceptive coverage for all employers and educational institutions, even though the mandate itself is not included in the wording of the law(s) passed by Congress. The mandate applies to all new health insurance plans effective August 2012…

On January 20, 2012, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced a (then) final rule of an August 1, 2011 interim final rule on health insurance coverage with no cost sharing for FDA-approved contraceptives and contraceptive services (including female sterilization) for women of reproductive age if prescribed by health care providers, as part of women’s preventive health services guidelines adopted by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) for the Affordable Care Act. Male contraception is not eligible.

Regulations made under the act rely on the recommendations of the independent Institute of Medicine (IOM) in its July 19, 2011 report Clinical Preventive Services for Women: Closing the Gaps…
Why this coverage for women's contraception, when it isn't spelled out in the law? Well, it seems that the FedGov asked the IOM to review "what preventive services are important to women’s health and well-being and then [recommend] which of these should be considered in the development of comprehensive guidelines", and, go figure, the IOM did just that.  Subsequently, the HHS
adopted the IOM’s recommendations outlining which services for women should be included. Now, a full range of preventive services for women, including annual well-woman visits, screening for gestational diabetes, breastfeeding support, HPV testing, STI counseling and HIV screening, contraception methods and counseling, and screening and counseling for interpersonal and domestic violence, will be covered by new health plans without cost sharing. New health plans will be required to comply with these guidelines for policies with plan years beginning on or after August 1, 2012.
Well then. One finds what one seeks. No mention of men, of course, a population about whom the HHS didn't bother to seek recommendations.  As NeoNeoCon rhetorically queries "don't things like HIV, contraception, domestic violence, and STDs apply to men too?  Do they not deserve some freebies too?", knowing full well the answer is "no".

None of this of course should surprise anyone.  HHS is one of the tentacles of which is the Administrative State, one that in this case was granted wide discretion by Congress to more or less implement Obamacare in the manner that it wishes.  As we know that the Administrative State, like Academia, is a key component of the Cathedral, and that the door between them is wide and revolving, and that academic feminism seeks to secure resources and privilege for women at the expense of men, I'm shocked (/sarc) that the law is being used to do just that.  And there's little-to-nothing that men as a class can do about this crass, taxpayer-funded gynocentric gravy train, as such notables from the right and the left have observed that the FedGov is too big to effectively control.

Saturday, July 12, 2014

Guys, It's All On You

Source: johnpavlovitz.com
On one hand, I absolutely, 100% agree with this:
Your sex drive? It’s your problem. You and me, we are visual. We do love the shape of women’s bodies. We are tempted and aroused by their physicality. [Yet we also] direct the limbs and the words. We choose what we grab, and touch, and rub-up against. This is about what we’ll choose to cultivate in our heads, and what we’ll choose to do with our hands as a result. [Y]oung men, this is a matter of ownership. The only thing you own; the only thing you’ll ever own, are your choices. That’s why it’s called self-control.
All well and good. The statement that men are responsible for their own actions and their own thought life is uncontroversial. Troof and all that. But Mr. Pavolvitz starts to lose me when he erects this strawman to bash:
I know you’ve been led to believe that it’s the girl’s fault; the way she dresses, the shape of her body, her flirtatious nature, her mixed messages. I know you’ve grown-up reading and hearing that since guys are really “visual”, that the ladies need to manage all of that by covering-up and keeping it hidden; that they need to drive this whole physical relationship deal, because we’re not capable. Guys, the girls you date, the ones in your class, the ones you meet on social media, the ones you pass on the street, the ones you hook-up with at parties: they’re priceless...and they don’t belong to you. Sometimes, doing what’s right toward someone, even needs to transcend their attitude about themselves. If a girl you know shows too much, advertises too much, and offers too much, it doesn’t mean you can take too much, because it’s about the value you assign to her, and to yourself.
A few thoughts here. First, ad strawman-inum: Who really, honestly argues that the shapely, flirty, mixed-messagey, scantily clad young woman is 100% responsible for the way men react to her signalling, and it's on her to cover it up lest the animals be tempted?  This is a pretty reductionist and frankly misandrist POV; perhaps Mr. Pavlovitz encounters this line of argument frequently, in which case I suggest that perhaps there are better groups of people with whom he can associate.

Second, hooking up? Brother, you're speaking to the wrong crowd, if this is your message. Believing men don't hook up, by definition.  And if you're addressing secular or liberalist men, what makes you think for a moment that the secular and/or liberalist male would recognize, much less value, the inherent priceless dignity in a human being, of which a woman, particularly a daughter of God, is one? That's a Christian value, not a secular one, and whatever inherent value our society assigns to men and women is merely Christianist residue in a neo-pagan Western culture. By contrast, if one's belief system is summarized by "in the long run, we're all dead", or that we're all just clumps of molecules vibrating in synchronicity, well, human value is derived from something quite different than what the Flying Spaghetti Monster-inspired scribblings of dead Semites say.  "Priceless" becomes far, far cheaper, maybe even bankrupt, and the behavior and manners of scantily clad women angling for male attention in the SMP is an indicator that said clothing-challenged women know it too.

Third, I've never ever heard calls from the pulpit exhorting women to modesty and controlling their own substantial commitment-seeking sex drives, let alone from the wider liberalist culture (which encourages exactly the opposite). Not. Once. Moreover, judging from the dress and appearance of of-age women in the pews at churches on any given Sunday, if there is any sub rosa instruction encouraging female modesty from within the Body itself, it is decidedly ineffective.

But what I have heard, from the pulpit (repeatedly) and from the wider gynocentric culture (constantly), has been an ongoing lecture about how men need to keep control of their sexuality, lest it lead them to do evil and inflict harm upon the innocents in their midst. Men merely noticing women's sexual fitness displays (as per the picture heading up this post)? Churchians:  Bad. Feminists: Bad. Women making those displays in the first place? Churchians: Er, can we just talk about how lust a men's problem? Feminists: You go, grrl! or alternatively, damn patriarchy!

This leads me to my primary critique of Mr. Pavlovitz's article, one that was also made by several commenters to his original and follow-up post here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and  here and here and here and here and here and here:  The message that men must take ownership of their sexuality, while certainly true in isolation, is only half the message that needs to be said. To be fair, Mr. Pavlovitz apparently recognizes this and repeatedly states that his post is directed at men and men alone, with the issue of feminine modesty tabled for later. Much "later", apparently, as in "don't hold your breath", as his past writings suggest he prefers to focus on issues surrounding men in the church and gives issues surrounding women in the Church a wide berth, preferring instead, for example, to counsel Christian men to "woman up", as if the Church needs more effete men, "Jesus is my boyfriend" theology, or a more feminized worship climate. No wonder there's a dearth of men in church. Or go great-guns vs Robin Thicke as an alleged exponent for "boys will be boys" culture for his recent on-stage excursion with a near-nude and tawdry Miley Cyrus, once again blaming boys and men for girls' and women's decisions to debase themselves for a little attention and / or a buck.

At any rate, without that balance, his message joins the larger one-sided, frankly not very male-positive chorus in our culture, one that correctly identifies what men need to do to get their conduct right viz women and God, but actively avoids addressing what the other 51% must complementarily do to get their gender house in order. Which is, namely, to be modest, but also for their (women's) far-too-cozy relationship with frivorce and serial polyandry.

In Half-Ephesians, Half-Timothy land, guys, it's all on you.

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

An Encouraging Sight At A Wedding I Attended

Last week, I attended a wedding of a young man to a young woman, something that happens a couple of a million times each year in the United States.  In other words, common, ordinary, and unremarkable. But what I saw and heard in this wedding gave me hope, and should to many of my readers, which is why I am writing about it today.

It started with the unusual seating arrangements...adult men and women were sequestered, no matter if they were married or single.  Men on the left, women on the right, as was the habit of this particular church. Segregation of the sexes in houses of worship is quite unusual in the West, particularly outside of certain faiths like Islam or Orthodox Judaism or Orthodox Christianity. But this was an evangelical Christian church, replete with a raised pulpit, a choir, hymnals, and hardwood pews with no padded seats. The setup was interesting to say the least.

But what got my attention, and thus what drove me to write this post today, were the vows. Outside of my own wedding, I have never attended a wedding where Ephesians was quoted word-for-word during the ceremony.  This was no half-Ephesians stuff either; not only was the husband encouraged to love his wife in accordance with Ephesians 5:25 and stated so in his vows, but the wife was exhorted to submit to her husband's leadership as outlined in Ephesians 5:22, Titus 2:4, and 1 Peter 3:1, and also stated so in her vows.  Yes, the dreaded "s" word was used, without modification or equivocation. My jaw nearly hit the floor.  Moroever, the bride's and groom's parents got in on the act as well, reading aloud scriptures addressing the gravity of the soon-to-be-wed couple's union and pledging to support and defend the marriage of their children.

At this point, a word about the demographics of this church is in order. As you may be suspecting by now, this is not your ordinary Churchianity church populated with Whites taking an, erm, more "free range" attitude toward Scripture.  No, the congregation of this church was Phillippino, and was pastored by a White man married to a Phillippina. Similarly, the bride's and groom's fathers were both white men married to Phillippinas, the latter having met and married while stationed in Manila in the 1980s.  So: not your typical evangelical Christian congregation.  But if two well educated and accomplished young people (the groom was a Serviceman in his mid- to late 20s, the bride an RN in her mid-20s) in this modern age can come together like this--with the full support of what appears to be a very conservative and traditional ethnic and religious community--perhaps there is a future for American society still.

An encouraging sight to be sure. One that stood in some contrast to the wife-half of a white couple who also attended: after the service concluded, she registered her disagreement with Ephesians 5:22 et al to Mrs. Wapiti.  Her concern apparently was that submission oppresses women and prevents them from assuming their proper place in the family.  And while this anecdote speaks somewhat to the degraded state of Christian faith amongst Whites, some non-white sects still hold fast to the Word.

As it is promised, the meek (i.e., the humbly observant) will inherit. And the future belongs to them.