Man Woman Gives Birth, America Is Definitely Home of the Free

He is not a he, he is a she with boobs lopped off and testosterone that would increase the size of the clitoris and make it look more penis-like. Let's be real here. A man cannot carry a baby. She was not born with ambiguous genitalia. This "dude" is not a dude. She is a dudette. She is a mother. She gave birth through her vagina. That's right "he" gave birth naturally.

He is a she. I am sick of the politically correct nonsense around this woman. Just because someone has surgery and names herself a man, doesn't make it so. Might make her delusional. And it makes the news media look more insane than average, too,"The new dad walked easily, although he appeared tired, .... Someone opened the door for him." Oh, and can you imagine how this kid is going to feel about "dad". This is just nuts. (Couldn't resist.)

She is free to call herself whatever she wants. This is America. And so I am free to call her a she and so I will.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

When A Woman Rapes A Man...

Dr. Helen has a must-read piece about female aggression and rape. I'm reminded of a friend's story of how he lost his virginity at the hands of a babysitter when he was 12 or 13. He was clearly distressed on the one hand but socialized to believe he should be okay with it, on the other. To me, it was clear that the woman had used her position of authority to abuse him. Even the other men at the table shifted uncomfortably upon hearing the story. Every twelve year old boy fantasizes about these things happening, but the consequences when it actually does can be devastating.

This part of the man's letter is especially horrifying:

After most of my drunken stupor wore off around 7 am or so, I awoke again to find her on top of me — this time with a more menacing attitude as she knew I was in a better position to respond physically this time. I had began to wiggle out from under her (taking care not to hurt her baby) when she sternly warned me to “be quiet” and “not be forceful” and made it clear that she would cry rape if I tried to stop it. I was stunned to say the least and not sure how to respond. I could easily have thrown her across the room and off of me, but was concerned for her child and took her threat very, very seriously. She said it so easily that I doubt I was her first.

I weighed my options for a moment and came to the conclusion that a sober, 6 or 7-month pregnant college student of 24 was far more likely to be believed by the authorities than a drunk 19-year old Marine in the best shape of his life. I frequented that club a lot and I’m sure several people saw me leave with her. I was pretty much fucked — in more than one way — at that point.

Rape is about power first, and sex, second. This is rape.

Hymen Re-Creation: An Act of Liberation or Oppression?

So, you're a Western girl, which is to say, that you're one of the 90% of girls who isn't a virgin when they get married. Only problem is that you're going to the altar with Mohammed, who lost his virginity a few years back too, but against all logic, wants to have one of the 10% of Western Muslim girls who is still a virgin (that number is probably higher, this is for the sake of argument). He wants proof. He wants blood. And the courts in France, when he doesn't get what he wants on the wedding night, he gets an annulment and the court gives it to him:

The furor followed the revelation two weeks ago that a court in the northern city of Lille had annulled the 2006 marriage of two French Muslims after the groom discovered his bride was not the virgin she had claimed to be.

The domestic saga has gripped the nation. The bridegroom, an unidentified engineer in his 30s, left the nuptial bed and announced to the still-partying wedding guests that his bride had lied about her past. She was delivered that night to her parents' doorstep.

The next day, he asked a lawyer to annul the marriage. The bride, then a nursing student in her 20s, confessed the truth to the court and agreed to an annulment.

In its ruling, there was no mention of religion. Rather, it cited breach of contract, concluding that he had married her after "she was presented to him as single and chaste."

No mention of religion, but it's all about religion: specifically the misogyny and lower-class status of women in the Muslim religion. Her only value is sexual and as a uterus willing to produce fruit from an unsullied garden. And of course, should the woman be involved with a more strident believer, her very life is at stake:

Surgeons who perform the procedure said they were empowering their patients by giving them a viable future and preventing them from being abused - or even killed - by their fathers or brothers.

"Who am I to judge?" asked Marc Abecassis, the plastic surgeon who restored the Montpellier student's hymen. "I have colleagues in the United States whose patients do this as a Valentine's present to their husbands. What I do is different. This is not for amusement. My patients don't have a choice if they want to find serenity - and husbands."

A specialist in what he calls "intimate" surgery, including penile enhancement, Abecassis says he performs two to four hymen restorations a week.

So, Muslim women cannot stand for themselves and secular, French law won't stand for them either.

It is politically incorrect to say that the practitioners of Islam are close-minded, double-standard wielding throw-backs. This, to me, is not about extolling the benefits of virginity, which, I fully support. This is about parity and freedom and equality for all people no matter their gender.

This case highlights the fact that the European Muslims don't assimilate. They don't participate fully in the culture (and in France, there are many reasons for this). They are like welfare sucking, violent Amish except they inhabit the cities. The backwardness is extreme even by Amish standards and yet Western elites in this century can, with a straight face, speak of liberating women by recreating hymens.

The whole of Western culture is being oppressed to satisfy a Muslim man's insecurity. I call bullshit.

H/T Rorschach

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Crotch Shots and Feminists With Brazen Breasts

Few images disturb a feminist's sensibilities more than a man sitting, spread-eagled bodaciously facing the camera. Ravishment unsettles as well, especially ravishment that foreshadows beheading. Of course, that disqualifies the cover of nearly every romance novel. I have to say, on that count, I agree with the feminists. Yuck. Romance novels suck--not that I've ever read one. Well, unless you consider Somewhere In Time by Richard Matheson (remember Christopher Reeve and Jane Seymore? sigh) a romance novel. But I digress.....

Cassy Fiano actually goes and reads feminist blogs and found this post especially entertaining. I don't go read their blogs because I already have enough digestive disturbances. It's better that I pretend those blogs don't exist. Saves on toilet paper. Hey! And that saves the environment! Cassy thinks the ladies do protest too much. Well, yeah. That's what girls do. Get all excited and cluck a lot about nothing.

What struck me, though, was the second image. Do you recall a similar image? I do. Oh, I do. It's the spread eagle pose. Mmmm hmmmm. Kinda hot, right? A man so manly that he cannot do anything but spread his legs when he's sitting. He's just that endowed.

Clinton has that weirdly amused look on his face. He's having fun. And that reminded me of another photo--one that included prominent breasts around Bill.

You see, I find the disconnect between what is acceptable for a guy like Clinton but not acceptable for a stupid advertisement the thing that undermines feminists. Well, one of things that undermines their message. You want to be taken seriously? You want us to care that you care about the King of England being portrayed as a misogynist (and it would be difficult to argue that old Henry VIII loved women outside of being objects of entertainment, but let's not look at history in context), then care about real men with real power who claim to be feminists while fucking over women. And Bill Clinton does just that. Ann Althouse said, "I think Clinton betrayed feminism (and I hate the way many feminists have given him a pass)."

Bill continues to screw women. I think he's been a huge detriment to his wife, but of course she's in a bind. If she ditches him, she ditches the whole reason she's being considered as a presidential contender to begin with. If she keeps him, well, he sucks the oxygen out of the room because he's a typical guy--it's ALL about him. Wait a minute! Isn't that what feminists say? Men are just that way? But not Bill Clinton. Oh, hell no! He is a god. He is hot.

As far as I'm concerned, his wife has done the same thing. Since we're on the topic of betraying feminist ideals--as changeable as they seem (isn't that just like a woman)--Hillary has done the same. No, she hasn't dressed provocatively--unless you consider a slight show of cleavage provocative. But she has wept like a girl. She cries for her own sad plight. That doesn't make her equal, it makes her look like a woman using tears to manipulate. Wait, she is a woman using tears to manipulate. Can you imagine Susan B. Anthony tearing up over her own sad plight? I think not.

Blech. The feminists undermine their own message. If it isn't absolutism about abortion, it's superficial outrage about things that matter little while ignoring things that matter. Feminists need to catch a clue. Or maybe, they just need to get married and have a bunch of kids and do some housework. Idle hands and whatnot.

Pregnant Men & More Deviance

It's TOTALLY normal to wear furry suits as an adult. It's totally normal to be a woman, get your breasts lopped off, take testosterone to be a man and get pregnant. Totally. Normal. And you can't tell me any different.

Oh, and abortion is good and not at all racist.

"I don't want them punished with a baby"

Oh boy, I heard that speech yesterday by Obama and a chill went up my spine. A baby as punishment for the crime of what? Being stupid? One little old mistake and then...... a lifetime in kid hell, HELL, I tell you.

Ann Althouse blogged about it, of course and here's what she says:

Obama is obviously talking about contraception education, but there is an implicit — albeit deniable — signal about abortion rights. Note that he says "I'm going to teach [my daughters] first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." If they make a mistake, doesn't that mean they failed to use contraception? It suggests that to a lot of people, but I think he took the position that it would be a mistake to have sex at all, and therefore he wants them to know to use contraception — that is, to make a mistake with less consequence.

I don't think the "implicit signal" is deniable. He meant what he said--a baby is a punishment for a "mistake". The mistake being having sex without contraception. Having unmarried sex is not a mistake. It's reality. At least that's how I took it. His expectation is that his teenage daughters will be sexually active. I mean, he's a "realist" and that if they screw up with contraception, he doesn't want them burdened with a baby. His view is entirely accurate for the way many parents feel--especially ones who believe in abortion. I mean, that's the point of abortion, right? Abortion is to avoid the "punishment" a child reeks on the life of a young mother. Right?

This is not my view, by the way. I'm one of those simpletons who believes every child is a gift from God, even the child of a rapist. Adoption is always an option. A child conceived deserves a chance. That's my philosophy.

But what about teens and sex? Church kids have sex. They know their parents think it's wrong. They want sex. Or they want the boyfriend or girlfriend. They have scars. They are hurt. But they're doing it anyway. Who doesn't want sex?

So, is the answer for parents to hold the ideal and allow their kids to sneak to Planned Parenthood, like Rachel Lucas says:

Think about it: if they’re going to Planned Parenthood secretly, they obviously have parents who don’t want them to have sex. Which clearly isn’t stopping them from having sex, so what good would it do to force them to have parental permission to get the pill? The only outcome from that would be that instead of having sex with contraception, they’ll have sex without it.

Who wins then? Not the parents; they may feel great about having control over their daughter’s use or lack thereof of protection even while they can never control whether or not she has sex, but they won’t feel so great the day she comes home to tell them she’s pregnant.

What should parents do?

Dr. Helen Smith, Blogger Glen Reynold's Wife, Suffers A Gender Identity Crisis

Today must be the day for self-examination. Poor, poor Dr. Helen. She's been around the men on her blog so long, she wants to do man things.

10 Dating Rules for Women & One More For Good Measure

Women claim to want equal rights but then do things in the dating dance that makes them look like immature children. It's annoying. A couple friends, male and female, are experimenting with on-line dating, and based on their experiences all I can think is, what is wrong with people?

Before I get to that, let me say this in a woman's defense: Online dating seems absolutely terrifying to me. I have a couple friends whom I've met exclusively through the internet. I feel like I know them, but do I really? It's unnerving, because in person, this friend might seem totally different. Maybe they'll have wild eye movements or their body language will reveal them to be withholding or deceptive. Not to mention, online you can really like someone--they seem funny and kind, but in person, there is no spark or connection. More than one friend has expressed disappointment after meeting someone in person. So, for a woman, she has those normal feelings everyone has plus, she has to worry about personal safety. How much information do you give? How soon? So, there are realities that are difficult for women.

This post is not going to be an "ain't it awful" post for women, though. Quite the contrary. For the sake of this post, I'm making an assumption that the vast majority of men are good men, just trying to find a woman they connect with and desiring a relationship. I think this assumption is true, by the way. There are players and male sluts, sure, but I think most guys want what most women want--a close, loving, compatible, dependable relationship.

If a woman is going to participate in the dating game, she needs to follow some rules.

1. Say "no" nicely. It takes a tremendous amount of courage for a man to approach a woman, for most guys, anyway. There is no need to be bitchy and dismissive. There is a nice way to say "no" without insulting a guy. For example, say you're with someone else and a guy approaches, say something along the lines, "Wow, thanks for the invitation, but I'm here with someone. Thank you anyway." Now, some men don't want to get the point. A woman can still be polite and firm.

2. Mean what you say. If you say you want to talk, mean it. That means answering the phone. If you say you want to go on a date, mean it. That means showing up. If you are not sure how you feel, say it and mean it. If you want to be in a relationship with this guy or you see a possible future, how does dishonesty build toward that? Be honest.

3. Avoid the "L" and "M" words. Good grief. People say the word "love" way too much and too early. And marriage? You're saying the "M" word and you just met him three weeks ago? Um, no. Don't say it. Even if you feel it, keep it to yourself. It will save your dignity, if nothing else. More than that, it puts pressure on the budding relationship.

4. Don't have sex on the first, second or third date. Don't. If the relationship has a chance, sex complicates it right away. If the relationship is a no go, sex connects you to a guy you don't want to be connected with. Yes, I'm old-fashioned. But sex is more than a physical collision, it's a spiritual connection and an energy exchange. Are you sure you want to give your energy to that guy and that guy and that guy? And how will you feel when the energy isn't returned? And for the more serious relationships, will you doubt the emotional and intellectual connection you have because you've introduced sex so soon? Will you worry that he just wants you so he can get laid? Yes, you will worry about that. So save it. (And yes, this is very unfeminist advice, but feminists don't seem to understand how a man's mind works at all. And for all their sexual liberation, feminists seem enslaved to their bodies--they have reduced women to a standard held by the worst sort of slutty man. This is what women fought for? Please.)

5. Get a life. Why do women turn into simpering fools when a man enters their lives? Keep on living girl. Be "you" and be the best you and keep on motoring. A guy worth you will not be intimidated by your success, he'll be impressed by it. The guy who wants a needy, clingy creature has his own issues that you won't want once you manage to find your self-respect.

6. Vulnerable is not needy. All humans are vulnerable. To ever have a true connection with someone, the guard has to come down eventually. Pretending to be a fortress, will just make you look one-dimensional. So it's OK to express concerns or fears, just do it after there is a report there. And mirror his willingness to share. That is, don't pour out your life story on the first date if his deepest reveal has been that he owns a pet Schnausser. It's give and take.

7. Leave the baggage for later. The first time you meet someone is not the time to kvetch about your exes. It's kinda like going to a job interview and bitching about your old boss. It makes it seem like you're the problem and demonstrates an inability to be respectful. Newsflash, ladies! Your relationship woes have a common link--you. The new guy doesn't need to hear it.

8. Have fun. Must this be a mission? Must every phone call, IM, text, date and other communication be part of a master plan? Now, a guy friend of mine told me, "At this point Melissa, I'm not dating, it's a job interview." For him, it's a bit more serious. His wife died and he has a child, so he doesn't want to fool around with foolish women. Still and all, dating is meant to be fun and putting too much pressure on the process can rob you of the joy inherent in getting to know new people.

9. Express gratitude. Show it in small and big ways. For example, a married friend of mine had this simple test for a woman. He said it revealed her character, and he told me this after I had passed, by the way. Oh! The pressure! He would open the door for the lady. She would get in. In the olden days, locks popped up and weren't automatic and had to be unlocked on both sides. If she leaned over and unlocked the door for him, she was a keeper. Sitting there and not helping, got her one short date. For him, it was a demonstration of kindness that revealed an attitude. That seemed a tad excessive to me, but a sense of entitlement is repugnant. If he opens the door, say "thank you". If he buys dinner, say "thank you". Even if the conversation was flat, the night was a bust, appreciate that there was effort made.

10. You are not obligated. Just because a guy calls, or asks you out, or wants you, you are not obligated to him. A man's sense of entitlement is as repulsive as a woman's. A girl friend's mother said, "You can always say, 'I have plans'". You can say that. You can say, "Thank you for your interest, but I am not interested in dating you." Being straight and honest with a person is a whole lot kinder than stringing a guy along.

11. Being a flirt is fine. Being a tease is wrong. Know the difference. Flirting and having fun and enjoying a person's company is part of the excitement of male-female relations. Being a tease is just selfish and lame. Don't lead a guy on when you have no intention of following through. Don't give the impression you're into him and then blow him off like he doesn't have human feelings.

This is a lot of rules, but what it comes down to, to me, is treating someone else the way you'd like to be treated. Men might be from Mars, but they're still humans. All the male-bashing that goes on is offensive. One of my least favorite commercials features a guy ordering a pizza which will come in 30 minutes. He asks his wife for sex and she bats her eyes and asks, "What are we going to do for the other 28 minutes?" It's meant to be funny, but it just seems like more of the same disparaging of men.

Men aren't the enemy. They are lovely creatures. Sometimes strange and exotic, but always interesting. They deserve respect until they've proven themselves to be unworthy of respect and even then, treating any person with respect and kindness is a winning proposition. Because ultimately, it's you who you have to live with whether you end up with a man or not.

Stupid Gender Stuff--The Neverending War

Dr. Helen has another letter from another beat-down man. Bottom line: Life is not fair. Women get the breaks. Men are diminished. Women don't value men. Dr. Helen concludes:

Finally, you do not have to prove your “worth” to anyone. You mentioned that you are a good husband, worker, and friend. That is indeed, good enough. You are not the catalyst for all of the evil stereotypes that some misinformed people wish to project onto the male gender. Disavow yourself of that, for shouldering that burden would make anyone tired. Live your life in a way that brings you satisfaction and let the naysayers wallow in their inflexible negativity.

Meanwhile, Cassy Fiano has a rejoinder to a stupid article explaining to men how to know if women are into them or not. Let me just add here, that if you're looking for pupils dilating or the head tilt for reinforcement that you're on the right track, you might be blogging too much.

Moral of the story? Men and women still bug the shit out of each other. They have a tough time figuring out relationships. And the current social climate complicates what has always been a crazy-making dance. Like I've blabbed before, I think that both genders face a situation where they must gender-neutralize to survive.

What is interesting about all this, is that the common differences between men and women, which used to be understood are now discounted. The differences still exist. Men still want to be respected. Women still want to be loved. Relationships are a mystery; indeed, the greatest mystery. And yet, relationships are approached like they are body signals or social science projects.

The advancement of women in the work world should not have to come at the expense at the loss of self for the man. That women or men frame it in this zero-sum way is defeating and self-defeating. If a man defined his worth by a paycheck, then, he's bound to be intimidated if his wife's paycheck is bigger. Likewise, if a woman believes a modern man is deficient because he can't breastfeed, she's bound to be disappointed.

Some things have changed and needed to change and they were good changes and everyone needs to get used to them, unless we all submit to Sharia law, in which case we'll all be someone's bitch. Until that time, women are on an equal footing with men, and that's great. A lot of resources were ignored when women had one place--in the home.

Some things haven't changed. For example, women conceive and carry and birth and can feed a baby. A man can't. A woman is wired differently. This lesson was difficult for me to embrace even though it was physically obvious. While I could hold my own and take care of things under normal circumstances, as a pregnant woman, my body was fragile. This was a bitter pill that I almost, indeed, the first pregnancy did, choke on.

In addition, women nurse babies. It's not just the milk. It's the closeness. It's the relationship. It's how the woman's body is made. It's how the baby survives best (see here and here).

Now, I know a woman doesn't have to do the mommy things these days. And I also get irritated with the Mom Nazis who try to find meaning and value in life exclusively through mother nature--namely their own pet peeves positioned as righteous wisdom. I can't help but thinking that the La Leche League and Eco Moms would have been the same ladies at the temperance meetings of yore.

But this proves my point, as much as society has changed, it's remained the same. Men and women still think about things, namely relationships, but other things as well, differently. Can we just accept this fact? Do women have to make snarky comments about men, deriding them, essentially, to promote themselves? Do men have to reduce women to porn parts or feeling less than because a woman has become more?

Women and men need one another. It would be nice for the weapons to be put away.

"How is that different from a man buying a young girl dinner?"

What's a rich, white, middle-aged, single (ostensibly) woman to do?

Hard figures are difficult to come by, but local people on the coast estimate that as many as one in five single women visiting from rich countries are in search of sex.

Emerging alongside this black market trade -- and obvious in the bars and on the sand once the sun goes down -- are thousands of elderly white women hoping for romantic, and legal, encounters with much younger Kenyan men.

They go dining at fine restaurants, then dancing, and back to expensive hotel rooms overlooking the coast.

"One type of sex tourist attracted the other," said one manager at a shorefront bar on Mombasa's Bamburi beach.

"Old white guys have always come for the younger girls and boys, preying on their poverty ... But these old women followed ... they never push the legal age limits, they seem happy just doing what is sneered at in their countries."

Experts say some thrive on the social status and financial power that comes from taking much poorer, younger lovers.

The good new days: Feminism means women acting out the basest nature of men. It's something to aspire to!

"Gray Rape"

There IS a never-never land between insufficient communication and actions taken, i.e. the Grey Zone that exists between Date Rape and Consensual false-protests. However, the solution is rather old fashioned:

1. Girls, don't drink, do drugs, and learn to communicate clearly.
2. Boys, always be a gentleman. That means no sex with a girl who is wasted. That means initiating communication before you unzip your pants.

The problem of course, is that moral standards have become so lax and the people engaging in this behavior are emotionally immature.

My rule? If you can't talk about sex, you shouldn't be having it.

Vaginal Rejuvenation

Anyone who has cable TV knows about vaginal rejuvenation and labioplasties. As disturbing as it is to hear a young lass discuss her nether regions with all the perfunctory detachment of a newsman discussing the weather developments, it's even more disturbing to see a talking plastic surgeon, grin into the camera as he begins his scalpel work. There.

Evidently, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) are disturbed, too. They issued this statement:

The statement by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) says it is "deceptive to give the impression" that these procedures, which by some accounts are among the hottest new trends in plastic surgery, are "accepted and routine surgical practices."

"Vaginal rejuvenation," "designer vaginoplasty," "revirgination" and "G-spot amplification" are being marketed to women on late-night TV, in magazines and on the Internet. Doctors offering the procedures say they can enhance women's sexual pleasure and alleviate uncomfortable symptoms, and many of their patients agree.

But critics say these women are exposing extraordinarily sensitive body parts to interventions with questionable benefits and unknown risks.

Ya think? There's no support for these surgeries other than anecdotes, and I'm a-thinkin' the bad cases don't make Dr. 90210, you know? We won't see a patient screaming into the camera, "I've been ruined for sex, forever, because of YOU!" It would make for good TV, though.

The risk, of course, is that patients could suffer harm from the surgeries, including bleeding, scarring, infection and altered sensation, while experiencing little or no benefit. Brubaker is among several physicians who said in interviews that they had seen patients suffering from pain and discomfort as well as disappointment after these surgeries

That seems like a very big risk, to me. Many of the women are young. They have their whole lives ahead of them. A mistake could cause untold heartache. In addition, there seems to be this porn-star mentality now. Young people especially have specific notions about how a person should be groomed or look. Who is judging a labia as "ugly" is what I want to know. Who is spending time obsessing about it? How does a girl know she's different than other girls?

The British Medical Journal weighed in on the topic with a May article calling cosmetic genital surgeries an "extreme and unproved intervention" that "could undermine the development of other ways to help women and girls to deal with concerns about their appearance."

Most women don't understand that the size and shape of genitalia vary greatly, leading to "misguided assumptions" about what is normal, said the authors, a clinical psychologist and a gynecologist.

Now a woman doesn't just obsess about her face, her hair, her butt, her hips, her belly, her boobs, her chin, her arms and her bunions, she's obsessing over her labia, too. There's something wrong with this picture.

Is this really a worthy medical advancement or just another symptom of our society's extreme narcissism?

Working Women Doing Jobs They Don't Want To Do

I'm no economist, but I see a problem with Megan McCardle's supposition:

One particular consideration I think is underdiscussed is the fact that much of the labor illegal immigrants provide substitutes for women's home labor. And I don't just mean nannies for rich women. I mean cleaning services, and food processing, and dry cleaning, and grocery delivery, and all the other things that make it possible for large numbers of women to work outside the home. In an ideal world, of course, women and men would take equal responsibility for the household. But in the less than ideal world that we actually inhabit, an increase in the price of those services would probably mean that fewer women would find it cost-effective to work outside the home.

People will pay a certain amount for certain kinds of labor. Period. White, purple or green, legal or illegal, no one will pay above what they think appropriate for a job. Consumers who refuse to pay the price or take the slacker, will just end up with a sloppy house.

I don't see women leaving the job market should the economy make it too expensive to hire someone or the house cleaning worker stinks. With a tighter economy, people will need to keep their job. They'll need it because of other inflationary pressures. Without their job, they might have time to clean the toilet and grocery shop, but they'll be buying Mac-n-Cheese and Ramen noodles to survive.

American families will just end up with a pigsty for a house and two-feet tall grass. Horrors!

H/T Instapundit

Update: Anonymous (that wise and ubiquitous commenter) says: How about down-sizing?
Never!!

Gender Theory: "Strange and Reclusive"--UPDATED

When women are strange and reclusive, they hoard cats. When men are strange and reclusive, they're serial killers.

UPDATE: More on female serial killers. They're a different breed and rarer than men serial killers, but the people are still dead. Female psychopathology as an understudied subject. And they do participate in child abuse and killing their children.

Live Free or Die Hard, Or Just Apathetically Let Freedom Slide Effortlessly From Your Disinterested Grasp.....It Used To Be Great

There's no livin' free in Europe these days. No one can watch Die Hard and even think about livin' free in Europe:

Yes indeed, two different titles for the same movie! I guess the "live free" part of the title was considered to be too sensitive outside of North America? I know that "Live free or die" is the state motto of New Hampshire, but that is hardly an excuse. A second difference is that The Statue of Freedom in the background on top of the U.S. Capitol is a lot closer to Willis' ear in the international version. Because the voice of freedom is much more faint?

There's no livin' free in Great Britain, either. Everyone is Salmon Rushdie according to Mark Steyn:

In 1989 Salman Rushdie went into hiding under the protection of the British police. A decade later he decided he did not wish to live his life like that and emerged from seclusion to live a more or less normal life. He learned the biggest lesson of all – how easy it is to be forced into the shadows. That's what's happening in the free world incrementally every day, with every itsy-bitsy nothing concession to groups who take offense at everything and demand the right to kill you for every offense. Across two decades, what happened to Rushdie has metastasized, in part because of the weak response in those first months. "Death is perhaps too easy"? Maybe. But slow societal suicide is easier still.

Maybe you think it can't happen here. It can happen. It is happening. Freedom gets taken away one little, subtle withholding of a point-of-view at a time. Guess which point-of-view PBS suppresses.

For a step-by-step manual on utopian socialist fantasies gone wrong, look to Venezuela (Via Fausta who has more excellent links). Daniel at Venezuela News and Views reveals this:

No more private property besides your personal belongings. That is, there will be some private sector allowed with business of reasonable size but the sate will have the right to expropriate or confiscate at will if it thinks it is necessary to its interests (NOTE: even if it is all made in the name of the "people", since it is the state that translates the "real will" of the people, well, you know which are the interests truly served).

The air borne media will have rights to emit only if they serve educative purpose. The state decides which are the educative goals.

The autonomy of Universities is done with. The state will be deciding which careers should be offered and which is the right curriculum to follow. You can decide on your own how creativity and free thought in a controlled university will prosper.

Decentralization will be done with. Governors and Mayors will be subordinated to special vice presidents. Mayors can be removed almost at will by the National Assembly. And anyway, elected Governors and Mayors will be gutted of most meaningful power they might have. That is, they will be left with picking up the garbage and be blamed for anything else that doe snot work.

Every day, people around the world trade their freedom for the proverbial bowl of soup. They sate their appetite for a day and spend a lifetime hungry.

Science gets subverted to serve political ends. Everything gets subverted for political ends and those doing the subverting do so to their own demise--they actually participate in their own destruction and only wake up when they too suffer outside of the increasingly narrow political correctness. They operate under the delusion that they will be spared. They will always be deemed correct. They are, of course, wrong.

How most excellent and honored and bureaucratic does this sound? United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Yes, a bureaucracy of scientists obfuscating and outright lying to promote the notion of climate change. From Newsbusters:

That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to the point: They “know” the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don't find it!

Pretty extraordinary, wouldn’t you agree? A "correction factor." Honestly, the way these folks manipulate data is nothing less than astounding.

Yet, Mörner wasn’t finished, as he later detailed an incident when IPCC scientists actually destroyed evidence which refuted their rising sea level claims:

This tree, which I showed in the documentary, is interesting. This is a prison island, and when people left the island, from the '50s, it was a marker for them, when they saw this tree alone out there, they said, “Ah, freedom!” They were allowed back. And there have been writings and talks about this. I knew that this tree was in that terrible position already in the 1950s. So the slightest rise, and it would have been gone. I used it in my writings and for television. You know what happened? There came an Australian sea-level team, which was for the IPCC and against me. Then the students pulled down the tree by hand! They destroyed the evidence. What kind of people are those? And we came to launch this film, “Doomsday Called Off,” right after, and the tree was still green. And I heard from the locals that they had seen the people who had pulled it down. So I put it up again, by hand, and made my TV program. I haven't told anybody else, but this was the story.

Lying to protect a greater "truth" that the data shows is false. Political correctness has infected all branches of science. Tread very carefully within the hallowed halls of science. A rotting stench from the carcases of hard data fouls the air.

So a failing society seeks the easy economic way, turns science into tools for delusion, and neuters itself. And the bureaucracy does it. In this case, teachers do it. This is getting more play these days. Eric over at Classical Values has a must read post:

Decadent bureaucrats mutilate soldiers
"Decadence" is the essential condition of "a society which believes it has evolved to the point where it will never have to go to war."
--Air Force Colonel Robert Wheeler

How do you feel about the state forcing boys to become eunuchs, metaphorically speaking? (Although, all their literal sitting in a class, drugged and acting bland could be deemed literal.)

For obvious reasons, the picture on the left is not getting much mainstream media play. I can't think of a better way to expose the anti-war bureaucrats than the boys' simple demonstration that the school bureaucrats had wounded the troops. No words can match the eloquence of the bloodied bandages!

I wrote several posts about eunuchs, and I think this is as good a place as any to add a few words about Phil Bowermaster's post about transmasculinity, which Glenn Reynolds linked yesterday. I have no problem with the idea of transmasculinity (or androgyny), and don't think it is remotely the same as state-enforced policies forcing boys to become eunuchs.

I actually disagree with Eric about the fall of Rome not being associated with sexual morés. How did the military get weak and soft to begin with? Could the same denuded approach to society self-protection be related to a laissez-faire attitude toward individual self-protection? Could the Christian conservatism be a reaction to a decadent society and yet elements of Christianity--deceived and morally corrupt themselves-- participate in the downfall because of doctrinal misunderstanding (think Episcopalians)? I think so. I do agree with him here, though:

We don't have early Christians taking over as they did in Rome, nor do we have a eunuch staff running the military. However, I think there may be parallels between Christians and socialists in the ecological niche sense (Christian theology is often interpreted as having a soft spot for socialism, which IMO has caused a great deal of trouble), and I think we could be experiencing tyranny at the hands of the modern equivalent of eunuchs (people who abhor masculinity and femininity and who, while they may talk the talk about sexuality, are in reality a bunch of unattractive, "spineless, ball-less wimps" if I may borrow the phrase.....)

This is absolute truth. The neuterization of society, the declining birthrates, the unwillingness to set a boundary against anything manifests individually and societally. There is a lot of self-loathing and other loathing sexually, and that makes for a confused bunch of people willing to make terrible compromises to feel good about themselves. Back to the bowl of soup.

I do not think it's an accident that the United States hesitates to create a boundary in its relationships. There is no sense of American self--or there is a danger in losing what's left of one. There will eventually be nothing to protect. The United States will cease to be the strong arms the world can count on for protection, if those arms are so weak they can't protect themselves. Worse, they will be too weak to extend in welcome either.

It won't matter. Without freedom, liberty and justice (and all that other stuff), no one will want to come here anyway. America will be just like every other place in the world. Confused, unsafe, economically constricted, limited, petty, tyrannical, consumed by conspiracy theories masquerading as science. Dark. As in Dark Ages.

Women Are Racist....In Dating, Or Are They?

That is, women prefer to date men of their own race. This is especially true for black women. Are women racist or is something else at play?

These results from the speed dating experiment roughly jibe with the study I cited in the earlier post about height-income tradeoffs. In that analysis of more than 20,000 online daters, split roughly evenly between Boston and San Diego, men didn’t show much preference for same-race partners. Women did, and African-American women showed the most pronounced preference.

A theory: Women think about children, family, society at the same time they make a date-worthy analysis. They have to know a guy more than four minutes to decide he's worth dealing with the aforementioned factors. When women date and marry outside of their race, are they more likely to have known him as a friend first? If so, that would lead credence to my theory. Maybe women aren't racist. Maybe they're pragmatic and less romantic than men. (And that's a theory I've always believed long before reading the Times article.)

By the way, Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit linked to this--his brother married a woman of a different race. Small experiment: Were they friends first?