ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, January 28, 2013

Women ruin everything

Even, ironically enough, TITLE IX.  I'm skeptical that even the most confirmed cynic could have seen this one coming.  This isn't fourth- or fifth-wave feminism, we have clearly progressed all the way into the fantastic realm of metafeminism.
In fall 2011, faced with the prospect of another season watching their daughter, Rose, play field hockey against boys, the Grenens had finally had enough. They wrote to the PIAA, which invited them to come to its offices in Mechanicsburg and give a PowerPoint presentation. At the meeting, in January 2012, Mrs. Grenen figured that she would have to persuade the PIAA to be on her side. But in the middle of the meeting, someone interrupted her.

"You're preaching to the choir," a man said.

The PIAA had been discussing the issue for years, but it felt that its hands were tied because of a Commonwealth Court order that was nearly four decades old.  In 1973, the PIAA had a bylaw which stated, "Girls shall not compete or practice against boys in any athletic contest." The attorney general asserted that this provision violated the new Pennsylvania Equal Rights Amendment, which stated, "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania because of the sex of the individual."

In 1975, Commonwealth Court entered an order that declared the PIAA bylaw unconstitutional, saying, "The Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association is hereby ordered to permit girls to practice and compete with boys in interscholastic athletics ... ."

At the time of the order, few girls-only sports were offered. The order was meant to give girls who wanted to play sports offered only for boys the opportunity to do so. As the years passed, and more girls teams were created, the order began to be interpreted so that boys could also play on girls teams if the sport was offered only for girls -- which had the opposite effect of the order's original intent.  The only way for the PIAA to change the interpretation of the order was to have the case reopened -- a task that would take legal man-hours and resources that the PIAA didn't feel it had. Basically, the PIAA needed people like the Grenens to fight the battle, and the organization would be glad to offer its support.

"It could be a large expense, and we still don't know the outcome," said Bob Lombardi, the PIAA executive director. "The Grenens have provided a great opportunity because they are attorneys to work on this."

Key to the Grenens' hope for reopening the case was a 1985 interpretation of the Pennsylvania ERA that said the ERA "does not prohibit differential treatment among the sexes when that treatment is reasonable and genuinely based on physical characteristics unique to one sex."

In fall 2012, the Grenens filed a petition with Commonwealth Court to reopen the 1975 case. The court granted the request -- a huge victory and likely the only hope to change the status quo.

On Feb. 26, the Grenens, the PIAA and representatives from the attorney general's office will meet in Harrisburg for a status conference. The Grenens and the PIAA's hope is that they will agree on a common-sense bylaw that will outlaw boys playing on girls' teams while staying in accordance with the ERA.
In other words, we are expected to believe that legal equality means girls being able to play on boys teams, whether there are girls teams or not, but boys cannot play on girls teams, even if there are no boys teams upon which they can play.

Even if you think, well, what does it matter, it's just sports, keep this in mind: Title IX is now being applied to science.  Orwell put it beautifully.  All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.  And the Sports Guy put it even better: women ruin everything.

Do you really think it was an accident that women were never permitted any voice in the governance of the Roman Republic or the great historical democracies such as Athens, Thebes, Imperial Britain, and Revolutionary America?  Do you really believe it to be a mere coincidence that many modern democracies, including Germany, Italy, and the member states of the European Union, were not able to survive even 100 years of female suffrage?

Labels:

196 Comments:

Anonymous TheExpat January 28, 2013 4:19 AM  

The Grenens... are attorneys

Feminists + attorneys explains everything.

Anonymous Retrenched January 28, 2013 4:35 AM  

It will be interesting (to say the least) to watch what happens when the gender-based preferences of Title IX are applied to science education. What we'll most likely see is scores of bright young men unable to gain admittance in STEM college courses because of the limits on male participation, while lots of young women (many of whom will be less talented than the young men who are Title IX'ed out) will get free ride scholarships to study math, physics and programming... only to switch to nursing or education after one semester.

Anonymous Hellstrom Chronicles January 28, 2013 5:03 AM  

And the busy little bees keep the hive alive. The Superior hornet,.. larger, and better adapted to nature, proves no match for the inferior tarsi biting drones more willing to sacrifice large numbers of their own for the greater cause.

Blogger Rantor January 28, 2013 5:21 AM  

Harrison Bergeron here we come. I think rabbits will rabbit applies too. Amazing that the US as a whole defeated the ERA,, but is now doing what it can to implement it, and stupidly at that.

Of course we have seen this double standard repeated all over with men's schools, gyms, clubs, etc. being forced to accept women while the women's schools, gyms, clubs remain protected. Perhaps I missed it, but I am surprised that women haven't forced their way in to college fraternity membership.

Anonymous oh well January 28, 2013 5:35 AM  

"Title IX is now being applied to science."

A GAO report on the state of affairs lamented that the professors think that it only applies to sports.

Anonymous Oso January 28, 2013 5:45 AM  

Funny how the most disastrous of policies always seem to begin with the best of intentions, isn't it?

Anonymous zen0 January 28, 2013 6:02 AM  

History would beg to differ slightly. The disastrous policies are hatched with evil intentions but are sold to useful idiots with good intentions.

Anonymous Disposable Guitar Hero January 28, 2013 6:12 AM  

Those wascily wabbits are at it again.

Anonymous VD January 28, 2013 6:13 AM  

One disregards the wisdom of the ancients at one's risk.

Anonymous kh123 January 28, 2013 6:15 AM  

"Perhaps I missed it, but I am surprised that women haven't forced their way in to college fraternity membership."

On the upside, were this to happen, some lucky frathouse would be primordial ground zero for the brothel aspect - of the "burqah/brothel" inevitability - to spontaneously spring from. Every cultural shift has its Mecca, after all.

Anonymous Disposable Guitar Hero January 28, 2013 6:26 AM  

It's funny, as I recall life growing up in the 70's and 80's in rural New Mexico, I never gave the feminist movement a second of serious thought.
Today, serious thought is all I give it. It has infiltrated even the most remote of rural enclaves and poisoned the spirit of entire communities, churches, and schools.
This is not new news for this group I know.
It just tears me up to think that the whole mechanism of society may have to be completely wrecked before it can ever become functional again.
*sigh*
They know not what they do, do they.

*huhuhuhuh he said do do*

Anonymous Rantor January 28, 2013 6:32 AM  

@DGH,

Unfortunately civilizations reach their zenith, proceed into hubris, and collapse. Collapse seems to be how stupid is brought under control by those both smart and strong.

Anonymous Disposable Guitar Hero January 28, 2013 6:35 AM  

As a Millwright/machinist for the last 23 years, I have met exactly 3 women working in the trade as such. Those three were physically borderline capable of doing the work. Then again, I guess the occupation is not very desirable to either sex anymore.

Anonymous Rantor January 28, 2013 6:37 AM  

@ kh123

I think many of the sororities already serve the brothel aspect... It might be just that much more convenient if the sisters were in the same frat or shared the same room. Also, how can the girls get the full benefit of the fraternity as they seek jobs and to climb the social ladder if they are limited to sororities?

Anonymous Disposable Guitar Hero January 28, 2013 6:40 AM  

@Rantor.

I agree totally, and let me tell you, now that my children are college age, it is killing me to see the world they are inheriting. I have to stop myself from apologizing for it. They see me gearing up for collapse and I can sense their general fear and anxiety. I know what to do, but that doesn't make the general process any easier to do.

Anonymous OCS January 28, 2013 6:46 AM  

-- a task that would take legal man-hours and resources that the PIAA didn't feel it had.

It's GIRL-HOURS damn it! I mean seriously, it's 2013 C.E. and this buffoon of a writer didn't see this glaring mistake?! I demand this person be fired and send a formal apology by video to the article's subjects as well as cutting his jewel-pouches off!!11!

This makes me so damn hopping mad like some sort of lapine woodland creature! >=(

Blogger Mondy January 28, 2013 6:47 AM  

I note your comment about one hundred years of female suffrage. Do you believe women deserve the right to vote?

Anonymous Disposable Guitar Hero January 28, 2013 6:48 AM  

Death by Wabbit Fiwing Sqwad.

Anonymous CaptDMO January 28, 2013 6:52 AM  

So....
The acceptance of Title IX "thinking" transfer from academics to "sports" (as well as recent promotion/pay grade "special considerations" in the US military) negates any gender assumptions in The Duluth Model, special "Family" courts, and corporate/cabinate "appointments", ... right?

Anonymous VD January 28, 2013 7:00 AM  

I note your comment about one hundred years of female suffrage. Do you believe women deserve the right to vote?

There is no such thing as a "right" to vote nor can anyone "deserve" a right. The question is nonsensical, but I believe I understand your general intent and will attempt to clarify. I do not believe any women should be given the responsibility of voting in any democratic or quasi-democratic system. Neither do I believe in democracy as a reasonable and functioning form of government.

Anonymous Rantor January 28, 2013 7:03 AM  

@DGH,

My wife's brother and his sons were/are German machinists/toolmakers (he is retired, one son is now an engineer, the other is still a machinist/toolmaker) and the importance of these fields to a strong manufacturing base and a successful economy can not be overstated. It is only economic suicide which led the US to devalue such professions. Amazingly, Germany, despite their socialism and the whole New World Order and EU crap, recognizes its talent for manufacturing and mid-sized firms.

In the US we bought off on this whole post-industrial, service industry, technology-driven lala-land. We are beginning to pay for it. No major country can succeed in the long run with a purely services oriented approach.

As you pointed out, not a lot of women in these fields. In our crazy, feminist nation I wonder if that is why they aren't subsidized.

Anonymous realmatt January 28, 2013 7:11 AM  

Then what form do you recommend, Vox?

Anonymous Disposable Guitar Hero January 28, 2013 7:13 AM  

@Rantor.
No doubt we will pay for it.

My experience has been almost exclusively in Steam and Gas Turbine Overhaul, and support power generation equipment. Each year, our budgets are constrained and man power (not girl power) is very limited. We have more grey hair on the floor than we ought to. There is a general mood of despair for the future and a longing for the past. However, I can't tear into an old Westinghouse or GE machine and not feel a sense of pride.
I used to nervously joke about entering the industrial dark ages, however, now I don't joke about it when I say it.
I believe once the really rough road is felt, the utilities will falter, and nationalization will commence.
Just my thoughts...

Anonymous Stilicho January 28, 2013 7:20 AM  

Do you really believe it to be a mere coincidence that many modern democracies, including Germany, Italy, and the member states of the European Union, were not able to survive even 100 years of female suffrage?

It is not like the U.S. has survived as a functioning democracy either. Oh, we survived, but only as a fascist uber-state where voting has little to no impact due to the structure and nature of the power system in place. Democracy is always doomed unless the franchise is limited to those who have displayed the requisite sense of duty to exercise it responsibly. Further, a representative republic cannot work unless the representative districts are small enough for the voters to be personally acquainted with their representative. Of course, both of these conditions are anathema to the elected representative whose natural inclination is, more often than not, to increase the the franchise and to increase the size of the representative district in order to increase his own power, wealth, and influence.

Anonymous Rantor January 28, 2013 7:23 AM  

@DGH

Well the government shut down of half the coal plants in the nation should reduce some demand for millwrights, but not the demand for power. What will the women do when they can't afford electricity to wash the clothes and blow dry their hair?

Anonymous The Great Martini January 28, 2013 7:26 AM  

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Churchill

"Neither do I believe in democracy as a reasonable and functioning form of government."

This kind of reminds me of the time a friend and I were on a hike and a large airliner passed overhead. On a lark, I said "I still don't believe they can fly." Bemused and gesturing to the plane, my friend said "But...they Do fly."

Anonymous Disposable Guitar Hero January 28, 2013 7:27 AM  

@ Rantor
They will DEMAND free 'D' Cell batteries and 24 hour streaming of Oprah Winfrey.

Anonymous Stilicho January 28, 2013 7:31 AM  

What will the women do when they can't afford electricity to wash the clothes and blow dry their hair?

They will blame men and demand that gov't "do something".

Blogger Mondy January 28, 2013 7:33 AM  

@VD

Thank you for the answer.

What would you replace democracy with? (Not saying there aren't other, possibly more viable, alternatives. Just curious to know where you hang your hat).

Blogger SammyBoy January 28, 2013 7:38 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger SammyBoy January 28, 2013 7:40 AM  

And, of course, the idea spreads. The US Dept. of Education has declared that now schools will be required to allow physically disabled students to fully participate in any sports program offered.

"Breaking new ground, the U.S. Education Department is telling schools they must include students with disabilities in sports programs or provide equal alternative options. The directive, reminiscent of the Title IX expansion of athletic opportunities for women, could bring sweeping changes to school budgets and locker rooms for years to come.

Schools would be required to make “reasonable modifications” for students with disabilities or create parallel athletic programs that have comparable standing as mainstream programs."

http://diverseeducation.com/article/50948/

Anonymous Rantor January 28, 2013 7:48 AM  

@ SammyBoy,

but tackling the quadriplegics takes all the fun out of the game...

Anonymous VD January 28, 2013 7:50 AM  

What would you replace democracy with?

First, I would point out that there is no replacing to do. We do not have anything approaching a democracy, in fact, a pure direct democracy would be vastly preferable to the present non-representative, one-party ersatz democracy we do have.

Second, I follow Cicero in viewing political systems as cyclical. Democracy happens to be the worst of the three base systems, monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. I don't have a strong opinion on this, but based on the historic examples, I believe an aristocracy generally provides the maximal human liberty, not merely for the aristocrats, but everyone else as well.

Anonymous Mr Green Man January 28, 2013 7:52 AM  

For all who wonder, and repeat a variation of the question -- what government if not Satan's own democracy? -- go read Judges.

Anonymous jack January 28, 2013 7:55 AM  

@Vox
Neither do I believe in democracy as a reasonable and functioning form of government.

A few, up page, have asked the question. Should your answer be required per the blog rules?
How about YOUR interpretation of how a functioning, stable, and longer lasting government should be run. What we have is obviously flawed; how can it be fixed?
This might be the time to write a fiction story, novella, or full novel with the setup and admin of this 'better' system featured.

Blogger tz January 28, 2013 7:58 AM  

The three most sure paths to destruction for any republic are wealth redistribution, currency debasement, and womens' suffrage. We got these during ww1 and Wilson.

Perhaps the sci-ettes should start kicking particles to make electrons and protons equal. Let the electrons laynaround at the center whike the protons and neutrons buzz around. Make the electrons share the burden of emitting a helium nucleus or anti-neutrino+electron.

Or breed roosters to sit on the eggs.

I would note college is a scam, and by extension the things which depend or use them.

Long ago, someone pointed out that if big companies weren't there to hold all the dysfunctional human chaff, they would be out on the street where they would cause more damage.

I would rather have the distaff side of the herd somewhere off playinf labcoat barbie while the Kens are on the internet learning real skills and doing useful and productive things.

This is already working. Women get more degrees and the debtor white-slavery keeping them as baristas with their sociology studies insures they are quarantined for a while.

Men tune in (to MIT videos), turn on (tools), and drop out - and become productive members of society.

Anonymous jack January 28, 2013 7:58 AM  

Vox: you answered the question by the time I posted a reply. I don't know how to remove a comment so consider it removed. Thank You.

Anonymous jack January 28, 2013 8:01 AM  

@Vox: I believe an aristocracy generally provides the maximal human liberty, not merely for the aristocrats, but everyone else as well.

Would it be an aristocracy based on what? Birth, wealth really earned and not inherited, an battery of diverse intelligence tests, right makes might, or what?

Anonymous VryeDenker January 28, 2013 8:05 AM  

Given historical data, one would assume having a Caucasian aristocracy seems to lead to the greatest prosperity for a country.

A king has a vested interest in the prosperity of a country that a 5-year term president and his cabinet don't.

Anonymous rienzi January 28, 2013 8:05 AM  

@ Sammy Boy: And, of course, the idea spreads. The US Dept. of Education has declared that now schools will be required to allow physically disabled students to fully participate in any sports program offered.


Well, for a while now, colleges and universities have been filled to the brim with the learning disabled. It was only a matter of time until they tried the same thing with the schools' sports programs.

Anonymous VryeDenker January 28, 2013 8:06 AM  

*That's obviously a constitutional monarchy where the king is not above reproach. As is the case in Europe.

Anonymous Mike January 28, 2013 8:07 AM  

Given the way things are headed, I envision a future where sooner or later a class-action lawsuit is going to be filed by women blaming all of society's ills on the fact that men voted to grant them the vote. That way it still ends up being all mens' fault.

Anonymous Starr January 28, 2013 8:08 AM  

So let's get this straight, boys should not be allowed to play in girls teams because they are bigger and stronger than girls which means the girls could get hurt, but girls should be allowed to play in boys teams even though the boys are bigger and stronger which means the girls could get hurt! They can't be serious...can they?

O/T Did you see the comment by Tsonga about women's tennis. Made me smile http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/tennis/women-too-unstable-to-dominate-tennis-says-jo-wilfried-tsonga/story-e6frfgao-1226560485457

Anonymous VD January 28, 2013 8:14 AM  

Would it be an aristocracy based on what? Birth, wealth really earned and not inherited, an battery of diverse intelligence tests, right makes might, or what?

Birth appears to work best. The families that don't inculcate a sense of noblesse oblige tend to die out soon enough. The problem is that no matter what the system, you need it run by people who have the power to run things for their own benefit, but voluntarily choose not to do so.

Try considering the issue from that perspective.

Anonymous JartStar January 28, 2013 8:15 AM  

I agree with Vox on an aristocracy but I'd add it really only becomes the best form of government and society when the aristocracy has some class/taste and is supported in general by the populace.

Anonymous VD January 28, 2013 8:15 AM  

Given the way things are headed, I envision a future where sooner or later a class-action lawsuit is going to be filed by women blaming all of society's ills on the fact that men voted to grant them the vote. That way it still ends up being all mens' fault.

It's the Otter defense. "You fucked up.... You trusted us."

Anonymous Rantor January 28, 2013 8:16 AM  

and Starr,

the wheelchair bound handicapped should be allowed to paly football with the bos, regardless of sex.

Blogger vandelay January 28, 2013 8:16 AM  

This was my favourite part:

"When Kallan and Austin met, she lowered her head into him."

Good form! How could that have gone wrong?

Anonymous Mike January 28, 2013 8:30 AM  

@VD,

My advice to you is to start drinking heavily.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein January 28, 2013 8:32 AM  

VD;
Neither do I believe in democracy as a reasonable and functioning form of government.

WHEELER!!! Git in heeyah, boy!!
We need ya.

Anonymous anon123 January 28, 2013 8:35 AM  

@vandelay
Looks like she hurt her face too.

Anonymous Move Zig January 28, 2013 8:47 AM  

Haha Otter defense? Is that like the otto dufay? What you ottent to do but you do anyway.
Sorry. I couldn't resist.

Anonymous jack January 28, 2013 8:52 AM  

@Vox. Birth then. How does it start? Pack dynamics with the most powerful and/or vicious winning out to start the dynasty? Then, perhaps, rule by 'divine right'?
Would there be any civil rights at all? Here we are talking the best of the Bill of Rights. No ERA, just common sense. Could a system like the Swiss have be put into play with every able bodied man required to have an assault rife and plenty of ammo as a check onto the King?

I don't necessarily disagree with your position, just really interested it how it happens without a descent into the worse aspects of absolute rule.

Lets see. No palaces, no courtiers, no Barons and Dukes, only a court jester [chosen for a one year term..the King has the right to have this jester beheaded for any offense real or intended. Jester to serve for a minimum of 6 months before the King can exercise his right of execution. The jester has the right to have the King executed for any offense followed immediately by the jesters execution...got to make the jester really mean it; watering the tree of liberty, etc.]

Come on Vox. at least a treatise, if not that book.

Anonymous Ioweenie January 28, 2013 8:55 AM  

"You fucked up.... You trusted us."

And Adam ate.

Genesis 3:12: "And the man said, 'The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave from the tree and I ate.' "

Anonymous HongKongCharlie January 28, 2013 8:57 AM  

Our founding fathers tried. They formed a representational republic. We let it morph into a democracy. Not much out there on the life and length in history of representational republics. Plenty on democracies and they live and die by recognizable stages. That is recognizable to those that study history. Our next stage is a dictatorship and it's well underway now. The strongest action by most modern dictators is to get the means of defense out of the hands of the sheeple. (wabbits)?

HKC

Anonymous Wendy January 28, 2013 9:00 AM  

In fall 2011, faced with the prospect of another season watching their daughter, Rose, play field hockey against boys...

I don't understand what they want. Do they want an entire girls field hockey league to magically appear?

And, playing with the boys will make her a better player. Unless what they really meant was "faced with the prospect of watching their daughter ride the pine again."

I remember a while back a story of a boy from Ireland who was tiny - like 4'8", 8th grade, lived in the US, and played on the high school girls field hockey team. He still dominated even though he had to abide by special rules on where he could go on the field. Officials were considering kicking him out of the league because opponents complained he was too good, even though there were absolutely no other options for the kid to play. So yeah, they don't want fair, they want special treatment. It's embarrassing to complain about someone being too good. What happened to competition and a good challenge? The whole thing was ridiculous.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother January 28, 2013 9:20 AM  

Phyllis Schlafly, a woman, and the John Birch Society, full of women and men, defeated the ERA.

Anonymous Josh January 28, 2013 9:28 AM  

Phyllis Schlafly, a woman, and the John Birch Society, full of women and men, defeated the ERA.

This is the "Stalin and the red army, full of communists, defeated Hitler and the nazis" argument.

Blogger Positive Dennis January 28, 2013 9:29 AM  

We need a philosopher King.

Anonymous Susan January 28, 2013 9:32 AM  

PIAA found themselves some suckers to pay the legal bills while they sit on the sofa eating popcorn and watch.

Women in ancient Rome didn't need the open vote. They did all their work behind the scenes. For example, Augustus Caesar's wife Livia didn't need no stinkin' vote. She could out manipulate any politician she wanted to get the results desired. From all I have read about her, everyone was more afraid of Livia than the Emperor.

I have always wondered if Adam and Eve would have been thrown out of the garden if Adam had done his duty as head of house and given his wife a good paddling for touching the tree instead of playing the blame game.

Not disagreeing with you on most of your points VD, just saying that if women ruined everything, its because men have historically let them.

Anonymous Josh January 28, 2013 9:40 AM  

We need a philosopher King.

Better idea...tribal/clan government like pre monarchy Israel...

Anonymous Anonymous January 28, 2013 9:45 AM  

It would be worth it to see this Green kid get all of her teeth knocked out, a broken collarbone and nose, on the field of play, just to demonstrate that boys are and will always be superior in strength speed and agility to women, at least in the field of atheletics. If they were not we would have unisex sports and Shaquile would have had his monster jams crushed by Jungle Jane.

In NC we have indoor mixed boy/girl soccer leagues..saw a girl get her wrist snapped like a twig last month during an indoor game. Just makes no sense to mix the sexes once they pass 13-14 yrs old. the physical skills just dont match up anymore.

Anonymous VryeDenker January 28, 2013 9:46 AM  

"We need a philosopher King. "

The problem with Plato's Philosopher King is that he is above the law.

Anonymous Feh January 28, 2013 9:59 AM  

Second, I follow Cicero in viewing political systems as cyclical. Democracy happens to be the worst of the three base systems, monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. I don't have a strong opinion on this, but based on the historic examples, I believe an aristocracy generally provides the maximal human liberty, not merely for the aristocrats, but everyone else as well.

This is exactly the argument Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn makes in his works.

For the benefit of Jack, von Kuehnelt-Leddihn also notes that the "absolutism" of monarchs has been greatly overstated by fanatical pro-democracy demagogues. The power (and more importantly, the desire) of any 18th century monarch to meddle in his people's daily lives is VASTLY less than the power and willingness of today's "democratic" (bureaucratic) state to do so. As an exercise for the student, compare the total number of government employees of all kinds per French person under Louis XIV to the total number of government employees per American today.

Anonymous Feh January 28, 2013 10:00 AM  

The problem with Plato's Philosopher King is that he is above the law.

This is a feature not a bug.

Anonymous cheddarman January 28, 2013 10:06 AM  

70's song "i am woman" by Helen Reddy


I am woman, hear me roar
In numbers too big to ignore
And I know too much to go back an' pretend
'cause I've heard it all before
And I've been down there on the floor
No one's ever gonna keep me down again

CHORUS
Oh yes I am wise
But it's wisdom born of pain
Yes, I've paid the price
But look how much I gained
If I have to, I can do anything
I am strong (strong)
I am invincible (invincible)
I am woman

You can bend but never break me
'cause it only serves to make me
More determined to achieve my final goal
And I come back even stronger
Not a novice any longer
'cause you've deepened the conviction in my soul

CHORUS

I am woman watch me grow
See me standing toe to toe
As I spread my lovin' arms across the land
But I'm still an embryo
With a long long way to go
Until I make my brother understand

sincerely

cheddarman

Blogger Nate January 28, 2013 10:13 AM  

There is a reason God described a King as a punishment.

Anonymous Testing123 January 28, 2013 10:14 AM  

I lean towards 'Constitutional Monarchy' as a better system of govt.
The Monarch would have real executive power (Veto, Pardon, Clemency), thus they could protect the people from their politicians. The House of Lords would be hereditary aristocracy and have real legislative power. The House of Commons would be democraticaly elected and have equal legislative power to the House of Lords. The two houses would act as a check on each other.
I believe this is how the 19th Century British Imperial govt. was, though I don't think the Monarch was as powerful as I would propose.

How 'coincidental' that WWI toppled three of Christendoms great monarchies:
Hohenzollern - Protestant
Hapsburg - Catholic
Romanov - Orthodox

Oh well things just happen sometimes.

Anonymous CMC January 28, 2013 10:22 AM  

The opening vignette to that report was interesting too.

"I didn't want to let him of all people get by me. I wanted to prove myself."

Him of all people. This is the moral instruction they inculcated into this young woman.

Blogger Longstreet January 28, 2013 10:30 AM  

Geez, cheddarman. I'd forgotten how nauseating that song was.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 28, 2013 10:33 AM  

I think the fight to allow boys to play on girls' teams is just the thing to help stop women corrupting the west. Let them put their effort into fighting this latest injustice caused by other women.

Oh wait, it's too late, isn't it.

Anonymous rycamor January 28, 2013 10:42 AM  

Nate January 28, 2013 10:13 AM

There is a reason God described a King as a punishment.


The people generally end up with the ruler they deserve, unfortunately. I doubt not that in our lifetimes the clamoring for extra-constitutional power for the President will culminate in true dictatorial power. If, that is, our country still exists.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein January 28, 2013 10:43 AM  

*Sheldon Cooper voice*

Knock.Knock.Knock.
Wheeler?

Knock.Knock.Knock.
Wheeler?

Knock.Knock.Knock.
Wheeler?

Anonymous Angel January 28, 2013 10:45 AM  

I grew up in the middle of this. Saw the first girl wrestler at our school. She was body slammed in under ten seconds by the smallest boy's wrestler. She left crying and was mocked by the girls for revealing her weight and wearing the unitard publically. I can only imagine it was a ultra fem mom who made her do it. As a seventh grader, we all thought she was an idiot and was just trying to get attention.

Later in highschool, the cheer team I was on all quit when we were ordered to attend all girls teams events and cheer for them as well as all the boys teams. Our parents squashed that.

I played sports all throughout school. It was well known among us chicks that the least talented male athlete would shame us. The guys who would play around with us were gentle and teasing. They were either kind or trying to cope a feel. Of course, we were not trying to crush their manhood. It was more flirting then anything else.

This is lacking in the teenagers I see now. It is cold, hard and sad.

I just saw a documentary about castles in Scotland and England. On one hand they were talking about how oppressed the women where by the savage men. Then they showed a special small room with a fireplace up off the ground. When asked, the hostest admitted it was a room built by the Lord of the Manor for his Wife and Daughters so they could lay under blankets with their feet elevated and warmed by the fire while they took tea and read during the hard winter.

I couldn't help but notice there were many such type of modifications made for the Ladies and thought they must have been quite cherished by these hardened warrior overlords who sought only to oppress their divine right to go to battle.

God give us the good ole days!

Anonymous Angel January 28, 2013 10:51 AM  

@ cheddarman
Funny how they murder the embroyos now...

Most annoying song ever.

Anonymous Russell January 28, 2013 11:02 AM  

Keep passing laws, toots. That'll fix reality.

Anonymous Josh January 28, 2013 11:16 AM  

*Sheldon Cooper voice*
Knock.Knock.Knock.
Wheeler?
Knock.Knock.Knock.
Wheeler?
Knock.Knock.Knock.
Wheeler?


RELEASE THE SPARTAN

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 28, 2013 11:20 AM  

"What would you replace democracy with?"

There's only one good answer and it's obvious: direct personal rule by me.

Anonymous Russell January 28, 2013 11:24 AM  

"There's only one good answer and it's obvious: direct personal rule by me."

Oh great, now we are going to see a pissing match between Loki and scoobius.

Anonymous Heh January 28, 2013 11:26 AM  

"What would you replace democracy with?"

There's only one good answer and it's obvious: direct personal rule by me.


Scoobius has my vote!

One man, one vote, one time -- for Scoobius!

Anonymous cheddarman January 28, 2013 11:26 AM  

Scoobius dubious, are you also Loki of Asgard?

sincerely

cheddarman

Anonymous rycamor January 28, 2013 11:27 AM  

VD January 28, 2013 7:50 AM

... I believe an aristocracy generally provides the maximal human liberty, not merely for the aristocrats, but everyone else as well.


Would you say the Old Testament concept of tribal elders and judges qualifies as aristocratic?

Anonymous Mina January 28, 2013 11:28 AM  

Women and men compete against each other head to head and place competitively in equestrian sports all the time.

Eventing (3 day horse trials; very strenuous), Hunter/Jumper, Jumpers, Dressage.

There is no mens and womens divisions - they compete head to head and no sex comes out consistently on top.

One of the most famous top 5 eventing athletes in the world are a married couple: David and Karen O'Connor, and they beat each other quite often. Sometimes he places above her and sometimes she places above him at the same competitions. They both competed in the Olympics several times. I'm sure the rides home in the big rig are very interesting after a show weekend.

Just examples; The horse is probably a level playing field variable. I generally agree that women can't compete successfully with men in most sports. But in these sports they do so just fine.

Anonymous Mike January 28, 2013 11:30 AM  

I suggest Cthulhu. The political platform would be fairly easy for everyone to grasp. Vote for Cthulhu or he destroys the universe you exist in. Works?

Anonymous Heh January 28, 2013 11:33 AM  

There is a reason God described a King as a punishment.

He did? Where?

What one notes right away about the Bible is that democracy is mentioned nowhere. Monarchies are clearly considered the proper form of government.

Anonymous RedJack January 28, 2013 11:35 AM  

Aristocratic rule by a small group. Seems that the infighting pushes them to new achievements, and keeps them out of most peoples hair.

Of course the only issue is that one family ends up winning it all....

And where is Wheeler?

Blogger Nate January 28, 2013 11:39 AM  

Does no one actually read the Bible???

Anonymous Josh January 28, 2013 11:40 AM  

What one notes right away about the Bible is that democracy is mentioned nowhere. Monarchies are clearly considered the proper form of government.

Which is why God clearly gave monarchy a ringing endorsement in the first book of Samuel...

Anonymous Mina January 28, 2013 11:41 AM  

The last ten years of the leader board for the United State's most prestigious 4-star horse trial, the Rolex Kentucky 3-Day Event.

Some years it is won by men, some years by women and the top 10 placings each year are made up of about a 50/50 breakdown male/female.

Most of these folks train their own horses and do all of the work and conditioning themselves - it's very much of a "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" kind of sport.

Lots of the horses are ex-racehorses saved from a slaughter fate (and destined to be steak for the Japanese) and re-trained for dressage and jumping both in the open and in the ring. They can be had for under $2500 in most places in the country.

Rolex 3Day Event Winners

Blogger Nate January 28, 2013 11:45 AM  

But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”

1 Sam 8 6:9

Blogger Christina January 28, 2013 11:50 AM  

The power (and more importantly, the desire) of any 18th century monarch to meddle in his people's daily lives is VASTLY less than the power and willingness of today's "democratic" (bureaucratic) state to do so. As an exercise for the student, compare the total number of government employees of all kinds per French person under Louis XIV to the total number of government employees per American today.

It seems to me that when I read about monarchies and their atrocities, the little people are mostly left alone while the game is played by the lords in the highest places. They are the ones beheaded, poisoned, backstabbed, imprisoned.

However, monarchies of history have this horrible little glitch called a Lord who plays a much bigger role in the daily lives of little people than the king does, and not always a good one.

As to aristocracies? What was said about people with the power to do much but choose not to? And for how long does it go until someone does choose to? We have flawed people galore and few fit to rule absolutely (or even shared power in an aristocracy).

I believed that was the purpose of our consitution - to place limits on the government, but I suppose that fails, too, once you have enough that choose to work in collusion so they all have the power.

The experiment of state and governance is a tricky riddle. If we give give it all up, chaos ensues and we kill eachother. If we adopt it in any form, chaos ensues and the government kills us instead.

Blogger Nate January 28, 2013 11:52 AM  

"The experiment of state and governance is a tricky riddle. If we give give it all up, chaos ensues and we kill each other. If we adopt it in any form, chaos ensues and the government kills us instead."

Why exactly will we kill each other again?

Anonymous The CronoLink January 28, 2013 12:00 PM  

So a democratic republic is as bad a democracy in the long run?

Also, where can I get my Aristocracy member club card?

Anonymous Josh January 28, 2013 12:01 PM  

Why exactly will we kill each other again?

Because our desire to be left alone means that we will kill everyone else so that they will leave us alone!

Anonymous Josh January 28, 2013 12:03 PM  

Why has no one suggested a self governing anarchosyndicalist commune yet? You know, because tarts handing out swords is no way to establish a government...

Anonymous Signe January 28, 2013 12:06 PM  

Why exactly will we kill each other again?

Because some group of people will want what you have. Someone gotta die, in that case, you or them.

How many generations did it take before people started killing each other over envy?

Blogger Nate January 28, 2013 12:10 PM  

"Because some group of people will want what you have. Someone gotta die, in that case, you or them."

Yes. We call that crime on a small scale.. and war on a large scale.

And we already have it now.

so again... what's the difference?

Seems to me if we're still going to have the war and the killing we may as well also have the freedom.


Anonymous Mavwreck January 28, 2013 12:13 PM  

The problem is that no matter what the system, you need it run by people who have the power to run things for their own benefit, but voluntarily choose not to do so.

I wonder - in most previous monarchies or aristocracies, was the harm done by a poor leader (or set of leaders) limited more by the nature of the government, or the technology of the times?

A wicked king or aristocrat back then couldn't reach into the daily lives of their subjects as thoroughly (no electric communication, electronic banking, etc.). They couldn't project force as easily or as far - travel was much slower, and one soldier couldn't do nearly as much damage.

I think that a democracy can certainly descend into a dictatorship - and given today's tools it can do a lot of damage. However, I think that an operating monarchy or aristocracy today would already have all those tools concentrated in one place for potential mis-use.

A democracy may not be great, but the failure states of monarchy/aristocracy are just as bad. Democracy may be a bit more resilient, though - or may at least take more time to fail.

Anonymous Heh January 28, 2013 12:15 PM  

Which is why God clearly gave monarchy a ringing endorsement in the first book of Samuel...

Yet in Deuteronomy 17, God gives exact instructions on how to select a king, and how a king should behave.

Anonymous Steve Canyon January 28, 2013 12:16 PM  

Ol' Shel was right on the mark about the true nature of the feminist....

Pamela Purse yelled, “Ladies first,”
Pushing in front of the ice cream line.
Pamela Purse yelled, “Ladies first,”
Grabbing the ketchup at dinnertime.
Climbing on the morning bus
She’d shove right by all of us
And there’d be a tiff or a fight or a fuss
When Pamela Purse yelled, “Ladies first.”

Pamela Purse screamed, “Ladies first,”
When we went off on our jungle trip.
Pamela Purse said her thirst was worse
And guzzled our water, every sip.
And when we got grabbed by that wild savage band,
Who tied us together and made us all stand
In a long line in front of the King of the land-
A cannibal known as Fry-’Em-Up Dan,
Who sat on his throne in a bib so grand
With a lick of his lips and a fork in his hand,
As he tried to decide who’d be first in the pan-
From back of the line, in that shrill voice of hers,
Pamela Purse yelled, “Ladies first.”

Anonymous Signe January 28, 2013 12:18 PM  

(Anyways, LoA says "Kneel", but he can't comment today because he's too busy interviewing a friend of mine for a job. Believe it or not, this is on-topic, becauuuuuuse...

(My friend, let's call him "Jay", was a manager in one department of his company. A fellow manager in another department, call her "Bea", went on maternity leave, and Jay was moved into her department to fill in and possibly take over if she failed to return. It was considered a good career move because they were grooming him for executive jobs and wanted him to know the business from all angles.

(Jay came into the department and proceeded not only to run it smoothly, but shut down the gossip mill, increase productivity, streamline the system, and complete most of the tasks Bea hadn't even bothered trying in her multiple years in the job. In three months. He did such a good job at it that they restructured the department to allow him to continue as co-manager with Bea for the time being.

(Until a week ago, when Bea filed a discrimination complaint. Seems his salary is higher than hers. She insists it's because he's a man, can't possibly be because she's a lazy entitled bitch who would rather flap her yap than do what they pay her to do.

(The company decided it would be easier to lay him off than to tell her to pound sand. So now a father of four little 'uns calls me up to ask me if LoA has any job openings at the new office and he's willing to move...)

Anonymous Josh January 28, 2013 12:18 PM  

Democracy may be a bit more resilient, though - or may at least take more time to fail.

Remind me again how long American democracy lasted compared to Roman aristocracy or monarchy.

Anonymous Signe January 28, 2013 12:19 PM  

so again... what's the difference?

Well, I'd suggest that it's rate of occurrence, but it's a little hard to get crime stats from regions in full-blown anarchy, so I can't back it entirely up.

Then again, it's a little hard to get Internet access in those places, either, so I can't blame them for not posting 'em.

Anonymous Heh January 28, 2013 12:20 PM  

I think that a democracy can certainly descend into a dictatorship - and given today's tools it can do a lot of damage. However, I think that an operating monarchy or aristocracy today would already have all those tools concentrated in one place for potential mis-use.

A monarch has no reason to abuse the people, because a monarch does not need their votes.

A democracy may not be great, but the failure states of monarchy/aristocracy are just as bad.

Really? The "failed" ("oppressive") monarchies of the 18th and 19th centuries are hardly oppressive at all by the standards of 20th century totalitarianism. Louis XIV and George III hardly intruded at all into the daily lives of the people.

Democracy may be a bit more resilient, though - or may at least take more time to fail.

When democracy has lasted as long as the Byzantine or Habsburg monarchies, then this claim may hold water. Only 900 years of democracy to go!

Anonymous some democracy January 28, 2013 12:21 PM  

"Bernice Sandler, who helped draft Title IX with Green and Bayh, recalled in the film how Green was aghast when Sandler and others said they planned to lobby for the bill.

She said: "I don't want you to lobby. Because if you lobby, people will ask questions about this bill, and they will find out what it would really do." ... And she was absolutely right. It was quite a big break that no one was watching.

The full impact of Title IX did not become clear until 1975, when the government published final rules that gave colleges and universities three years to comply with the gender equality provision of the act. But its impact is clear today. Fewer than 300,000 girls played high school sports in 1974—today, the ranks have swelled to more than 3.1 million."


How Title IX Sneakily Revolutionized Women's Sports

Anonymous RC January 28, 2013 12:23 PM  

Only a society with liberty as its foundation is capable of producing sufficient wealth to enable such inanity. And so the cycle turns, the people blind to history's illumination, even our bitter lessons soon to be lost on the future but for the remnant few who think and observe.

Anonymous end of herstory January 28, 2013 12:24 PM  

"A democracy may not be great, but the failure states of monarchy/aristocracy are just as bad."

democracy is failure.

http://www.v-weiss.de/cycle.html

Anonymous Lysander Spooner January 28, 2013 12:25 PM  

Muther EFFN Wimminz as announcers for Teh Menz games, has gotta stop, dem beotches drive me crazy with their made-up- man-up voices, if there is a God, it is jus inhumane !!

Anonymous Josh January 28, 2013 12:26 PM  

A monarch has no reason to abuse the people, because a monarch does not need their votes.

He also has no reason to govern his people justly, because he does not need their votes.

Blogger Nate January 28, 2013 12:27 PM  

"Well, I'd suggest that it's rate of occurrence, but it's a little hard to get crime stats from regions in full-blown anarchy, so I can't back it entirely up."

Let me rephrase this for you..

"Its scary... so I would rather have the comfy cage. thanks."

this is why we don't think you should vote.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 28, 2013 12:34 PM  

Given the way things are headed, I envision a future where sooner or later a class-action lawsuit is going to be filed by women blaming all of society's ills on the fact that men voted to grant them the vote. That way it still ends up being all mens' fault.

I'll gladly do a mea culpa for that if it means we can give them their batteries and Oprah and not let them vote any longer.

Our founding fathers tried. They formed a representational republic. We let it morph into a democracy.

I would say what the Founders created, regardless of the label they gave it, was a democracy of aristocrats. They didn't have an aristocratic heirarchy, if you were in the club, you were treated as an equal as far as voting and speaking. But you had to prove your worth to be in the club.

And they created a set of legal constraints on the aristocrats that prevented them from abusing the general populace, and capable members of the general population could join the club if they showed enough character.

I think that is the Crazy Eddie answer to break the cycle. It didn't work this time, but maybe we learned some lessons from it.

Anonymous Signe January 28, 2013 12:34 PM  

"Its scary... so I would rather have the comfy cage. thanks."

this is why we don't think you should vote.


Now don't go all Ass-sher on me, Nate.

Have you got proof that "If we give it all up"--which I'm taking to mean "no laws, no rules, no enforcement whatsoever", so correct me if I'm mistaken--it'll be exactly the same as or better than the survivability of, say, a baseline small community with minimum behavioral standards?

Or are you arguing for something else entirely?

Either way, I'm no big fan of the current behemoth. Why do you think I work for an extraterrestrial warlord?

Anonymous Scintan January 28, 2013 12:36 PM  

So a democratic republic is as bad a democracy in the long run?

Also, where can I get my Aristocracy member club card?


The only government worth a damn is a disinterested, benevolent dictatorship. Good luck getting it to last more than one or two generations, though.

Anonymous Scintan January 28, 2013 12:39 PM  

So a democratic republic is as bad a democracy in the long run?

Also, where can I get my Aristocracy member club card?



The only government worth a damn is a disinterested benevolent dictatorship. You're not going to find that type to have much staying power, though.

Blogger Nate January 28, 2013 12:39 PM  

"Have you got proof that "If we give it all up"--which I'm taking to mean "no laws, no rules, no enforcement whatsoever", so correct me if I'm mistaken--it'll be exactly the same as or better than the survivability of, say, a baseline small community with minimum behavioral standards?'

We've seen limited government in action... we've seen tribalism in action. We have no more to look to than our own "wild west".. where in we find that... right... the murder rates we'er actually less than they are in Chicago right now. And those stats are inflated because they include self defense shootings.

Now... remove the death from large scale war... because its really hard to have large scale war with a bunch of independent little autonomous groups... and you'll find that the numbers sway heavily in favor of anarchy. Or at least... in the removal of the federal level of government.

Anonymous Josh January 28, 2013 12:39 PM  

Have you got proof that "If we give it all up"--which I'm taking to mean "no laws, no rules, no enforcement whatsoever", so correct me if I'm mistaken--it'll be exactly the same as or better than the survivability of, say, a baseline small community with minimum behavioral standards?

Who said there would be no laws and no rules?

Silly girl.

Anonymous Signe January 28, 2013 12:41 PM  

Who said there would be no laws and no rules?

Well, why did you think I was asking for clarification? You never know around here, all the random crazy that crops up in even the most otherwise-reasonable people.

Silly man.

Blogger Nate January 28, 2013 12:41 PM  

In government... in any form... local is always the optimum form. create a treaty that unites the little groups in non-aggression with a few basic rules... and get a congress of representatives from each together once every 10 years to shake hands and have a photo.

done.

Anonymous Josh January 28, 2013 12:41 PM  

The only government worth a damn is a disinterested benevolent dictatorship. You're not going to find that type to have much staying power, though.

Let's elect a four year old dictator and give him an endless supply of candy, tv, video games, and a pony.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 28, 2013 12:41 PM  

A democracy may not be great, but the failure states of monarchy/aristocracy are just as bad.

Well, which failed form of German government in the 19th and 20th Centuries was worse and failed faster? The failed monarchy of the Kaisers that lasted from 1866 to 1918, or the failed democracy of the Weimar Republic that lasted from 1920 to 1933?



Anonymous Josh January 28, 2013 12:44 PM  

The preferable form of government was the government of the hobbits in the shire. They had laws that everyone followed because they were the rules, and a sheriff that could call up deputies if needed, and a mayor whose main job appeared to be officiating parties.

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 28, 2013 12:44 PM  

"Bernice Sandler, who helped draft Title IX..."

Well whaddaya know. Who coulda seen that one coming? As usual (does it EVER stop?!), the real goal was not to empower women as such; it was to weaken and undermine the hated goyim. If we let them become athletes, THEY'LL TURN INTO AUSCHWITZ GUARDS!!!!!!111!!11!1!

It never, ever, ever stops.

Anonymous Signe January 28, 2013 12:49 PM  

We have no more to look to than our own "wild west"..

Martial law? This doesn't sound like you, Nate.

you'll find that the numbers sway heavily in favor of anarchy.

People don't do anarchy. They eventually form up governments; it's human nature. I can imagine what it'd be like for all shoes to be made from a magical unicorn hide that never gets any smaller no matter how often you cut it up, but in the end, it's not going to happen.

Or at least... in the removal of the federal level of government.

I'm cool with that.

Anonymous Signe January 28, 2013 12:51 PM  

The preferable form of government was the government of the hobbits in the shire. They had laws that everyone followed because they were the rules, and a sheriff that could call up deputies if needed, and a mayor whose main job appeared to be officiating parties.

If only people were more like hobbits, huh?

But then comes Sharkey.

Anonymous Signe January 28, 2013 12:52 PM  

In government... in any form... local is always the optimum form. create a treaty that unites the little groups in non-aggression with a few basic rules... and get a congress of representatives from each together once every 10 years to shake hands and have a photo.

That's what I figured you were saying, Nate. That's why I asked. If you'd started there in answer to me, we could have avoided the name-calling, dontcha think?

Blogger Nate January 28, 2013 12:52 PM  

"Martial law? This doesn't sound like you, Nate."

wow. it wasn't martial law. Not even close.

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 28, 2013 12:53 PM  

"Scoobius dubious, are you also Loki of Asgard?
sincerely
cheddarman"

Nope, I don't have the talent or the consistency to stay in character like he does.

I'm like a regular human: lazy and sloppy and sort of all over the place.

Anonymous Signe January 28, 2013 12:54 PM  

wow. it wasn't martial law. Not even close.

We're probably not watching the same movies.

Blogger Nate January 28, 2013 12:55 PM  

"That's what I figured you were saying, Nate. That's why I asked. If you'd started there in answer to me, we could have avoided the name-calling, dontcha think?"

...

there was... name calling?

I figured you'd be calling my name later maybe.. in your sleep.

Anonymous Signe January 28, 2013 12:56 PM  

I figured you'd be calling my name later maybe.. in my dreams.

Fixed.

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 28, 2013 12:56 PM  

"I figured you'd be calling my name later maybe.. in your sleep."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJgA-q6nHHI

Blogger Daveon January 28, 2013 12:57 PM  

Women had no voice in Imperial Britain? Not even the head of state at the time who did block and influence legislation directly?

Not even her???

Anonymous Ioweenie January 28, 2013 12:58 PM  

re: Susan: "I have always wondered if Adam and Eve would have been thrown out of the garden if Adam had done his duty as head of house and given his wife a good paddling for touching the tree instead of playing the blame game.

Not disagreeing with you on most of your points VD, just saying that if women ruined everything, its because men have historically let them."

If I follow, one point of Alpha Game is to get men to live out their God-ordained roles as leaders. VD's purpose is to illuminate or remind men why they should resist the apple, regardless of how tasty it looks in Eve's outstretched hand.

Is it because men are swayed/blinded by desire for sex that they allow themselves to be hoodwinked by women? If men were heading organizations that made the rules, why'd they give up the reigns?

Awareness is necessary for action; too much commiserating may serve as catharsis that ends in stagnation.

Blogger Nate January 28, 2013 12:58 PM  

scoobs... nice.

Blogger Rev. Right January 28, 2013 12:58 PM  

"There is no such thing as a "right" to vote nor can anyone "deserve" a right."

Or, put another way:

http://youtu.be/dpDkYZWeeVg

Anonymous Signe January 28, 2013 12:59 PM  

Not even the head of state at the time who did block and influence legislation directly?

Not even her???


You mean Prince Albert's biggest fangirl?

Anonymous my folks > your folks January 28, 2013 1:01 PM  

"He also has no reason to govern his people justly, because he does not need their votes."

He does, since they are his people. Something that happens in democrazy as well, it should be quite noticeable now.

Blogger Nate January 28, 2013 1:06 PM  

Dear God... We finally have a post where Wheelers omni-present rants will be on-topic... and he's no where to be found.

Obviously he's out mentoring some young boy into manhood... via ass rape.

Anonymous A Visitor January 28, 2013 1:09 PM  

When Kallan and Austin met, she lowered her head into him. She went flying backward to the turf, while he continued on with possession of the ball. After the play was dead, Austin turned around to see Kallan lying on the ground. It was the only time he collided with a girl who didn't get right up.

Throw on top of that the doctor saying that women's necks are weaker than men and I have to ask: do they honestly believe that women can still be infantry?

I do not believe any women should be given the responsibility of voting... A friend of mine who is a lady has said that she'd rather not be able to vote if it meant the country became more conservative.

Effeminate men and women will be the downfall of our republic and have had a hand in many other great countries' collapses as well.

Anonymous Signe January 28, 2013 1:11 PM  

Obviously he's out mentoring some young boy into manhood... via ass rape.

This...is a very interesting website.

Yikes.

Blogger Rev. Right January 28, 2013 1:14 PM  

"We need a philosopher King."

The democrats already have theirs.

Blogger Nate January 28, 2013 1:17 PM  

"This...is a very interesting website."

its a spartan joke... its mandatory where Wheeler is concerned.

Blogger Rev. Right January 28, 2013 1:19 PM  

Disposable Guitar Hero: I can't tear into an old Westinghouse or GE machine and not feel a sense of pride.
---------

Off topic: In your opinion, how do the turbines made by Westinghouse and GE in 50's through 70's compare to the turbines made today in terms of robustness and build quality? Does GE still make any in the US?

Anonymous bob k. mando January 28, 2013 1:22 PM  

Disposable Guitar Hero January 28, 2013 6:35 AM
As a Millwright/machinist for the last 23 years, I have met exactly 3 women working in the trade as such. Those three were physically borderline capable of doing the work. Then again, I guess the occupation is not very desirable to either sex anymore.




more to the point, there doesn't seem to be any way to get INTO the machining profession any more unless you take college courses in engineering or join a union.

maybe the military?



Heh January 28, 2013 11:33 AM
There is a reason God described a King as a punishment.
He did? Where?
What one notes right away about the Bible is that democracy is mentioned nowhere. Monarchies are clearly considered the proper form of government.




*facepalm*

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel+8&version=KJV



Heh January 28, 2013 12:15 PM
Yet in Deuteronomy 17, God gives exact instructions on how to select a king, and how a king should behave.



instructions for the king being chosen by God and his life begin in verse 15. what PRECEDES verse 15? and WHY does God 'choose' a man to be king in verse 15?

Deu 17:14 is prophecy.


Heh January 28, 2013 12:20 PM
A monarch has no reason to abuse the people, because a monarch does not need their votes.


*facepalm*

neither Stalin nor Mao 'needed' votes. they could manufacture all the votes they wanted.

and 'need' is completely irrelevant to the psychological desire to abuse.

your entire statement is a non-sequitur.

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 28, 2013 1:33 PM  

"We need a philosopher King."

Goodness gracious. The twentieth century, and now the new one too, have been littered with the filth of presidential philosopher kings: Wilson, TR, FDR, Kennedy, LBJ, Carter, George W. Bush (future ninth-circle resident), and now Obama. And did you notice anything they all had in common? Lots of kingly pretensions, pretty light on the philosophy thing. Oh, and left streams of mutilated corpses in their wakes.

We do not live in a country where we are supposed to bow to the philosophical imperatives of some schmuck who simply won a four-year election by buying the best TV ads. The president is a functionary, he's a fucking glorified postmaster general -- not a king, and certainly never a philosopher. George W. Bush (may he scream forever in Hell!) blathered on endlessly, per his Jew-written script, about how "all people desire freedom" or some other such horseshit, and started covert wars for Israel on the basis of this hooey. Of what import is it to the American people whether some Third World fuck-monkeys desire freedom or not? How does it become an imperative to shed American blood, because some tinpot dictator is a bad, bad guy?

Fuck these presidential assholes and their imperatives. Fuck philosopher kings. Fuck the imperial presidency.

The president is constitutionally mandated to act as a sort of referee, and nothing further, so that the People can be their OWN philosopher kings: which is another way of saying, to enjoy Liberty.

Personal to George W. Bush: Never, ever forget that you are a piece of shit.


Anonymous VD January 28, 2013 1:41 PM  

This...is a very interesting website. Yikes.

Oh, you haven't lived until experiencing The Spartan cutting loose in a manner that would put Leonidas to shame. He's one of the Treasures of the Blog. Imagine Asher, only smarter, considerably more verbose, and less sane.

He does genuinely love freedom, though, so you sort of have to just buckle up and enjoy the ride.

Anonymous VD January 28, 2013 1:44 PM  

Anytime I see someone who is left-liberal expressing horror at The Spartan, I always like to remind them that the very government they trust and want to give more power, once gave him a gun and paid him to carry it around and shoot people.

It's one of the few arguments that will observably give a left-liberal's affection for government and its wisdom momentary pause. They get past it, but it shakes them. You can see it.

Blogger Nate January 28, 2013 1:45 PM  

"Imagine Asher, only smarter, considerably more verbose, and less sane."

these differences cannot be exaggerated. Much smarter. Far... Far less sane... and yes... impossibly... more verbose.

Blogger Nate January 28, 2013 1:48 PM  

VD
I'm convinced you picked Thucydides as the first Voxiversity topic in part, for the Spartan Spectacle of it all.

Anonymous Stilicho January 28, 2013 1:49 PM  

In government... in any form... local is always the optimum form. create a treaty that unites the little groups in non-aggression with a few basic rules... and get a congress of representatives from each together once every 10 years to shake hands and have a photo.

done.


We had that. Pissed it away rather quickly.

Blogger Nate January 28, 2013 1:52 PM  

"We had that. Pissed it away rather quickly."

So we learn from our mistakes... and realize that the negatives that it presented aren't nearly as bad as 200,000 bureacrats being paid to unduly document things.

Anonymous Stilicho January 28, 2013 1:58 PM  

Anytime I see someone who is left-liberal expressing horror at The Spartan, I always like to remind them that the very government they trust and want to give more power, once gave him a gun and paid him to carry it around and shoot people.

It's one of the few arguments that will observably give a left-liberal's affection for government and its wisdom momentary pause. They get past it, but it shakes them. You can see it.


I expect that Wheeler was a damned good Marine in many respects. He should frighten the left-liberal lot for a variety of reasons. He's still batshit crazy, but he is willing to live what he believes. Plus, he's made Nate reconsider the merits of Greek Orthodoxy...pure entertainment that is.

Anonymous Stilicho January 28, 2013 1:59 PM  

Nate: "undue documentation by a government agent" felony of the first or second degree...debate

Blogger Nate January 28, 2013 2:00 PM  

" Plus, he's made Nate reconsider the merits of Greek Orthodoxy...pure entertainment that is."

Do what?

Mate I first attended a greek orthodox church when I was like 5. My grandfather came over on the boat... from Greece.

ironically my people actually are spartans... if you go back far enough.

And no... I'm not at all comfortable with that.

Anonymous Mavwreck January 28, 2013 2:06 PM  

Josh and Heh pointed out that many monarchies have lasted longer than democracies. However, most of the operating monarchies (ones that weren't purely ceremonial) existed before the major technology changes that I'm considering. I don't think comparing the longevity of the Hapsburgs to that of the US is particularly relevant due to the drastic technology difference.

I'd also like to clarify - the failure of government that I was considering was a descent into tyranny, not the dissolution of the underlying state. I can't say I have a well-formed opinion based on that sort of failure.

Jack Amok had a rather interesting point:

Well, which failed form of German government in the 19th and 20th Centuries was worse and failed faster? The failed monarchy of the Kaisers that lasted from 1866 to 1918, or the failed democracy of the Weimar Republic that lasted from 1920 to 1933?

They're close enough that the technology wasn't completely different. There are, however, two things that make me think it's not a solid counter-example:

1. We're not talking about the same types of failure. The German Empire failed due to military conquest. The Weimar Republic failed due to internal political maneuvering - it was essentially suborned by the Nazis. This second case - a government using its already-accepted tools to generate a dictatorship - is the type of failure I was thinking of.

2. The underlying industrial technology didn't change radically between the Kaiser's era and the Weimar Republic. However, communications technology changed radically - radio and motion pictures didn't exist for most of the German Empire's history. They were, I believe, a key part of the Nazi rise to power.

It's certainly a counter-point that's worth considering, but it's no slam dunk.

Anonymous Mavwreck January 28, 2013 2:07 PM  

By the way, do we have to close the comments now that Godwin's Law has been triggered?

Blogger Nate January 28, 2013 2:21 PM  

are you kidding? we're mostly libertarians... so obviously people are calling us Nazi's all the time.

Anonymous Stilicho January 28, 2013 2:28 PM  

Nate, I thought you were aware that Wheeler converted from Roman Catholic to Greek Orthodox recently.

Blogger Nate January 28, 2013 2:31 PM  

"Nate, I thought you were aware that Wheeler converted from Roman Catholic to Greek Orthodox recently."

Fail.

i totally misunderstood. Gotcha... wheeler went Greek Ortho..so I reconsider Greek Orthodoxy..

Ok...

I'm caught up now.

Apologies.

Anonymous kh123 January 28, 2013 2:57 PM  

"I think many of the sororities already serve the brothel aspect... It might be just that much more convenient if the sisters were in the same frat or shared the same room."

Meant it in a grand, Chthulhu sense; like Lenin's "one world as a Post Office" ideal.

Anonymous bob k. mando January 28, 2013 3:05 PM  

Mavwreck January 28, 2013 2:07 PM
By the way, do we have to close the comments now that Godwin's Law has been triggered?




also, we love to point out Liberal Fascism ourselves.

that is to say, historically accurate recreations of positions, philosophies and policies which had previously been taken by Italian fascists or German national socialists.

it's amusing to watch them babble after stripping the groupthink from them with facts.

Anonymous bob k. mando January 28, 2013 3:08 PM  

Stilicho January 28, 2013 2:28 PM
Nate, I thought you were aware that Wheeler converted from Roman Catholic to Greek Orthodox recently.




this ( just barely ) harmonizes the previous hilarious contradiction of a Roman Catholic advocating that the US return to subjugation under the Anglican / British royal family.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein January 28, 2013 5:15 PM  

*Commissioner Gordon voice*

Activate the Spartan Signal!!

Summon Wheeler from the Spartan Cave!!

Anonymous Heh January 28, 2013 5:51 PM  

bob k. mandoJanuary 28, 2013 1:22 PM
Heh January 28, 2013 11:33 AM
There is a reason God described a King as a punishment.
He did? Where?
What one notes right away about the Bible is that democracy is mentioned nowhere. Monarchies are clearly considered the proper form of government.

*facepalm*

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel+8&version=KJV


In 1 Samuel 12, Samuel tells the people "If you fear the Lord and serve and obey him and do not rebel against his commands, and if both you and the king who reigns over you follow the Lord your God — good!" In short, kings are pleasing to God if the kings behave properly. As I said before, the proper behavior of kings IS laid out in the Bible. The fact that the Bible identifies problems with kings and criticizes specific kings in no way indicates the Bible is anti-monarchical.

instructions for the king being chosen by God and his life begin in verse 15. what PRECEDES verse 15? and WHY does God 'choose' a man to be king in verse 15?

Verse 15 simply means the choice of a new king is subject to approval by the religious authorities.

A monarch has no reason to abuse the people, because a monarch does not need their votes.

*facepalm*

neither Stalin nor Mao 'needed' votes. they could manufacture all the votes they wanted.


*facepalm*

Were Stalin and Mao hereditary monarchs? NO. Category error, try again.

Communist dictators were (and are) the leaders of political parties. They maintained giant party machines, and manufactured votes, precisely because their power came from "the people". The need to tyrannize the people emerges from the fear that "the people" will withdraw their mandate. The monarch's power does not come from "the people" and the monarch does not need to tyrannize them to maintain himself in power.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 28, 2013 6:37 PM  

We're not talking about the same types of failure.

Hard to have much of a discussion about which sort of government fails faster or worse if you're going to insist they have to fail for the same reasons to make a valid comparison. Different forms of government fail for different reasons because they have different strengths.

Monarchies tend to fail when the monarch goes on an ill-advised conquest, or else dies with either too many or not enough heirs. Democracies tend to fail when enough voters think casting a ballot is all the work they have to do in life.

Blogger Christina January 28, 2013 7:03 PM  

you'll find that the numbers sway heavily in favor of anarchy.

People don't do anarchy. They eventually form up governments; it's human nature. I can imagine what it'd be like for all shoes to be made from a magical unicorn hide that never gets any smaller no matter how often you cut it up, but in the end, it's not going to happen.


To expand on signe's idea here, take two people - a man and woman isolated from anyone around them. Make them both equal with equal say, and once they disagree, either they fight eachother and one dies, or one becomes the authority figure.

Because I think nearly everyone here would agree the man is likely to make the best final decision, we'll go with him. So now you have an authority figure and someone who submits to it. The smallest most nuclear form of governance in existence and it is NOT anarchy.

Expand this nuclear family to include a few children (how 'bout 6) and that father still remains the head of a growing populace. Still governance.

Grow that family to include 6 spouses and 36 grandchildren, and you have a patriarch with authority over 49 other people.

And ladies and gentlemen, here is the oldest most natural form of government - an authoritarian patriarchy.

As Signe mentions, governance is a natural desire. Put more than one person in any area and some form of governance will eke its way out. People just don't do anarchy well.

Honestly, I'd prefer this set-up over what we have - the patriarch in this scenario actually has a lot riding on how he rules his domain - this is HIS family, HIS holdings. Each one of these people is his blood and his legacy rests on how well he rules the people around him.

Anonymous Asher January 28, 2013 7:07 PM  

@ Nate

Does no one actually read the Bible???

I suggest we go and find no one before this ignorance becomes terminal.

Why exactly will we kill each other again?

Wait? You're a christian anarchist? I did not know such a thing existed.

Anonymous Asher January 28, 2013 7:08 PM  

@ signe

If Bea and Jay cooperated would you call that ... Team Bea Jay?

Anonymous The other skeptic January 28, 2013 7:14 PM  

Affirmative action is important to national security because having lots of murderous blacks in the forces is good or something.

Anonymous just another steve January 28, 2013 7:20 PM  

All this angst about the ruinous effects of women supposedly running the place reminds me of an old cartoon. A couple of elderly Jewish guys are reading newspapers. One is reading a respectable daily and the other is reading a virulently anti-Semitic rag. The first guy asks the second guy why he is reading such an awful paper. The second guy answers because according to this paper Jews are rich and powerful and rule the world.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben January 28, 2013 7:43 PM  

You think you're king because some watery tart through a sword at ya?!

Anonymous Luke January 28, 2013 8:24 PM  

Vox said:

"It's the Otter defense. "You fucked up.... You trusted us."

Strictly speaking, I believe that was uttered by the character D-Day TO Otter, in the movie "Animal House".

Oh, and has anyone run across a recent news item re applying Title IX to science and engineering? All the ones I've seen are years old.

Anonymous Luke January 28, 2013 8:31 PM  

Cheddarman, here's what I consider a MUCH better song than that tired old feminist anthem whose lyrics you posted:

"I've Never Been To Me" (complete version) by Charlene

http://artists.letssingit.com/charlene-lyrics-ive-never-been-to-me-pnvkswk

Hey lady, you lady
cursing at your life
you're a discontented mother
and a regimented wife
I 've no doubt
you dream about the things you never do
but I wish someone had a talk to me like I wanna talk to you

Oh, I've been to Georgia and California and anywhere I could run
Took the hand of a preacher man
and we made love in the sun
But I ran out of places and friendly faces
Because I had to be free
I've been to paradise but I've never been to me...

Please lady please lady
don't just walk away
Cause I have this need to tell you
why I'm all alone today
I can see so much of me
still living in your eyes
won't you share a part
of a weary heart that has lived a million lives

Oh, I've been to Nice and the isle of Greece
when I sipped champagne on a yacht
I moved like Harlow in Monte Carlo
and showed them what I've got
I've been undressed by kings
and I've seen some things that a woman ain't s'pose to see
I've been to paradise but I've never been to me...

Hey, you know what paradise is?
It's a lie
a fantasy we created about people and places
as we like them to be
but you know what truth is?
it's that little baby you're holding
and it's that man you fought with this morning
the same one you are gonna make love to tonight
that's truth that's love

Sometimes I've been to crying for unborn children
that might have made me complete
but I, I took the sweet life
I never knew I'd be bitter from the sweet
I spent my life exploring
the subtle whoring
that costs too much to be free
hey lady I've been to paradise
but I've never been to me...

I've been to paradise but I've never been to me...

================================================

Note that many radio stations censored out this portion of the song:

"'it's that little baby you're holding
and it's that man you fought with this morning
the same one you are gonna make love to tonight"

Anonymous Asher January 28, 2013 8:54 PM  

If Satan had been a Spartan would Jesus have told Satan to get behind him?

Anonymous Asher January 28, 2013 8:59 PM  

For all the people quoting the OT you are the other type of OT. The OT was a covenant between god and the children of Israel as a complete political entity and people. The extension of his law to gentiles was an extension to INDIVIDUAL genitiles, not to peoples as political groups. Yes, the commands still attain from the OT but they apply to individuals and their hearts.

Did you ever wonder why the NT has only a couple passing references to human government?

Anonymous bob k. mando January 28, 2013 9:00 PM  

Asher January 28, 2013 7:07 PM
Wait? You're a christian anarchist? I did not know such a thing existed.



your ignorance is disturbing.

the writer of the Pledge of allegiance was a Christian Socialist and there were Christian Fascist parties prior to 1945. Vox self-identifies as a Christian Libertarian.

the existence of any particular political/religious/philosophical combination has nothing to do with intelligence, integrity or rationality.

given MPAI and rampant hamsterization you can find someone to identify as anything.

as to, Heh:
monarchy is a subset of 'dictator'. and you are trying to draw FAR too narrow of a definition of monarch anyways. there are elective monarchies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy

saying that God gives direction for rule-by-king means that God *wants* rule-by-king is absurd.

God also gives directions for divorces. and He gave Israel divorce law for the same reason that He gave them a monarchy; their hearts were hard and they would NOT live their lives the way He had previously directed them too.

i told you to read the previous vs in Deu ( and even linked them for you ) for a reason. Judges come first. *then Israel demands a king because of the pagan examples all around them*, then God concedes their demands and gives them what they want, good and hard.

Saul is the first king. and before the end of his reign he is apostate, has led the nation astray, is losing wars because God has turned his face away from Israel and is consulting with witches.

your mileage may vary.

Anonymous Asher January 28, 2013 9:00 PM  

@ Nate

Define local government. Isn't a government of one, by one and for one the most local a government can get?

How is that not anarchy?

Anonymous Asher January 28, 2013 9:05 PM  

@ bob k mando

Christian Socialist and there were Christian Fascist

Um, I said christian anarchist, not christian socialist or christian fascist, of which I am well aware exist/existed. Jesus, can't anyone around here read?

the existence of any particular

Um, I have *never* heard of someone describe themselves as a christian anarchist.

given MPAI and rampant hamsterization you can find someone to identify as anything.

If I identify as a ham sandwich does that imply hamster rationalization?

Blogger Nate January 28, 2013 9:34 PM  

"Define local government. Isn't a government of one, by one and for one the most local a government can get?"

Don't be going kant on me. This is a mild variant of reductio ad absurnum.

Blogger Nate January 28, 2013 9:35 PM  

"Um, I have *never* heard of someone describe themselves as a christian anarchist."

you realize the totality of the universe is not actually government by your particular observations? yes?

Blogger Nate January 28, 2013 9:36 PM  

government = governed


Dammit.

Anonymous Josh January 28, 2013 9:36 PM  

Um, I have *never* heard of someone describe themselves as a christian anarchist.

Tolstoy.

Also many folks associated with the Mises Institute.

Anonymous Asher January 28, 2013 9:43 PM  

Doh, that's right and I've read Tolstoy.

@ Nate

Don't be going kant on me.

What in the world does Kant have to do with that observation?

This is a mild variant of reductio ad absurnum.

How is it mild? Do you take issue with reductio ad absurdum tactics? What's your point?

My point is that your statement about the best government being local is far to vague to act as a guide for any sort of practical application. Is that lost on you?

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein January 28, 2013 9:46 PM  

Luke:
Strictly speaking, I believe that was uttered by the character D-Day TO Otter, in the movie "Animal House".

Nope.

Otter said it to Flounder.

Blogger Nate January 28, 2013 10:01 PM  

"What in the world does Kant have to do with that observation?"

Kant did the opposite. rather than reduce the behavior from plural to singular as you have, Kant expanded it from singular to plural and then asked what the effects would be? It was a basis for his attempt at creating a system of morality.

"How is it mild? Do you take issue with reductio ad absurdum tactics? What's your point?"

Being an emotional appeal / rhetorical tool... I simply dismiss it out of hand. I explained myself clearly Agent Asher. Your inability to follow along and connect dots isn't something I am going to lose sleep over. Everyone else knows what I mean.

Blogger Nate January 28, 2013 10:01 PM  

"My point is that your statement about the best government being local is far to vague to act as a guide for any sort of practical application. Is that lost on you?"

Its vague to you Agent Asher.

everyone else knows exactly what I mean.

Anonymous kh123 January 28, 2013 10:12 PM  

Ah, I almost thought I missed this evening's episode of The Asher Show.

Anonymous Luke January 28, 2013 10:33 PM  

Thank you, TontoBG. I stand corrected.

Luke

Blogger Justthisguy January 28, 2013 10:56 PM  

@Vox, and others: I would rather live in the Star Kingdom of Manticore than the People's Republic of Haven. Further, in a properly-run polity _I_ would not be allowed to vote, not owning any land or having an independent income. If I had my druthers, my ideal polity would allow the franchise only to self-employed artisans and yeoman farmers, and then only if they showed up for militia drill every month with weapon, boots, rucksack, etc.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein January 28, 2013 11:28 PM  

Thank you, TontoBG. I stand corrected.

Luke


No problem.

While Wheeler is AWOL and Nate, Asher, et al argue over trivia, I take it on myself to do the intellectual heavy lifting on this blog whilst Vox is (presumably) asleep.

Anonymous Asher January 28, 2013 11:30 PM  

@ Nate

Being an emotional appeal / rhetorical tool... I simply dismiss it out of hand.

Now you're just babbling. How is a reductio ad absurdum an emotional appeal??? And rhetorical appeal? Of course, but rational discussion always has a rhetorical component; the problem is when rhetoric becomes the entire argument.

Apparently, you have a problem with Socrates, too.

Everyone else knows what I mean.

No, you don't know what you're saying, as all you're engaging in is bombastic, rhetorical handwaving. In short, you're babbling. There are no dots to connect in your comments, there's just nothing there, at all.

Anonymous VD January 29, 2013 3:12 AM  

You're off-topic, Asher. Drop it. Also, it is more than a little amusing that you would lay such stress on "*never*" having heard of a Christian Anarchist when it has a reasonably extensive Wikipedia entry.

I don't expect you to listen, but I will give you a piece of advice, just this once. Drop the pseudo-intellectual act. It doesn't suit you. You're not stupid. But by trying too hard, you make yourself look stupid.

And realize that quibbling over every minor detail while making huge blunders of the sort to which you have shown yourself prone is not the hallmark of the highly intelligent.

Anonymous Peacemaker January 29, 2013 4:47 PM  

Brent Musberger fawns McCarron's girlfriend. He complimented the physical attractiveness of a woman who makes money from her physical attractiveness. Feminists complained about his (unoffensive) "creepiness" and whatever shitbag station showing the game apologized.

They want acceptance into our groups, then criticize the group's innate culture and destroy it. NAWALT but that's why men created boy's clubs: women frequently ruin our fun.

Anonymous Anonymous February 08, 2013 9:54 PM  

You are either a brilliant troll or completely insane.

Good God in heaven.

Blogger Joe A. February 25, 2013 11:18 PM  

^ Who are you referring to? Asher?

Anonymous Anonymous July 02, 2013 1:43 PM  

"Do you really think it was an accident that women were never permitted any voice in the governance of the Roman Republic or the great historical democracies such as Athens, Thebes, Imperial Britain, and Revolutionary America? Do you really believe it to be a mere coincidence that many modern democracies, including Germany, Italy, and the member states of the European Union, were not able to survive even 100 years of female suffrage?"

Huh? Professional historian and former fundraiser for the Tiptree awards speaking here: Please don't rant on history when you obviously slept through the class. Do you think it was an accident that Negros were never permitted a voice in the great historical democracies such as Imperial Britain, and Revolutionary America? Or that Rome, in the hands of only male voters, reverted to imperial dictatorship after only 200 years of being a republic? Or that most science fiction conventions would collapse without the women doing all the work behind the scenes? (Bet you didn't realize that last part, superstar.)

And please tell me when, exactly, the modern democracies of Germany, Italy and the other state of the EU collapsed politically? Last time I looked, they were still voting - of course that was yesterday, who knows what could have happened overnight. Or maybe you have them confused with Egypt?

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts