Pull your head out of the pop psychology, please

OR shares some misplaced sympathy:

I’ve quickly perused your website after hearing part of your interview on NARN this weekend. You get a pass from me because it sounds like you had a nasty divorce and are (rightly) bitter. Hopefully you don’t let the bitterness take over. There is light at the end of the tunnel–I know. I was married to a lawyer(!) who screwed our nanny and then screwed me and my kids at every turn in the divorce proceedings.

It is not always the woman who is the bad one, although there are more bad women out there than I’d like to admit. I hope you’ll learn to not care as much about protecting your “stuff” and worry more about building real relationships with a good
woman. Keep saying to yourself “This too shall pass.”

When did everything become personal in America? Are there no ideas which are not deeply rooted in one’s psyche anymore? You know it’s bad when even the sympathetic readers are so hopelessly off-base.

I’m not bitter. I don’t hate women and I have no reason to do so. I’ve been very happily married to a very nice, very pretty woman for a long time. Since I do not limit myself to considering only those topics which are approved for public discussion, you can expect to occasionally encounter concepts that you find a priori outrageous. If you can manage to control your knee-jerk reaction, you will usually find that even if I turn out to have gone off the proverbial deep end, there is a logical case to be found down there somewhere.

America did not get from point A to point B by random walk, and it is massively unreasonable to assert that suffragism has had no effect whatsoever on American history. Now, as I am famously skeptical about the future of this country, it should come as no surprise that I believe the female franchise has been one of the various negative factors in the significant reduction of American liberties in the last century. If you think America is headed in the right direction and is getting better every day, no doubt you will disagree.

The reality is that the pallid, strictly limited form of democracy practiced in America is a placebo. The ease with which the electorate can be manipulated is so great that I am sure we would be better off with the pure democracy that technology now makes possible. And yet, how many of these frothing-at-the-mouth voting rights absolutists are willing to support such an expansion of democracy here in America? Very, very few, I suspect.

Metrics required

Instafaggot brings up a valid point:

Firstly, you’ve got this backwards. The “market” drove women into the workplace (increased demand for employees coupled with increased need for families to make more money. Real income has deteriorated during the past few decades) rather than feminism.

VD: [That’s not the market, that’s the government. That “increased need” of which you speak is called taxes. Which leads us back to government spending, which, in turn, was brought about by the people who put the spenders into power.]

Secondly, this is a classic (or rather anti-classic) loaded question which presumes several things that are not proven to be so.

“positive step” is not defined nor is a mean of measure offered. Before you roll you eyes at me, explain how you measure a positive economy. Are we talking about the US only? The West only? The world in general or what? What is the criteria? GNP? Interest rates? Home ownership rates? Are these things really a good measure of “positive”? If so, how?

Define “individual liberties”…For liberals, liberty means freedom from discrimination, economic misery, repression, blah, blah, blah. For conservative, especially Christian libertarians, this means the right to disrciminate and repress, to use bad words, make threats, imprison sodomites, etc. So we’re not clear.

This is a fair question and a reasonable response. I’ll have more on this later, but Liverpool-Juventus is starting. In the meantime, I think Switzerland and the USA offer the best comparisons, given that neither were torn apart by WWII and the fact that Swiss women did not get the vote until 1971 provides a control mechanism of sorts. The context was the USA, but I suspect that the results will be similar in any Western county.

I mentioned a few thoughts in the comments of a previous post, but if anyone has their own ideas for a fair and reasonable metric, this would be a good place to suggest them.

UPDATE – Talk about leaping to errant conclusions! Some bloggers are concluding that I was making an editorial comment about Instapundit here, not responding to a gay blogger who left some comments here. Given his links to Margaret Cho and Michelangelo Signorile, I’m guessing he’s not a VPQF member.

You have to be kidding me

Don Banks reports for SI:

The Vikings could go a lot of different ways with their first of two first-round picks, but finding a big-play receiving threat to replace Randy Moss still seems the most logical place to start. Believe it or not, despite the team’s depth at running back, Texas’ Cedric Benson is also in the mix.

What is in the water at Winter Park? I know Mike Tice is no genius, but considering that he’s got FOUR solid running backs that he only uses 15 times a game against some of the worst run defenses in the league, why would you even THINK about drafting a running back. I don’t care if he’s the love child of Barry Sanders and Earl Cambell, for the love of Bud Grant, get another wide receiver!

This has to be a smoke screen. It just has to.

Do they know nothing about women?

I have to question the logic expressed by Pharyngurl and some of my other critics. They assert that I only got my column thanks to my wealthy father while simultaneously insisting that there has historically been a dearth of attractive women with an interest in volunteering for use as my personal sex toy. Ergo, my presumed bitterness with the sex in general, which, of course, is the only possible explanation for my outrageous (to them) anti-suffragism.

Now, even if one ignores the fact that barely half of one percent of America’s women watch Bill O’Reilly, much less care what someone writes on the Internet, I have no doubt that I could write columns demanding that every literate woman be sent to the guillotine and it would actually INCREASE the number of willing and eager volunteers for short-term sex toy status. And most of them would be liberal Democrats!

I suppose that somewhere out there in the vast multiplicity of universes that surround us, there is a place where wealthy, good-looking young men require more than thirty seconds to find attractive women interested in having sex with them. But not in this particular space-time continuum.

See Tucker Max if you still can’t get this concept through your little socialist brain.

I further note that not a single critic has even attempted to make the case that the female franchise has been a positive step for economic or individual liberties in this nation or any other. But if you prefer to simply call me a loser who can’t get laid, well, that’s effective too. Very persuasive, really.

The myth of voting and other nonsense

Apparently Miss Orac managed to pull herself off the fainting couch long enough to stick her pretty little foot even further into her pretty little mouth. Now she’s insisting that I’m not a member of the Taliban – no, really – but that I’m a Taliban wannabee.

Right. I so want to grow a beard and figure out where Mecca is. And if only I could convert my club’s field into an execution grounds, how happy I would be!

Orac is so caught up in his outrage over my anti-suffrage position that he hasn’t stopped to consider that there is no connection whatsoever between voting and liberty. None. By his reckoning, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were also Taliban wannabees. I’m not just talking about the obvious fact that women were permitted to vote in Zimbabwe, the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq either, but the fact that many adults are not permitted to vote in the freest countries in the world.

For you see, a resident alien is not permitted to vote in almost any Western country. Switzerland is rightly considered more free than the United States by the Heritage Foundation, and yet 17 percent of its population are non-citizen permanent residents. These are people who have gone to great effort and expense – it is very difficult to get residence there – and are pleased to trade their right to vote for greater individual and economic liberty.

Being a typically parochial American focused on the superficiality of rights rather than their substance, this means of examining the matter would not appear to have occurred to Orac or those of his mindset.

There are three possible results of women’s suffrage:

(1) The women’s vote has improved the nation by enhancing liberty.
(2) The women’s vote has harmed the nation by degrading liberty.
(3) The women’s vote has not effected the nation for better or for worse.

If you believe (1), then of course you think I’m an evil lunatic. Feel free to try making that case and I’ll happily consider it. If you believe (3), then you have no reason to care if women are permitted to vote or not since it has made no difference. But, if you examine the historical evidence, you are very likely to conclude (2), in which case a failure to share my anti-suffrage position is either intellectual cowardice or the aforementioned preference for superficiality over substance.

As for the other inaccuracies scattered about in the comments, my column runs all day on WND and frequently for a second day, I have never, ever complained about Universal Press Syndicate – this is actually the SECOND time they’ve dropped a column of mine, by the way – my father has not been on the board of WND for years and far from being a criminal, was recently offered a massive settlement by the state, (which has already admitted that he never owed them any money), in a desperate and unsuccessful attempt to avoid the jury trial he has been seeking for four years.

Men certainly have many flaws, but they also have no shortage of writers willing, even eager, to point them out. I simply happen to be one of the only male columnists who isn’t afraid to provide a rational counterpoint to the many, many female writers who make a living off their irrational misandry.

As for my “whining and bitching about other conservative columnists”, I seldom criticize the genuine conservatives. Can anyone recall the last time I went after Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, Dinesh D’Souza, Ramesh Ponnuru or even George Will? I respect them, even when I disagree with them. It’s the strong government neosocialists who fraudulently pass themselves off as conservatives that will often be found in the crosshairs of my keyboard.

UPDATE – Pharyngurl and a few others are equally weak kneed over this. Someone get the smelling salts! The prize, however, has to go to Burningbird, who produced this gem of cluelessness:

Leaving aside such breathless leaps of inference, again if we look at history, we’ll see that women have campaigned vigorously against slavery, for free schools and libraries, accessible medical care, and for the rights of workers. In fact, women were some of the most vocal anti-slavery campaigners, and the earliest union members. So if we are extrapolating from women’s activism to a specific political and financial system, women have historically favored a more *socialistic form of government and society.

In other words, generally more freedom (if you leave out that little war on the American front), less freedom, more government ownership of resources, less freedom, and less freedom. She then relies on Wikipedia to claim that fascism isn’t socialism, which completely ignores both the historical Fascist program as well as the lifelong socialism of Giovanni Gentile and Benito Mussolini. In fact, Mussolini received his title of Il Duce as a leader of the Italian Socialists long before he founded the Fascist Party and the only reason he abandoned his positions as the editor of Avanti! and a member of the National Executive Committee of the Socialist Party was his change of opinion on the issue of Italian participation in World War I.

Five Facts about Fascism:

“1. Fascism was a doctrine well elaborated years before it was named.

As an intellectual edifice, Fascism was mostly in place by about 1910. Historically, the taproot of Fascism lies in the 1890s–in the “Crisis of Marxism” and in the interaction of nineteenth-century revolutionary socialism with fin de siècle anti-rationalism and anti-liberalism.

2. Fascism changed dramatically between 1919 and 1922, and again changed dramatically after 1922.

Many of the older treatments of Fascism are misleading because they cobble together Fascist pronouncements, almost entirely from after 1922, reflecting the pressures on a broad and flexible political movement solidifying its rule by compromises, and suppose that by this method they can isolate the character and motivation of Fascist ideology. It is as if we were to reconstruct the ideas of Bolshevism by collecting the pronouncements of the Soviet government in 1943, which would lead us to conclude that Marxism owed a lot to Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great.

3. Fascism was a movement with its roots primarily in the left.

Its leaders and initiators were secular-minded, highly progressive intellectuals, hard-headed haters of existing society and especially of its most bourgeois aspects.

4. Fascism was intellectually sophisticated.

Here we should note a difference between Marxism and Fascism. The leader of a Marxist political movement is always considered by his followers to be a master of theory and a theoretical innovator on the scale of Copernicus. Fascists were less prone to any such delusion. Mussolini was more widely-read than Lenin and a better writer, but Fascist intellectuals did not consider him a major contributor to the body of Fascist theory, more a leader of genius who could distil theory into action.

5. Fascists were radical modernizers.

By temperament they were neither conservative nor reactionary. Fascists despised the status quo and were not attracted by a return to bygone conditions.”

In other words, Burningbird, the only reason you suffered whiplash is because you don’t know anything about European history or the political ideology of the Left. Arguing that Fascism is not closely akin to Socialism is as absurd as attempting to assert that there is no relationship between Bolshevism and Menshevism. The only serious difference between Socialism and National Socialism is, obviously, the nationalist element. Stalin’s brand of communism was equally nationalistic – in opposition to Trotsky’s loyalty to the concept of world revolution – but few are silly enough to argue that Stalin’s “National Communism” was the polar opposite of the Marxist-Leninism from which it sprang. But, as David Ramsey Steele explains, 70 years of indoctrination by socialist academics eager to wash the blame for National Socialism off the Left’s hands leads the historically ignorant to this confusion.

The reason that a little knowledge – courtesy of Google or Wikipedia – can be more dangerous than none is that barely informed individuals such as Burningbird actually believe they know what they’re talking about. They don’t.

Ladies and gentlemen, your public schools

From Drudge:

A 16-year-old disabled girl was punched and forced to engage in videotaped sexual acts with several boys in a high school auditorium as dozens of students watched, according to witnesses. Authorities are investigating and no charges have been filed in the alleged attack last month at Mifflin High School. Four boys suspected of involvement were sent home and have not returned to class.

Also, the principal, Regina Crenshaw, was suspended and will be fired for not calling police, school officials said. And three assistant principals were suspended and will be reassigned to other schools….

The girl was forced to perform oral sex on at least two boys, according to statements from school officials, obtained by The Columbus Dispatch. Part of the alleged assault was videotaped by a student who had a camera for a school project.School officials found the girl bleeding from the mouth. An assistant principal cautioned the girl’s father against calling 911 to avoid media attention, the statements said.

Yes, I’m sure reassigning those assistant principals is going to solve a lot of problems. If I’d been that girl’s father, that assistant principal would have been bleeding from the mouth himself.

But the school’s response should come as no surprise. After all, if people were forced to face the reality of what is happening in their child’s school, their consciences might not allow them to continue sending their kids there.

No surprise there

I found this in my inbox:

Due to lack of interest, I have decided to give up the “left vs right” debate blog. There was plenty of interest in debate from the right, but the lefties wanted no part of it – with one exception. A special thank you to David from ISOU, who was the only left-leaning person who was willing to debate. Unfortunately for us, David just didn’t have the time to spare.

There’s a real shocker. A complete avoidance of contact with its enemies is the only way that the Left can maintain its delusional pretense at intellectual superiority.

Not that there’s anything wrong with insult-slinging. It’s good sport. But when that’s all you’ve got, well, that round object below is called the dustbin of history and you’re about to be circular-filed.