Like alcohol and cars

Girls and logic don’t mix so well. In fact, based on my personal experience, you’re more likely to see a crash when you mix the latter:

She explicitly illustrates a problem I’ve noticed with women who resent the way the world works: they confuse consequence with punishment.

Reminder here, the “consequence” in question is being raped. It’s a “consequence” of being a woman and getting drunk in a bar. And that’s just the way the world works, so lie back and try to enjoy it, sweetie. Rejecting that in any way is just a foot-stomping girl-tantrum because you just don’t comprehend reality.

Does Spinner actually deny that getting raped is a possible consequence of being a woman and getting drunk in a bar? That wouldn’t leave her the chance to get outraged and pose, so presumably not. But if so, she need merely let us know and we can consider that argument… it won’t be a long one.

If she admits that it is a possible consequence, that a woman is more likely to get raped under those circumstances than a woman who gets drunk at home or stays sober in a bar, then there’s really not much to discuss. Spinner can’t reasonably complain about the increased probability any more than the girl who gets drunk and drives her car can complain about the increased probability of denting her fender.

The fact is that some men do rape. It is an incontravertible fact. There will always be individuals who will rape, lie, cheat, steal and kill. This is the planet Earth, not Happy-happy Unicorn Land, and it’s a far more vicious place than these maleducated intellectual virgins, whose childish little minds have never been soiled with a rational thought, will ever realize until they actually leave their little suburban world for ten minutes and experience what the rest of the world is like.

Oh, they’ve had their perilous near-rape experiences with a boy wearing Abercrombie & Fitch who drank too many Coors Lights and came this close to touching them, you know, there, but they’ve never spoken with a Laotian refugee who lost half his family to utopian idealists building a better world. They don’t know any Russian strippers who whored themselves in order to escape the post-mortem paroxysms of the Soviet Union’s demise, because it paid so much better than their nursing degrees. They don’t even drive down Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, for that matter.

Ask those strippers how much an education matters when the utopian idealists finally get their chance to run things.

The choice is not between rejecting reality and lying back and relaxing, it’s about taking responsibility for your own life, for your own actions and your own decisions or refusing to accept it. No one is saying you can’t play with fire, do what you want, it’s up to you. But don’t expect a whole lot of sympathy when you get burned either.

Life is all about probability. All you can do is improve your odds or worsen them. Which option you choose is up to you.

A UN oxymandate

I wonder if this revelation will cause all the feminists who are angrily campaigning against sex slavery to rethink their use of the United Nations as an effective organiation with which to ally? I rather doubt it:

Members of the United Nations peacekeeping forces in southern Sudan are facing allegations of raping and abusing children as young as 12, The Daily Telegraph reported today….

This paper has learnt of more than 20 victims’ accounts claiming that some peacekeeping and civilian staff based in the town are regularly picking up young children in their UN vehicles and forcing them to have sex. It is thought that hundreds of children may have been abused.

And where is that UN Inter-Agency Project to Combat Trafficking in Women and Children when you need it? Okay, in fairness, they’re not actually buying them or even employing them as prostitutes, they’re simply using them.

Fortunately Amynda has the answer for these unfortunate children: “Use them right back and show them payback’s a bitch!”

On Sun Tzu for Shadowin

Although I addressed Shadowin’s point back in November, now that I’m looking at this material with more attention to detail, I believe I can provide him with a more satisfactory answer to the question of Sun Tzu and the presence of religion as a factor in war-making.

Shadowin was rightly suspicious of my claim that Sun Tzu didn’t mention anything about religion, given that the Five Constant Factors of the art of war that must to be taken into account when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the field are: Moral Law, Heaven, Earth, The Commander, and Method and Discipline.

This would, upon first glance, appear to conclusively demonstrate that I am wrong. However, since I am multi-lingual and happened to study an amount of Chinese history along the way, I am perhaps a little less likely to be thrown off by cultural miscommunications than the average American.

Heaven is easily dealt with, as Sun Tzu himself defines it as signifying: “night and day, cold and heat, times and seasons.” In other words, “Heaven” merely means the environmental setting in which the battle takes place, it has no religious significance to the military strategist whatsoever, regardless of whether he happens to believe those settings are defined by a deity or not.

Sun Tzu clearly did not see the modification of Heaven as the general’s concern, or else he would have certainly recommended whatever actions were best indicated to achieve an ideal one, just as he did in some detail with regards to the ways in which a general might achieve a favorable Earth.

As for Moral Law, I contend that it is best translated as morale, as this is such a vital tactical concern that nearly every tactical wargame incorporates it in some measure. In Advanced Squad Leader, for example, it is one of the three primary elements, along with firepower and movement.

Translator Lionel Giles considers this possibility, “One might be tempted to render it by ‘morale’, were it not considered as an attribute of the ruler in ss. 13”, but prefers “is in harmony with his subjects”.

I understand his reasoning given the wording of I. 13 (1): “Which of the two sovereigns is imbued with the Moral law?”, but I think the concept of morale encompasses the concept of being in harmony with the subjects. Leadership and morale are generally considered to be closely related matters, (in the case of ASL, the primary role of the former is to act as a modifier on the latter), so I think Giles’ distinction here is an artificial and unneccesary one.

Of course, I’m handicapped by being unable to read the original Chinese, so if anyone has any comments on this score, I’d be interested in hearing them.

Mailvox: An exemplary model

Gene asks a reasonable question:

I’ve asked this before but never got an answer; Why do you pay attention to Amynda? Aren’t there many like her blogging? Aren’t many college age people similar to her in their thinking? Does she have a large readership or something?

First, Amynda is as close to the the archetype of the idiot feminist I encountered in college as I’ve ever seen on the Internet. Her blog is an intellectual open sewer of the sort one can usually only find in a Woman’s Studies program, and unlike the similar Bitch PhD, she’s still young enough and insulated enough to cling to her feelings about reality rather than accepting it for what is is and adjusting her behavior accordingly.

Furthermore, she is held up as an exemplary feminist blogger by several mainstream sources. If I were to use a less-lauded example, I would be rightly accused of addressing a marginal figure to whom no one actually pays attention. As it stands, it’s quite clear that I’m not making anything up, that these people do exist and that there are a lot of young women who actually do subscribe to this particularly noxious form of feminist ideology.

In short, if Amynda didn’t exist, I’d almost have to invent her. Ironically, she is the Strawfeminist; it would seem that like vampires, feminists are incapable of looking in the mirror.

I firmly believe in shining a cold analytical light on evil and exposing it rather than ignoring it and hoping it will go away. As Andy pointed out, widespread exposure of Amynda’s ideas will do far more damage to radical feminism than I could ever do on my own. The utter revulsion they inspire in women like Gene is actually testimony to that notion.

And you’ll note, for example, that no one even tries to quote Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris here the way they do on other blogs, now that everyone here has seen them exposed as grossly ignorant intellectual charlatans.

Cthulhu weeps as he sleeps

Amynda confirms my opinion that feminism is a form of environmental retardation:

What “we’ve always done” is rape, for those who understandably don’t want to click over and read the whole post.

Once can only assume that she doesn’t want her readers to click over and read the whole post, because if they did, those few capable of passing a fourth-grade reading comprehension test would immediately recognize that what “we’ve always done” is to carry guns, legally or otherwise. The nice thing about Amynda is that one doesn’t have to wonder if she’s evil or stupid, as she regularly demonstrates her unique ability to combine the two into a single beautiful Platonian ideal of feminism.

Those who can’t understand why I enjoy reading her probably don’t grasp the deeper appeal of Maupassant when the syphilis kicked in either.

it’s clear he wants my attention very badly….

Well, naturally. Who wouldn’t? She is as beautiful as she is brilliant.

The Coven did its part by contributing some amusing expositions on their haphazard relationship to reality and the English language:

Oh, my God. I’d looked all over the internets for one of his books, even his own website didn’t sell them at the time. I think like maybe one of his fantasy books is in a library somewhere in central Ohio, but that’s as close as I’d ever been to one. People who claim to know say his stuff is laughably awful, and I’d love to take a peek at one myself.

Apparently she didn’t looked very hard, or grasp that complicated “click on the cover” interface. Or perhaps that complicated eReader install was simply too much:

“Um, Colin? Is this computer a Windows or a Symbian?”
“It’s a Mac, Kyso. A Macintosh. Click on that one.”
Don’t you tell me what to do, Mr. Patriarchy! Your Masculinist Techno-Oppression of Women won’t last forever, you know!”
“I’m sorry. I am a worm. I am evil. Please throw rocks at me.”
You don’t deserve to have rocks thrown at you, you pathetic potential rapist!” (clicks once) “Um, I don’t think it worked, there’s this grey box now.”
“Okay, so click on Save to Disk… I mean, you can if you want….”
It’s my body and I’ll click if I want to!”

As for the quality of my fantasy novels, I’ll freely admit that the first one was rather weak, but I’ll happily match the second or the third against any of the novels nominated for the Nebula last year, except for Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrill and Going Postal. Better yet, compare them with any novel written by Nebula winner Catharine Asaro…. Regardless, the worst review from any professional secular reviewer was 3 out of 5, which hardly strikes me as “laughably awful”.

And after basing most of its criticism on my theology – which seemed a little odd given that it’s a fantasy novel, but whatever – Publisher’s Weekly wrote this about The World in Shadow: “an excellent job of capturing the rarefied world of high school, and both Christian and fallen teenagers are painted with some sympathy. His chapters are headed by epigraphs ranging from the Bible to rock music to blockbuster movies, which lend the book a hip edge. The novel’s driving tension is an evil plan to stage a Columbine-like massacre at the senior prom. Some of the best (and most disturbing) writing occurs in the sections that try to imagine the inner worlds of the killers….”

Unfortunately, there are very few reviews of my novels since most SFWA reviewers are openly prejudiced against anything with a religious flavor. I have exchanged email with several well-known fantasy and science fiction reviewers in the past and was informed that they simply won’t read anything that they consider to have Christian content. That’s their right, of course, but it’s simply false to assert that the reviews are negative.

So, he writes shitty sci-fi and thinks that women are inherently unable to write sci-fi. This could explain much.

No, he writes mediocre FANTASY, thank you very much indeed, and thinks the reason that women ALMOST NEVER write HARD science fiction, (which is really not up for debate as this dearth is an occasional topic of discussion in the SFWA), is because they are extremely disinclined to specialize in the hard sciences. Even when they major and obtain advanced degrees in them, they seldom maintain their interest in the field for long.

For example, when John Scalzi and I were arguing about this topic on the Tor editors’ blog, Electrolite, he cited one female professor’s Astrophysics major as evidence of her interest in the hard sciences… but that professor is now teaching Queer theory in Indian film. (Seriously, I’m not joking.) That Astrophysics major no more makes her a hard scientist than my East Asian Studies major makes me Japanese. In short, my opinion is that the potential pool of women capable of writing hard science fiction is too small to produce the critical mass required, and as Catharine Asaro demonstrates, even those who can do it would rather write romance novels. Or, as is more likely these days, vampire and were-seal porn.

Zuzu from Feministe demonstrates her acumen with the language.

So how’s Vox’s daddy doing in prison?

Dad’s not in prison, which was sort of the point of those newspaper headlines last summer. Of course, one really can’t expect a feminist to be able to distinguish between “fugitive” and “felon”. Nouns are hard!

Marcy, on the other hand, has trouble with adjectives:

He’s a Christian Libertarian? How do you work that? I thought Ayn Rand was an atheist.

In the English language, the adjective preceding the noun is there to MODIFY it. In this case, “Christian” modifies the noun “Libertarian” in much the same way that “Social” and “Christian” are both used to modify “Democrat” and therefore distinguish the SDP from the CDU. Furthermore, Ayn Rand defined Objectivism, not libertarianism.

In practice, this means that I am a firm libertarian on most matters, but anti-abortion. I am also anti-open immigration, but that is solely on utilitarian grounds.