The "Swift" Demise of Equality Feminism

It was about a week ago that Emma Watson made her speech on feminism at the UN. I think about the time that I read it, I saw our dog raise up her head and peer around as though startled. It was to be expected. I can’t recall ever having an audible cringe around her before, but I think one might have registered on that occasion. On the hierarchy of things bringing such a response, celebrities spouting off as though they actually had something wise or original to contribute generally rates pretty far up the scale. This one reset the high bar.

I should point out that I have no personal animus towards Ms. Watson. As an attendee of the “Harry Potter” movies I’ve found her performances quite acceptable. Nothing that I would classify as a standout, but a solid actress for her age. I’m not sure when that became a suitable credential for addressing the UN (I must have missed the memo), but Ms. Watson can sleep easy knowing that the person or persons responsible for approving her speech showed even worse judgment and had much greater reason to know better. Such is the result when government is often directed by social media trends.

Having no ill will towards the young actress, I said a quick prayer for the best of all possible outcomes, that her words would die a quick and silent death before anyone in a position to do further damage would notice. Alas, we live in a plugged in world with a twenty-four hour news cycle. Few things go unnoticed unless the media has a policy, official or otherwise, of studiously ignoring them. Sadly, nothing here met the threshold.

I can honestly say that I found little objectionable in theory about Ms. Watson’s comments. A world where men and women are equally at liberty to pursue their talents and interests, to express their emotions without fear of reproach, is a world highly to be desired. It is also not the world that we live in. Such a world would require people who were willing to allow others to exercise such freedom without objection or attempted restraint, where the boundaries of culture and heritage were infinitely malleable, where people willingly accept the differences of others without condemnation. In short, it would require a world where, for whatever reason, full equality had not only been achieved, but acknowledged by all peoples. I don’t see that around me, and I don’t see it coming any time soon.

For starters, people are naturally biased in any number of regards. So, if by some miracle we did happen upon “full equality,” we probably wouldn’t recognize it, and certainly couldn’t maintain it. The goal also exposes (or should expose to any objective observer) the weakness of the entire diversity, multi-cultural crowd. Every culture on earth created by humans has some form of bias that has been maintained, whether by law or custom. Eliminate the bias, you begin to eliminate the culture. Except, as the same crowd points out, all cultures are supposedly of equal value, and therefore beyond challenge. To paraphrase a Southernism, this dog won’t hunt. It isn’t even allowed out of the kennel.

So, we face a practical impossibility. There’s no way the stated goals can or will be achieved. If they could, it wouldn’t be a problem. The problem lies in all the damage that can be done while people chase this fantasy. I didn’t think we would have to wait long for it to begin, and I was right…

Another performer, one that I had more respect for than Ms. Watson, is Taylor Swift. Often in the past I have admired her singing and writing talent, her generosity, and her business skills. Unfortunately, it seems that she has been exposed to the adulation long enough to believe that she merits the attention on something other than those skills. Philosophy, perhaps. She came out strongly in favor of Ms. Watson’s comments very recently, which is certainly her right, and there are a number of ways that it can be done with little if any harm attached. She didn’t. When commenting on what feminism means to her, she described it as a person who believes men and women should have equal rights, and “to say that you're not a feminist means that you think that men should have more rights and opportunities than women.”

Well.

I’ll give the young woman points for clarity, if nothing else. Either you adopt the word and are with her, and by extension with all of “the good people,” or you refuse and get lumped in with the evil oppressors. Nice choice. And in the meantime, we just forget about all of the “feminists” that have been working so diligently, and successfully, to abolish due process for men on college campuses, destroy men’s athletic programs, and drug them into submission for not being as neat and tidy as little girls.

I’m into my fifties now, and it seems to me that I’ve been hearing about feminism and its goals for over forty of those years. And while I wouldn’t say that most of the people discussing it were willfully lying, things sure haven’t worked out towards “equality” for over thirty of that time. While I applaud the legitimate increase in opportunities for women over that time, it’s not as if a lot of those haven’t been won at the expense of boys and men that have little or nothing to do with a level playing field. As a result, along the way the word “feminism” picked up some pretty ugly connotations. Now a new generation is trying to reclaim the word without doing any of the hard work really needed.

Here are a few ideas: If you want to show that you really believe in equality for men and women, then act like you do. Instead of telling boys that it’s okay to cry, give them a reason to cheer. Provide education that is adapted to their learning style instead of drugs. Get rid of the push for quotas that place people in positions that they don’t merit. Call off the campus attack dogs that are making colleges less and less a place that any sane man would want to be. Restoring due process rights in disciplinary hearings would be a great start. And stand up to take responsibilities as well as rights and privileges. I still don’t recall seeing any “feminist” march on Washington demanding that women go through mandatory registration for selective service. Make your advances the same way that your mothers and their mothers did: by demonstrating competency and integrity in the endeavors you pursue. It’s a lot less splashy than a high profile trial, but it will win your cause a respect that not even an army of lawyers can obtain.

Feminism didn’t turn into a bad word overnight. It took years of double-dealing and gender politics, and a lot of the damage was done by the ones who truly believed in equal rights when they stood by and let the screamers grab all they could. That’s what you have to overcome. Otherwise, we are simply entering the next round of “bait and switch,” and I’m not inclined to set myself up for that. Too much of the movement has relied on government coercion in the past, and this latest effort is starting to show signs that it’s ready to head the same direction. A pretty, pink tyranny is still a tyranny, even if it is pretty and pink, or blue, or the “new black” (whatever that might be.) Stop telling me how I should define myself, and come up with a movement worthy of joining. If you want me to stop spitting every time I say “feminism,” I suggest you get to work.

Manhattan: Old Scientists, Modern-Liberal Attitudes

I've just started watching the series "Manhattan" on Hulu Plus. As something of a science nerd, I was drawn in by the chance to learn a bit more about the development of the first atomic bomb, the conditions at the base, and the people who performed the work. I found the first episode riveting, and quickly added the program to my favorites. Now, having made it through episode five, I am beginning to rethink that decision.

Any historical drama is going to be limited in just how authentic it can be. That's a given. No one was following people around during historical moments, transcribing or recording each and every word for posterity. In the case of circumstances such as those surrounding the development of the first atomic bomb, no such records would have been permitted anyway. So we are instead given a script based occasionally on notes or tapes, a few historical records, and a whole lot of "best guesses" by whoever happens to be writing the script, and therein lies the problem: It is very easy for the show to become less about what the actual people involved thought and felt, and more about what the writers and the people paying for the show want to express.

In the land of Manhattan, that viewpoint takes us into a realm of dark places and shadowy immortals. Instead of gods, we have scientists, yet they regard that difference as trivial. They believe you should, too. And like the gods of ancient Rome or Greece, they possess all of the flaws and weaknesses of the mortals they dominate, only more so. They brood, bully, punish, and suffer, far beyond the limits of human measure.

And they blackmail. Mustn't forget the blackmail.

While each of the group members are joined together by a series of oaths, whether to God (as in marriage) or the government (for security purposes), few of the characters consider these as having any real authority over them. Solemn pledges or promises are simply tools to obtain what they desire, or, more often, obstacles to be overcome. Time and time again it is demonstrated to us how wise and wonderful these beings are, how foolish to ever think their genius should be constrained by something as foolish as security, procedure, marriage, loyalty, or any of the concerns of lesser creatures. It makes me wish I had a TV script writer doing my biography. Then, all of the people who ever got in my way or tried to slow me down long enough to actually think about a situation would realize just how small they were being. Anyway...

To this end, even personnel enemies among the scientists will join together to thwart the common enemies: The government and the military. While they may thoroughly dislike or even hate each other, the idea of others imposing consequences on their number is too repugnant to bear. They band together in such instances, grudgingly, to ensure members of their enclave are protected from the wrath of mortals. Or rather, mortals are prevented from acting against the scientists for mortal concerns.

They will seldom hesitate to use government security or the military against each other to achieve their own ends, and it is in this regard that the modern-liberal viewpoint of the show becomes clear. While the principals are contemptuous of the idea of central authority, they have no qualms about using it against those who challenge or disagree. At the same time, they consider themselves to be the highest moral authority, subject to no will or law above their own conscience or judgment. People being people, I'm sure that there probably was a fair amount of that sentiment, even in 1943. However, I also tend to think that there was a good deal more patriotism, more unity, more willingness to sacrifice the desires of self for the good of the nation and the world. Had that same war been waged against an America holding the majority views of today, I doubt that I would be free to write any commentary about the pursuit of an American atomic bomb, and what I did write would probably be in German.

Deaf to Military Requirements

The roles of grievance and diversity mongers has grown so lengthy in the past decade that from time to time I am tempted to think that the ranks of the discontent must surely have been satisfied by now, that there is no group left undenied to complain. I am tempted to believe, and then reality slaps me once again, and the foolishness begins anew.

The target in this instance is the U.S. Air Force. It seems in their fervor to maintain something resembling a "fighting" force, the USAF has been acting in a discriminatory fashion. As amazing at it may sound (definite pun intended) the hearing impaired are prevented from becoming officers. (I have not researched as of yet whether the sister services are behaving in a similarly deplorable fashion.) According to Civics teacher David Bird, deaf people should have the "right" to serve in non-combat roles, that it's a matter of treating deaf people "equally." Annie Sullivan wept...

Such stirring words remind me of my own first days in Navy basic training. I, and several hundred of my newly-closest friends, were informed point blank that there was no "right" to enlist. Period. Military service, it was explained, was a privilege for those who qualified. In our modern, more enlightened society, these words of 35 years ago sound like despotic prattling, just one step removed (or perhaps half a step) from screaming for the wife to have dinner on the table, or taking a mint-julep out on the porch to watch the evening beatings. Nevertheless, that was the prevailing law at the time, and the government seemed to take the principle seriously. Of course, a lot has happened since then with regards to the services, and I find little of the change appealing. It's not that I am opposed to social progress. It's just that I can't tolerate enforced fiction.

The call for such changes in policy often begins with an appeal for "equality." Sadly, it seldom ends there. If it did, these matters could be dispensed with quickly, and with a minimum of disturbance. In fact, few groups desire, or are willing, to join such organizations on an equal footing. Women said they just wanted an equal chance, but they did not want the chance to pass the same physical tests or participate equally in selective service or combat. Some, mind you, complained until they had the right to "choose" combat roles (a right no man gets, by the way), but that was as far as it went.

What was desired was the right to pursue a position and gain the full prestige and advantages without shouldering the full responsibilities. It's a pattern that has been repeated lots of times in numerous venues. A group yells for equality as a method of getting into an organization, and things proceed from there. I suppose the hearing impaired community deserves some measure of credit. At least they are stating up front that they are only interested in non-combat roles. Just what the service needs, another group to take up the non-combat roles that people use for lower stress and rotation out of combat roles...

Anger at the situation solves little. The precedent is well established, so they'll probably get most of what they want. Where the hearing impaired will fall short, however, is in the area of what some of them crave the most: Respect. The service can make their fellow airmen train them, salute them, report to them, but they can't make the rank and file respect them. For that, they would need to be able to serve in an equal capacity. They aren't. What they are is another group demanding what they don't merit. It's a large group, and carries no real honor, but at least they meet the requirements for that one.

The Barbarians are Well Beyond the Gates...

John Adams is credited with first characterizing the United States as a "nation of laws, not men." It was always something of an optimistic assessment. To my knowledge, no system yet has been devised for restraining men in positions of power from bending the rule of law to suit their preferences or patrons. Nor do I believe any such system possible in this world. Still, it was an ideal, something to be lauded and strived for. Was. With each new passing day, it becomes more and more evident that much of the country has abandoned any pretense of this fine standard, with "legal" actions now determined based on the whims of officials or pressure from "the mob."

The most obvious examples of mob mentality can be found in the aftermath of the recent shooting in Ferguson, Mo. Before any finding of fact, much less responsibility, the angry crowd began calling for the arrest of the police officer at the scene. As the investigation made it seem likely that official charges would be filed, the response was violence, property damage, and the promise of more to come if their demands were not met.

Contributing to this toxic atmosphere were visitors from out of state, some appearing to take great pains to stoke the fires of unrest and disharmony for their own reasons. Now, the Federal Department of "Justice" is responding with its own investigation. Based on its record under Attorney General Holder, one can only speculate how much a desire for justice will play a part in any actions finally taken.

In other locales, retributive actions are taking place. Roving gangs of African Americans are taking "revenge" through severe beatings of white citizens. In contrast to the media circus staged in Ferguson, most news outlets are studiously ignoring the trend. Knowledge of the attacks stays local and compartmentalized, but the underlying anger at officials, no longer even giving a pretense of "color-blind" law enforcement, builds to critical levels.

I had hoped that the nation and the press would have taken some lessons from the case of Trayvon Martin. It was an excellent example of how misrepresentation of facts and selective coverage could turn an already volatile situation into a disaster. Sadly, the publicity provided, and the public interest, only seemed to whet the nation's appetite for more. Well, "more" is here, and is likely to be around for quite some time.

How will the cycle end, or will it end? These questions remain open for the time being. Inspired by leaders of little talent or integrity, lawlessness is tolerated, and thus increases. With no deterrent, the accusations and demands for mob justice are likely to increase as well, with violence and property damage growing apace. And the perpetrators, for the most part, will rest snug in their beds, secure in the knowledge that their violence and destruction is justified. No matter how obese or out of shape a nation becomes, it seems we never tire of rushing to judgment.

The Mysterious National Syndrome

I was hearkening back to my early college courses a few days ago. The field was psychology. It was a Freshman course, the basic stuff. It was more interesting than a lot of my other classes, but I knew from the start that I had neither the temperament for psychology as a profession, nor the resources to carry on through graduate course work. In my case, the course work was almost entirely academic (pun intended). Like most electives, at least those in a decent curriculum, there were some informative bits that carry value to other fields or daily life.

Consider the medical term "diagnosis." As defined in the course that I took (again, quite basic) the term simply meant "naming the disease." A remarkably simple definition, something even those who could never dream of entering Med School (except perhaps to deliver pizza) would have little trouble understanding. And yet, as simple as the definition is, it remains a powerful tool in medicine. Think of the difficulties that would arise without it. How much time would be lost in servicing and treating the patient if at every turn, every consultation, the doctor was forced to relate an on-going list of symptoms, real and imagined. Certainly each physician would have a grasp of the condition, assuming that information was not lost along the way, but standardized care would be either impossible or greatly restricted as each doctor tried to treat the symptoms according to his own experience. In the long run, I believe that missing this one, simple concept, would mean an incalculable increase in suffering and mortality across the nation and the globe.

The concept does not only apply to physical ailments. Though not generally referred to as a "diagnosis," solving a problem in most any field usually requires that the conditions be identified, the problem named. The diagnosis is the focus for action, the rallying point for the players, the identifier that allows prioritizing resources. For a problem of any scale at all, you have to name it to have any chance of solving it. And if you want to have a decent chance, you had better be correct. It's common sense, as simple as pie, and rapidly becoming as scarce as jobs for the fifteen to twenty-four demographic.

We see the symptoms: unemployment, economic stagnation, political corruption, loss of national borders. Yet our leaders, and many who still express some kind of faith in them, cannot or will not name the problems. They won't call terrorism "terrorism." I heard that "man-made disaster" is the currently approved term. Militant Islam, what's that? There is no flooding of illegal immigrants. It's simply an influx of  "undocumented workers." There are no problems, at least none that the current administration is willing to tackle. And since there are no problems, there are no need for solutions. All it takes is a quick address, and then off to tee for quick round on the back nine. Meanwhile, the nation continues to succumb.

Will the patient live? Probably. Nation states are hardy. While they do pass from time to time, it's a lengthy process. We still have a long way to go. I wonder, though: Is that more time to recover, or simply more time to experience the fall, waiting hopefully, prayerfully, desperately. Waiting for our leaders to have enough courage to name the disease.

The People's Gas

Socialism is alive and now counts Somerset, Kentucky as one address. Apparently the small town has felt the “pinch at the pump” of high gas prices for years, and decided to take action. Action in this case involved taking taxpayer money and establishing a gas-only filling station for the expressed purpose of lowering the price of gas in the area.

The mayor insists the city isn’t “out to make a profit.” That’s one promise the politician will have no problem keeping. The gas station itself may break even on its own sales, but it can’t help but reduce the income of other private businesses in the area, the ones that pay federal, state, and local taxes which, among other things, will be used to keep the gas-only station pumping away.

The locals that did not work at gas stations or for gas or oil companies seemed quite happy about the new gas station. One remarked that they were tired of seeing business leave town to go to other locations where gas tended to be cheaper. I have to wonder how happy people will continue to be as the observations continue. Suppose that business starts leaving town because the hotel rooms are cheaper a few miles down the road, or the groceries, or the food at the diner? There could be a lot of places where the government could step in to help keep the business in town. The only ones who would lose out are the businesses.

Then again, there’s no real need for the government to start from scratch as they did with the gas station. All they would have to do is set price controls for the local businesses, and that would accomplish the same thing. If you are too young to remember the hour long waits to fill up your car in the 70’s, the principle applies to just about anything. Think about going to the county fair on “wristband” day. Price controls result in shortages and rationing. The only real question is how long it takes for the situation to get really ugly.

I remember reading a particularly gruesome scene from a book a long time ago: A group of people was out on a fishing boat when they came on a group of small sharks. The man who owned the boat caught one of the sharks, and slit the animal’s belly with a sharp knife. The animal did not die right away, but began to bleed. The man then threw the shark back into the water. True to their nature, the other sharks homed in on the blood, and started to attack their comrade. As they did, little bits and pieces of him got loose and began to drift just from all of the activity. The original shark, the one with the slit belly, went after those. Even though it was being attacked and killed, it couldn’t overcome its primary instinct which was to feed, even if that meant eating itself.

The town of Somerset, Kentucky has decided to eat itself. It may not be quick, but unless they change course, it will happen, and it will be ugly. The only real question is how many others will come to feed as it’s going down.

Ultimate Ninja Symbolism

I was watching NBC’s “American Ninja Warrior” the other night as Kacy Catanzaro became the first woman to complete the qualifying course. It was an impressive run for an impressive young woman. She’s a great competitor, and a fine athlete. And, as I believe I commented to my daughter at the time, she has “pluck.” All in all, there’s a lot to admire about the lady. Despite that, I still found myself getting progressively more annoyed with her in the run up to her qualifying run.

Being the first woman to make it through the pre-qualifier, there was a lot of hype centered on her appearance. There were a lot of interviews done prior to the show, with clips played throughout. As I watched, a common theme was apparent: Kacy wants to show women they can do anything. Constant, always, ad nauseum. And while I noticed it more in Kacy’s clips because they were coming one right after another, it’s not as though she is unique in this regard. A lot the contestants seem to want to emphasize that they are there to show, to demonstrate, to represent. And to inspire. We must never forget inspire.

I’m sure that I’m making too much of this. It’s not as though the athletes edit and assemble their own clips for the show (at least, they don’t as far as I know), but that just shifts the question: Why does the network or producer or whoever is in charge feel the need, the compulsion to turn everyone who walks onto the course as a symbol for some sort of cause? Can’t all of the women and girls out there watching see that Kacy is a woman and draw the conclusion that a woman can complete the course? Or a diabetic? An engineer? A father? I understand that it helps build interest in the sport to give some background about the contestants, but do they really have to try to shove us into groups, like grading cattle, in this? Can’t we just look at the field and pick our own favorites?

I think the reason that I really find this annoying is that the American Ninja course is at its heart a test of the individual. There are no groups up there going through the course. It’s one at a time. And as much as I admire young Kacy’s effort, when she says that her getting through the qualifying course proves that women can do it, she’s wrong. She did it. She worked like crazy to do it, as did every other athlete that’s made it through and a good many others that have failed. I’m hoping that in the future, she gets a lot more credit for that success as a person rather than a symbol.