Nothing Fails Like Success

It should have been a happy event. Eight-year-old Elijah Burrell was playing his game in his first season of pee-wee football. The boy makes an interception in the fourth quarter, and does what he has been taught to do. He runs for the goal line. A few seconds later, he’s made his first touchdown and is on cloud nine, or wherever it is that kids go these days when they are happily excited. There are pats on the back, and congratulations, and cell phones snapping pictures, and for one little boy the world is all that it should be, right up until the point that the “equality police” show up. 

The league governing the boy’s team has a so-called “mercy” rule. This rule forbids one team from outscoring the other by 33 or more points. At the time of the interception, the Knights were ahead of the other team 32-0, and in his excitement young Elijah forgot that he was supposed to trip or fall or run out of bounds or suffer an embolism. Anything, except make that touchdown.

Apparently the “mercy” rule has little mercy for accidental violations. For the heinous crime of outrunning the other players, the winning team was fined $500 and the coach was suspended for a week. The moral of the story: Pee-wee is far too young to allow children to feel bad about themselves for bad performance, but you are never too young to be shamed for success. 

It’s a fitting time of year for this particular story. I’m quite a fan of horror stories, and I would be hard put to imagine one worse than a world where no was allowed to show talent, achievement, excellence. While some may think that a bit of an overstatement, I do not. Really. 

The lessons that we learn at an early age tend to stay with us, and can find applications in ways unforeseen. For example, while there are those who would never miss a Walter Payton, Hank Aaron, or even a Kathy Rigby, there would be other casualties. Imagine a world with no Rembrandts or Vermeers, no Edisons or Tesslas. 

Imagine millions dying each year of Polio cancer because Salk and Curie had learned at a young age to avoid standing out, that attempting to stand apart was a way not to reward, but to punishment, shame, exclusion. Imagine an America still bound by slavery because Lincoln dared not stand up or stand apart, or America still a colony because, after all, no one had ever succeeded in rebelling against England before?

I have seen glimpses of such worlds before. Ayn Rand conjured up such a place in her novella Anthem. Madeleine L'Engle captured a terrifying example in her book A Wrinkle in Time. Dull, joyless places where spirit and will are traded for a mindless uniformity. Places frightening in fiction, more so as they gain substance in our schools and playgrounds.

In our homes.

These rules, this “mercy” is nothing more than tyranny dressed in sanctimony. It can teach neither compassion in the winners, nor sportsmanship in the losers. There is no mercy, no compassion to be found in any part of this. How can there be? How can a child learn compassion for those who lose when they become the source of his punishment? Or compassion for the poor when the rewards he earned given to those who did nothing? Or all the praise for achievement is taken away and given to those who revile it? It defies reason…

There are some truths that we once knew as a people. Some have forgotten, and many who remember are forbidden to speak. So we sink deeper into anger, distrust, hatred, and envy, when there is no need. This is the truth: Mercy, love, compassion, and charity are not possessions. They are created in the hearts of giving men and women. As such, they cannot be commanded, demanded, or taken. They can only be given. And self-worth is not created in the recognition, but in the accomplishment. 

When we learn again to accept those truths, we will soon find the rules disappearing. Only the mercy will remain. How I long to see that day.

Where is it "Appropriate" to be "Inappropriate?"

This past weekend I managed to ruffle a few feathers while making some comments on Facebook. That's not so odd in itself. What is odd is that some of the feathers ruffled belonged to people I loved and respected, with objections I never saw coming. When something like that happens, a fellow has two choices. He can either retreat into paranoia, resolved that everyone is against him, or he can a good, long look at himself, his message, and his methods and try to figure what is wrong or what might desperately need improvement. While the first response is something of a reflex that people take when dealing with their own issues, it seldom results in any real improvement. That leaves the second which, while more painful, at least gives the possibility of positive outcome. It was worth a shot.

The basic argument, at least as I understand it, is the view that people should not be subjected to opinions or discussions that might cause them discomfort outside of a forum strictly reserved for such topics. So, for example, if two members of a dog-walking page have a disagreement over traditional marriage vs. gay marriage, there is no reasonable justification for bring any of that discussion onto the dog-walking page.

It's a view that I'm sympathetic to. Many of us grew up with a different form of the same type of thing. Usually it was along the lines of "Don't discuss politics or religion at the family Christmas dinner. It will just upset people." And there was more than a little truth in it. I'm sure that in many cases where people did decide to violate that taboo, a lot of people went home upset. What I have now come to question, however, is does the chance of upset justify the enforced silence?

Consider a hypothetical: A person or group is engaging in conduct that is not illegal, but it is harmful to the surrounding community economically and physically, that reduces the legal rights and privileges of all of the citizenry. The person refuses to accept any and all evidence that said conduct is harmful, but instead goes through great pains to declare it good, beneficial, and moral at every turn because he has convinced himself that is the case. The person will respond with hostility to any suggestion otherwise, and will use any tools available to suppress views counter to his own.

It seems like a lot to swallow, doesn't it. That's the hypothetical situation. Here is the hypothetical question: Given the attitude involved, is there any venue where the person can be approached to settle differences or discuss the matter where an "inappropriate" ruckus will not occur?

It's a serious question, and one we need to think about in a serious manner. Because in "polite" society, the making of a public scene is never considered "appropriate." Therefore, if we know that broaching a discussion pretty much anywhere is likely to cause "a scene," then it is considered "inappropriate." But that leaves us with a very big problem indeed. That basically renders any forum as "inappropriate" for serious discussion.

So, while it does not technically amount to censoring speech, the affect is very close to the same thing. The result, long term, is that the unreasonable are free to make any statement, distortion, or lie on behalf of their cause. The reasonable are expected to, and often do, check themselves to preserve a tone of public civility. And the society spirals outward, ever farther into the realms of insanity.

I'm trying hard to balance these concerns, to come up with some kind of standard that makes sense. Frankly, I'm not having much luck at the moment. Settling these conflicts at the ballot box is not a practical solution. Unless the case is made publicly prior to the election, the louder party often holds sway.

And unlike times past, our government is showing less concern about the people's rights while flaunting the law and gathering more power for itself. We can no longer count on maintaining our freedoms of speech, of religion, of no unreasonable search and seizure simply because it is guaranteed in the Constitution. The men of the government have declared themselves above it, with no reasonable hope of return soon.

It's up to us. The citizenry. Where the changes are required, we are the ones that must institute them, but such changes are not generally pleasant and the discussions that surround them are not polite. So again I wonder: Where can we have those discussions? How much will we limit ourselves as far as engaging those who stand against us?

Where can we appropriately be inappropriate?

Welcome to the Higher Ed Gulag!

Imagine sending your son off to study in a prestigious school in a foreign land. It's a fantastic opportunity for him, not only to receive a quality education but to experience a completely different culture first hand. You make the necessary sacrifices, fill out the required forms, and with tears in your eyes send him off to a new adventure, secure in the knowledge that this will broaden his experience in ways you can scarcely begin to imagine.

And right you are, though the experiences found are nothing like what you hoped for or expected. In this case, a woman your son had a relationship with has accused him of assault. You find this difficult to believe, but still have faith, as you have heard the legal system in this country is devoted to protecting the rights of the accused. You wait patiently, hoping for word a thorough investigation has laid these charges to rest.

Sadly, your hope remains unrealized. Despite the accusation of a criminal act, the college has taken it upon itself to handle the matter on its own authority, thereby negating the legal protections normally involved. Before your son is even notified of the complaint, an interim suspension order is written. With little idea what is going on, your son is hauled into a disciplinary hearing. He has no right to council, no right to examine the evidence.

For that matter, it turns out in this case there is no need for evidence from the accuser at all. The college operates under the "Preponderance of Evidence" standard, meaning if the whatever review board considers it more likely or not that your son is guilty, that settles the matter right there. Tossing your son something of a bone, he is presented with an airplane ticket home and told that he can Skype through the subsequent hearings that will determine if he is to be expelled. (As it turned out later on, he was.)

Your son refuses, not wishing to miss any classes during the proceedings. For this refusal, and refusing to confess, your son is hauled into a basement area and placed in locked area for 36 hours with no means of contacting anyone in case of illness, need, or emergency. When the officials return, your son asks if he is free to go. The officials reply that he is free to back to his country of origin. On the campus, he is unwelcome.

This sounds like a terrible story, and it is. This is the kind of thing that most people swear could never happen outside of third-world hell-holes, or militant dictatorships. Oddly enough, there's a bit of truth in that. This happened at Colgate University in Hamilton, NY. Surprisingly, at least to me, this college was rated as the 22nd best liberal arts college in the United States. That rating may go up now, as the lawsuit is almost certain to make Harvard's Law Review. As it is, details for this story are documented in The New Republic.

Even more tragically, this is not an isolated incident. As with many other venues, when the feminists demanded a level playing field in higher education, what they really pulled for was realigning the tilt in their favor. In any matter involving possible gender related assaults, and colleges have all but abandoned any pretense at due process of protection for the accused where men are concerned.

Many, if not most, criminal acts never see formal charges with the police. There is no need. The college can simply declare them guilty and expel them. Needless to say, once labeled an abuser of women in their transcript, completing their education at another institution can be quite a problem.

Men, for their part, have become pretty good at reading the writing on the wall. The large shift in degrees earned favoring women isn't all about providing a more welcoming place for the ladies. Men are recognizing that the deck is stacked against them. If your entire career can be crashed at any time with an accusation that doesn't require proof and won't even give you the opportunity to put on a credible defense, why bother? They can achieve the same thing staying home and playing video games, and avoid the student debt problems. It's a win-win, right? In fact, the only loser is everyone.

With fewer college educated men, college educated women will soon find themselves with a less appealing row of suitors. Say what you like about equality, the impression I get is that a lot of women still resent dating or marrying "down" educationally speaking. Then there's the matter of fallout. I am not making the claim that all or most of the men expelled without proof are innocent, but they aren't proven guilty. That makes it very easy for them to claim innocence, with very little tangible evidence to counter. I can see a lot of resentment building up in the male campus community as more and more guys are kicked out with barely a hearing. But I'm sure that they can ignore all this, go right out and form trusting relationships without any residual bitterness.

Right...

And the worst part of all, the biggest chunk of biodegradable fertilizer in the entire mess, is that the organization pushing this mini-gender-Jihad is none other than the federal government. Through Title IX, a law originally intended (or so it was asserted) to end gender discrimination in higher education. It was through federal action that most colleges adopted the "Preponderance of Evidence" standard, leaving the accused basically without legal protection on campus. I don't know if they actually wanted to touch off a gender war on campus, but it would have been hard for them to do something to better advance that cause.

Perfect justice is an ideal, I know. You won't find it anywhere, and if you did you probably wouldn't know it. But we can do better than this. For the sakes of our sons and our daughters, we have to. We have to because, despite the propaganda on all sides, men and women need each other. They need to not just be able to coexist, but to live together in love, respect, and harmony. That isn't going to happen if we are constantly tearing into each other, if every confrontation becomes a conflagration. I know I couldn't live that way. Given a choice, I think I'd rather go back down and be locked in that basement.

Just in Time for Halloween: The Houston Pulpit Massacre!

While I've long outgrown the age of Trick or Treat, or monster-themed parties, Halloween still has a very special place in my heart. It's the movies, you see. I love scary movies. I've been watching them pretty much since I was able to peek out from under the covers. I love that rush of adrenaline, the thrill of being frightened by what I know to be impossible. And that's what really makes the scary movie fun, isn't it? We pretend there is danger, but know inside there is not. Otherwise, it isn't so entertaining. It's something else entirely.

There is a genre of movie that goes down that all-too-dark road. Usually historical in nature, it mines fear not from the outlandish, but from the plausible. It reveals the shadowy realms that we have seen, if only from a distance. It frightens with the knowledge that all the works of men do not pass away, but simply move out of view, waiting for an eventual return.

Judgement at Nuremberg was such a film. Slowly, painfully, it traces the history of four men who acted as judges during the rise of the Third Reich in Germany. As the Nazis gained more power, these men were a few of those who abandoned their duty to the law to give Hitler the unfettered power he needed to turn a constitutional republic into a dictatorship and war machine. Each had their own reasons, what they told themselves to justify what they allowed. A twisted nationalism. A greed fed on the property of the innocent, right down to the gold fillings in their teeth. And one of them, who judged himself as the worst of them all, an otherwise honorable judge who kept telling himself that all of this was temporary. Soon to pass.

The Jews took the brunt of the time in the concentration camps, but they were not alone. There were also those whom the Nazis considered undesirable, such as the homosexuals. And there were those who did not sit by idly, content to watch evil rise. These were the pastors, the priests, the Christians and Jews who fought for as long as they were free, the secular men and women of good conscience. There were judges, as well, who would not serve Hitler in the courts, and thus found themselves serving in the camps.

It was a horror story that never quite goes away because it never really ends. Justice resides in the hearts of men, but injustice resides there as well. Worse yet, while justice may declare itself satisfied and rest for time, injustice never sleeps. It simply hides in the shadows, waiting to reappear. It is currently making an appearance in Houston, Texas.

Annise Parker has the distinction of being the first openly lesbian mayor of a major city. Apparently this accolade is not sufficient, however. She is now looking to become the first mayor to cancel the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution in the city. Under the guise of pursuing remarks amounting to discrimination, she is attempting to subpoena records of sermons from five churches in the city. The implications against freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and unreasonable search and seizure should be apparent to all.

It's a horror story on many levels: That such a demand could ever come up, that any law should exist on the books that might give such an order the slightest credibility. And then there is the true abomination: The city will defend itself from the challenges being raised using tax money taken from the citizens.

When the laws began to pass supposedly "prohibiting discrimination" against gays, I cringed inside. Not because I sought discrimination or felt any hatred towards the groups involved. I had simply been paying attention. In Europe and Canada, it was little to no time at all before the passing of such laws were used to restrain the rights of all who disagreed. As it was there, so it is now.

The battle for liberty in Houston is not lost, not by a long shot, but what then? Those on the left championing the gay agenda will not stop. Why should they? Their war is financed by the sweat and labor of those they wish to enslave. There is still hope, however. After Halloween comes a pivotal mid-term election. Here is my prayer that freedom loving people of all persuasions will join to remove those who would support this abuse. Come this November, let's join together and give the bullies and fascists something to fear for a change.

Liberalism's "Dumb" Question

Most of us have heard it before: The only "dumb" question is the one left unasked. I can't say that I've always found that to be true. In my time, I've heard more than a few that blaze well past "dumb" and head straight to "idiotic beyond belief." Even more surprisingly, I wasn't always the one asking those particular questions. A fair number, true, but not all. Perhaps that can be a subject for another time.

As a hypothetical, however, I started with that definition as a basis and began to think of what kind of "dumb" questions might be out there. More succinctly, what questions could I think of out there that people, for one reason or another, never seem to get around to asking.

Some tended to be rather silly: Does the Pope ever ask "Am I late for mass?" Does the President ever ask "Can I play that last hole over?" You know, silly stuff like that. And then my mind, as is often the case, took a strange turn. For some reason I wondered if there were any questions that devout liberals never asked, and whoa, did I come up with a lot of them. But the more I thought about all of the little questions, the more they all pointed to that one big question that no liberal dares ask himself:

What if I'm wrong?

To a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, that thought is like Kryptonite to the man of steel, a life-size silver cross to the Transylvania count, a tax cut to the Kennedy family (For someone else, of course. They have all of their assets nicely protected.) At the very hint of such a query, the cone of silence descends, the line is drawn. Pay no attention to the thought behind the curtain. If possible, and it usually is, ignore thought altogether.

Though they never actually get far, you can tell when a liberal might be starting to contemplate something approaching that question. The rapid heartbeat is usually the first sign, followed quickly by elevated respiration and profuse sweating. The shaking hands would be the next symptom, but few liberals ever get that far. Sometime before this point, they generally sit back and tell themselves what good people they are until they calm down, the question (Question? What question?) long forgotten.

I sympathize with them. Truly, I do. If I had insistently pushed legislation and policies that had impoverished millions, lead to the death of countless unborn children, and were now quickly converting the "land of the free" to the "home of the serfs," I could scarce face it myself.

Yet, with each new right denied, each new executive and judicial fiat, each new policy designed to eliminate the rights that men and women fought and died for over a period of centuries, it becomes more and more obvious that is where they wish to take us. I am heartbroken that we go so meekly, trading freedom for the illusion of security. History is clear enough on the matter. In the end, we shall have neither.

It's not too late, of course. It never is. Until it is. We can only hope that come election time and beyond, a few more on the left find the courage to not only ask the question, but really look for the answer. That's the only way the truth can be shown, the flaws revealed. The destruction averted. Good intentions mean nothing if followed by thoughtless and destructive action. Things can never be made right until all of us are willing to ask: What if I'm wrong?

David Gale Goes to the Hospital

I remember well the movie The Life of David Gale. I love movies and watch them often. The ones that are memorable, for good or ill, I place in one or more boxes of the mind, and hang onto them... Well, these days I hang onto them for as long as I can. The Life of David Gale occupies a single box with relatively little company. The box is titled "When Good Stars Make Bad Movies."

Given the cast, including Laura Linney and Kevin Spacey, I had high hopes at the beginning. They didn't last long. The movie plodded along with little rhyme or reason. The niceties of good story-telling had been discarded, it seemed, in favor of messaging. In this case, the message seemed to be that the death penalty is bad because seemingly no conviction is air tight. I don't agree with that philosophy, but I'll certainly grant it's an arguable point provided you don't argue it based on the ridiculous, and that's were David Gale turned into David "Fail." What the movie ended up demonstrating at the end was that a person could indeed be wrongly convicted of a capital offense if they formed a conspiracy solely for that purpose. To make their point, the defendant in this case provided false and misleading testimony, withheld exculpatory evidence, and took every pain to ensure that the legal system would reach the wrong conclusion.

Nothing was overlooked, except perhaps a reasonable point. Unless, of course, the point was that society must take all responsibility for the treatment of an individual, that a person has no obligation to participate in their own defense, to cooperate with established procedures, to act vigorously as their own advocate in conjunction with whatever outside assistance is made available. It seems like a garbage argument to me, but it also seems to be one that is increasingly popular in our society. To watch the news, you get the impression that people believe others should be fully responsible for their health insurance, birth control, living wage, level of education, and no doubt a whole slew of other things I am afraid to even guess at. And if they are not accommodated, then obviously the fault cannot be attributed to them, can it? More sinister forces must be at work.

Enter Thomas Eric Duncan, Ebola victim from Texas. His family is calling for an investigation, speculating that his poverty, insurance status, or skin color may have been the reason he died. While the death was tragic and the man and his family have my condolences, let us spare everyone the time and expense of such an investigation. Eric Thomas Duncan did not die because of his poverty, lack of insurance, or his ethnic group. Mr. Duncan died because he had been in a hazardous disease-ridden area and came in contact with Ebola. Everything else is just speculation.

Now, there certainly were things that could have been done to improve Mr. Duncan's chances for survival. Mistakes were made, serious mistakes. No one is denying that. What people are far less forthcoming about is that the most egregious mistakes were made by Mr. Duncan himself. He is the one that went to the area. He is also the one that, knowing how severe the spread of the sickness was and the chances of him being exposed, withheld that vital information from travel officials on several continents. He is also the one that visited several local schools in Texas after returning, still with the understanding that he had likely been exposed. Oddly, there isn't a lot coming out of the press or family about that. And if children start dying from Mr. Duncan's actions, and then their parents, will the family acknowledge his guilt in that? I wonder.

There's nothing wrong with feeling sympathy for the death, especially for those who had such a horrible passing. We would be less than human if we did not grieve. But we must also look to the causes of such ends and take responsible action to treat those causes. One treatment for this kind of tragedy, an aid in preventing it in the future, might be called "good citizenship." At one time, it was expected of people. Now, not so much. Good citizenship, you see, requires a lot of the individual. It requires a certain degree of maturity, integrity, and responsibility, things once cherished and encouraged across the nation. With them, a country has a foundation for establishing and maintaining a profitable and orderly society. Without them, we have individuals putting the lives of thousands, or even millions, at risk while blaming hospitals, corporations, and anyone else they can think of. Anyone except themselves.

There has been much commentary made of the delay of adulthood in the nation these days. Marriage, employment, children, all of the things that used to mark the transition of a person from adolescent to full adulthood, are coming later and later it seems. That's a trend that we have to stop. More than that, we have to reverse it, and the reason is simple: The nation needs adults. The nation needs responsible citizens. These are the people that make things work and keep things working. Without them, our nation might have about the same chance of surviving as David Gale. And as with David, it will be no one's fault but our own.

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.