Usage in the language suggests that equality can be tricky. Have you noticed what happens if a man fails to consult with his wife before making a change in his appearance? It doesn't matter if it's a different style of clothes, something that he did to his hair, if he got some new glasses, if he decided to start growing a beard, if he decided to shave off his beard, if he bought a different color tie, or anything else. Whatever such change he makes, it's likely that she'll tell him how silly it looks, whether it does or not, and demand to know why he did such a thing without consulting with her first. Here's an interesting bit of usage. Even if she damns him for a fool, he's expected to "take it like a man".
On the other hand, what do you suppose would happen if a woman pranced in with a new hair style and her husband told her that he liked the previous one better? Oops. Who ever heard of taking it like a woman? The fact is that if a man criticizes his wife's appearance then he'll probably still end up having to "take it like a man". It's a revealing bit of usage.
The usage suggests one of the several irremovable differences between men and women. That is, a man is expected to endure pointless criticism from women, to take it like a man. Usually, men are stout enough to do exactly that. Women are cut from a different cloth. A woman isn't expected to tolerate any criticism at all from a man. Nobody ever says "take it like a woman". Instead, when faced with criticism, most women will get their panties in a bunch, another interesting bit of usage. A man can't get his panties in a bunch because (mostly, I hope) men don't wear panties. Thus does usage as well as experience suggest that hissy fits are probably a mostly female phenomenon.
If a man behaves incautiously toward a woman and isn't sufficiently prompt and abject in his apologies, then Hell hath no fury, another usage that applies only to women. Such a woman scorned or even just a woman criticized might well initiate some kind of retaliation. It might be only "the silent treatment". Many women don't realize what a blessing that can be but let's just keep it to ourselves. Anyway, the ultimate example of such retaliation, at least for wives, is customarily known as "cutting him off" — not referring to Lorena Bobbitt, of course. Generally speaking, "cutting her off" isn't a common usage in the language. Also, it isn't a common tactic in a man's arsenal of techniques for use in domestic squabbles. Regarding such "bedroom tactics", even if a domestic squabble is nothing more serious than one spouse being kept awake because the other spouse is snoring, and regardless of which spouse is being kept awake, it's always the man who's evicted to the couch. Usage can be revealing. There's a good reason why we call it bitching.
In the final analysis, feminism relies for its alleged legitimacy on the inherently stupid notion, observed by Aristotle more than 2000 years ago, that those who are equal in any respect are equal in all respects. As he seems to have believed, and as I mentioned at the beginning of this article, equality can be tricky. It's even more tricky when you add gender to the mix. If women were equal to men, then we'd be able to criticize the little darlings the same way that they can criticize us. Obviously we can't so obviously they aren't. It's ironic that they demanded equality so stridently, for so many years, when they aren't man enough to handle it. Note the usage. Equal means "the same as". Women are not the same as men. Thus, while women might be equal to men in some respects, they're not equal to men in all respects. It probably makes them want to grimace and stomp their dainty little feet but my best advice to them regarding their inequality is one of the statements that they so dearly love to make to us. "Get over it."
What a nice bit of usage.
|Letters to the
I watch more TV now than I used to, say 10 or 20 years ago, but still less than when I was a kid. I still listen to the radio quite a bit, same as always. My consumption of reading material is still pegged, off the scale, but that's beside the point.
I've noticed that whenever a commercial involves dialog between adults, the following pattern is a constant: The man is acting foolishly. The woman acts sensibly and has to correct him, in other words, show the value of the product being advertised and solve the problem they find themselves in. Man plays the silly comedian, woman the sensible straight role. Watch for it and you'll see that it's ubiquitous. Even the local ads, selling termite or home-cleaning services, do this. Just one example of many: Man: "I'm stuck in the air duct!" [because I'm an idiot and crawled inside to try to clean it]. Woman: "Call ____ !" [insert name of local cleaning service].
The roles are never the reverse. If the pattern were the reverse, feminists would notice and be up in arms. If actors from some traditionally disadvantaged racial, religious (although Catholics get this treatment a lot on T.V. and seem to be fair game), or ethnic group were constantly thrust into the role of goofball, their spokespersons would shriek of injustice.
It's the same in the shows themselves on TV, now that I think about it. Consider Bart vs. Lisa or Homer vs. Marge on The Simpsons, or Peter vs. Lois on Family Guy, or Sheldon vs. Penny on Big Bang Theory. Are the guys just funnier than the gals? Or is this supposed war on women that some politicians and pundits now talk about just a load of nonsense? All of this would be just hilarious if it weren't for U.S. statistics like (1) boys are overrepresented among high-school dropouts and (2) women are overrepresented among college and university student populations.
—Frank; San Jose, California
See Gender Bias on the 5 O'clock News, in the July 2003 issue, and Spousal Abuse as Humor, in the November 2003 issue.
I have been trying for several days to log onto your website to no avail. I guess you must have been classified a terrorist or Branch Davidian by the powers that be. If so, your truth and tenacity over the years is appreciated. I hope that you continue writing and perhaps posting on other freedom and anarchic sites. I am looking forward to your next newsletter in the snail mail.
Hope this small donation helps.
Just got your [date omitted] ltr w/2 others enclosed [dates omitted] not got before. I'm in deep psych lockup ± incommunicado = terrorism & inhumane abuse....
They keep seizing all mail right after I get it & some I never get. They seize all writing instruments, paper, postage, envelopes, addresses, etc, except what's sent me if I immediately use it to respond before they take it....
... I have had a suspicion for 1-2 years that [name of town withheld] police who framed me (&/or DA, defense attorney) are sabotaging my websites because it exposes their crimes.
...This Kool Aid with twisted paper as pen = difficult! Much thanks & appreciation, my friend.
It did, indeed, appear that the letter had been written using Kool Aid, or some such substance.
Buddy. Received your latest Frontiersman. Great Job. Great info. Keep it up brother. Hey. Have you been hearing about all the ammo this government has been buying? It's up to 2 billion rounds @ this writing. .40 Cal HP and other hand gun loads as well as a lot of .308 ammo — Hmmm. Wonder what they're afraid of? Out here in Californiastan (Soviet Socialist Republic of ____) the AM radio channels are letting intel out about the police departments whining about the crazy gangs, the mass prison release — some of whom have no resources other than the $200 gate money "DUH STATE" gives paroles upon release — Charley Beck (LAPD CHIEF) says these men are not rehabilitated and are more angry and cannot get jobs — but can buy a weapon (gun) faster than getting food stamps. Like duh! Then Lee Baca (LA County sheriff) got on and said his worst fear is these veterans coming back from the war zones who can not find jobs, are scary because some with gang ties, weapons training, combat experience and are not intimidated by the jack-booted thugs in uniform. Lee Baca went on to whine about the prisons dumping dangerous pissed off criminals
|back into their communities. He says he
doesn't feel this will end well. Then, Coast to Coast told of LAPD
and LA county sheriffs being trained in urban warfare by U.S. Army Rangers.
([Identity omitted] just graduated from Ranger school and his last
letter says he is being trained in rules of engagement on protestors and
anyone labeled as enemy combatants.) Just wondering if you've heard
anything about it? Also, funny issue, my personal assistant (councilor)
has asked what I would do upon release. (Sam, I was sentenced to
109 years to life for 2 assbags that needed kill'n.) Anyway, my response
was "I have no intention of going back out there and being a productive
member of society." Damn, she acted like I called in an air strike
on an orphanage. Then, there are some in my building that I know
have refused to sign their parole plans because they're seeing all the
crazy crap going on out there. A big issue is the 9th shooting of
an officer involved shooting (yesterday) of a parolee — reaching for a
weapon — but could not locate the weapon. And, the woman, mother
of 5, shot by a border patrol agent yesterday — sorry, the 30th of Sept.
And her husband said the BP agent needs to be shot. Fast forward
to today — 2 BP agents shot, 1 killed on Mex/Arizona border. Hmmm.
There is a site my girlfriend sent saying "Now is not a good time to be
in law-enforcement". Anyway, Sam, I'm just wondering if you've been
hearing about all this chatter. If you need to use this letter —
you've got my permission to rewrite it and add it to your site. My
person is going through changes putting some of my questions on her site.
I think it's these ass-bags — but hay! Anyway, Sam, I'm still enjoying
your newsletter. I share it with 6 others here @ [name omitted]
Mobile Home Park. (A real joke). So till I hear from you again,
keep up the great work.
I had not previously heard about the situations that you mentioned.
After reading your excerpt & comments on the Kaczynski essay, I am curious as to whether or not he was ever exposed to all of Ayn Rand's works?? I disagree with his general conclusions and iterate that you are correct in that it is the "misuse" of technology that may create the social ills. However, it all can also be 97% attributable to the enforced FIAT money system & manipulation. Had we individually & as a society/nation followed Lindbergh senior's advice, back when, we may be in a totally different (i.e. manageable — as a lot of technology would not have been invented due to lack of investor funding?) social order? L. Neill Smith's books portray such scenarios. I wish I could read more of his works....
Your point about inventions is a good one. Also, consider patents. A patent is a monopoly, enforced by government for the benefit of one party and the detriment of everybody else. Patents are not beneficial to human society. They are harmful to it. People who invent for the love of profit are inventing for the wrong reason. They try to reshape the needs of the people to suit their inventions. People who invent for the love of inventing try to make inventions that meet the existing needs of the people. As you noted, the results can be profoundly different.
I presently have 37 bright ideas, some of which qualify as inventions, displayed on my personal website. Some of them are silly and some of them are serious but they are all declared to be public domain. I haven't made a penny from any of them. I don't know if anybody has ever made use of any of the ideas but the ideas are all freely available to anyone who wants to use them. My only restriction is that they shall never be patented.
Liberty, Inequality, Fraternity
Sam Aurelius Milam III
Equality isn't a natural condition. It's an artificial notion that exists mostly in the human imagination. If it's ever to exist, then it will have to be enforced. That will require the existence of some institution with the authority and the power to force people to be equal. The institution will necessarily have to compel people, since equality isn't natural. Force will be necessary.
Equality isn't necessarily a bad thing but its pursuit as a political agenda should be undertaken with great caution, even trepidation. Otherwise, such an agenda will attempt to reduce us all to a condition of approximate equality, the lowest common denominator. It will tend to destroy our natural differences. It will enable powerful government and destroy any rights that we might otherwise have had.
My thanks to the following: SantaClara Bob; Lady Jan the Voluptuous; my mother; Dewey and Betty; and Eric, of Ione, California.
Useful Units of Measure
Original Source Unknown. Forwarded by David, of Idaho Falls, Idaho.
Statements Attributed to Al Gore
Original Source Unknown. Forwarded by Lady Jan the Voluptuous. I didn't try to verify any of them.
Subscriptions and Past Issues — Printed copies of this newsletter, either subscriptions or past issues, are available by application only.
Cancellations — If you don't want to keep receiving this newsletter, then return it unopened. When I receive it, I'll terminate your subscription.
Reprint Policy — Permission is hereby granted to reproduce this newsletter in its entirety or to reproduce material from it, provided that the reproduction is accurate and that proper credit is given. I do not have the authority to give permission to reprint material that I have reprinted from other sources. For that permission, you must go to the original source. I would appreciate receiving a courtesy copy of any document or publication in which you reprint my material.
Submissions — I solicit letters, articles, and cartoons for the newsletter, but I don't pay for them. Short items are more likely to be printed. I suggest that letters and articles be shorter than 500 words but that's flexible depending on space available and the content of the piece.
Payment — This newsletter isn't for sale. If you want to make a voluntary contribution, then I prefer cash or U.S. postage stamps. For checks or money orders, please inquire. For PayPal payments, use firstname.lastname@example.org. In case anybody's curious, I also accept gold, silver, platinum, etc. I don't accept anything that requires me to provide ID to receive it.
— Sam Aurelius Milam III, editor