Coco’s choice
Do you remember the William Styron book Sophie’s Choice? First published in 1979, it was a literary sensation and became a movie starring Meryl Streep. Sophie was a Christian Polish woman who ended up in a concentration camp during World War II, and was forced by the Nazis to make an agonizing split-second decision about which child of hers to save and which to sacrifice.
To me, the theme of the book was how, in a situation of dire peril in which those bent on destructive evil are in charge, ordinary people are placed in situations in which they are required to make moral and ethical decisions when under extraordinary duress. And not just in the camps, either, because during the war everyone had to decide about the extent of their collaboration with evil (for example, join the Resistance, or keep a low profile?).
No one knows in advance how brave he/she will be. In the case of the fictional Sophie, she suffered for the rest of her life from the emotional consequences of the decisions she made, although she would have suffered no matter what decision she made because there really was no good one.
Which brings us to the woman, nickname “Coco,” who tapped in the security code that allowed the Charlie Hebdo killers to enter the magazine’s office and do their nefarious work.
As soon as I read about her I was struck by her dilemma. She was with her young child, and both were explicitly threatened by the armed killers. Probably the “right” thing, if looked at objectively, would have been to sacrifice her life and the life of her child. But none of us knows what we would actually do in such a case and we hope we’ll never face any decision even remotely like that.
Richard Fernandez has written an essay on the subject that says exactly what I would have said if I could write like Richard Fernandez. I suggest you read every word, but here’s an excerpt:
The assailants gained admittance by forcing a cartoonist to enter the door security code at gunpoint. A large percentage of people ”” maybe nearly everyone ”” would have done the same thing, yielded to that threat, in a moment of fear. A certain smaller percentage, perhaps 2 percent, would for some reason refuse; and refuse unreasonably without quite knowing why. Which of the two groups one belongs to nobody knows until the day…
Years ago there was a story about an Israeli security guard who grappled a suicide bomber outside a supermarket where they both blew up. It is doubtful the guard did it for his salary; nobody dies for a pittance. It is doubtful that he even knew what he was going to do until he did it. It was just one of those things you find out about yourself in a moment.
“Well, whadda ya know?” Boom. It’s nice to know you’re made of stern stuff. But it’s a helluva way to find out.
Fernandez then goes from a discussion of individual bravery to one of cultural and institutional courage. It’s our lack of the latter that could really do us in. Here’s how he puts it:
Leftist orthodoxy now accepts the innocence of Islamism as an article of faith,…They are too completely invested in multiculturalism, social deconstruction and redistribution to doubt the faith now…
And therefore they will cling to their dogma, however improbable it might be, long past the point when any reasonable Leftist would have doubted it. This is the most dangerous aspect of the crisis facing the West. Not only are we in danger of tearing our politics apart, we must. It has now become a case of destroying our civilization in order to save it…The cultural elites of the West are going to hang themselves in the morning according to a schedule that they themselves have devised.
Do you think our elites won’t punch the door buttons to let the killers in to shoot us? They already have. They already have.
It’s that last sentence that sends the chill up my spine. It’s pretty much what I’ve been thinking for over a decade. Our own failure to tell the truth about what’s happening and the nature of the enemy, and to face the seriousness of the task ahead of us, has been made clear since shortly after 9/11. In fact, it was probably clear long before that, but after 9/11 it became undeniable.
It’s not just the failure to acknowledge what is happening and face the truth about our enemy, there is also a large element of believing we (collectively but with an exemption for the right minded) deserve to be punished. It’s white guilt writ large.
its what i have been excerpting for two days.
and the other point is that no women were killed.
the ny times scrubbed the quote of what the terrorists said to the women.
given you like althouse, i will use her refernce, but she was not the one to catch the scrub – and of course she gives credit
so, odds were that she would not be killed.. nor her child…
in the world, the burden of getting killed is much less likely for women… ie. its RARE that women get killed vs the number of men. from workplace accidents, to war, to office killings, to crime on the street. though you would not know that hearing the feminists rant.
In the United States, in 2005, men were 54% of the workforce but 93% of workers who died at work due to fatal accidents or violence
this would include police officers too…
In the United States, men are much more likely to be incarcerated than women. Nearly 9 times as many men (5,037,000) as women (581,000) had ever at one time been incarcerated
Males were more likely to be murder victims (76.8%)
Males were most likely to be victims of drug- (90.5%) and gang-related homicides (94.6%)
women feel unsafe a lot more than men despite that men are the victims of things that kill them… this has been going on for a long time, given that the birth rate is adjusted to even out this.
when WWII ended, the french decided to wreak retribution on those that sided with the nazis. the men were murdered, the women got their hair cut off.
1944 French Women “Collaborationists” Get Haircut!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st3rYBNrA6E
in crisis they are often targeted precisely because they WILL turncoat upon pressure… men, on the other hand, is not so sure..
a woman may give up her life for her kid, but its men that give up their lives for strangers (with any consistency).
dont believe me? then let me know how many husbands get killed standkng up or protecting their wives, vs wives who get clipped for their husbands.
the Women’s Titanic Memorial, located along the southwest waterfront at approximately 4th and P SW. It was erected by the female survivors of the sinking of the Titanic, to pay tribute to the men who lost their lives in order to save women and children.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
now the meat and potatoes of it. if society is to be SAVED, it wont be saved by women, lesbians, metrosexuals, lumbersexuals, etc…
it will be saved by the men who would die to save the culture. but since feminism neutered them, they cant dothat any more…they will rather die than be hated by the women of their society.
how do i know? 2 things stand out
1) look at what our society became due to lysistrata
2) ‘White Feather Girls’
Maybe when suicide bombings and such ramp up in the US at malls and other places there’ll be an official change of heart brought about by public demand.
Artfldgr:
There were at least two women who the terrorists spoke to.
The quotes you are offering were what the terrorists allegedly said to the other woman, not to “Coco,” the one who let them in the door (real name: Corinne Rey). Rey reported that she and her daughter were explicitly and “brutally” threatened.
“Coco” says she survived by hiding under a table, as apparently did other people (including men such as this one) who survived.
One of those killed in the office was a woman. See this.
Coco’s decision to enter the code is simple to understand, she acted to give her child a chance to survive. Any criticism of her choice is unwarranted. Her child is alive.
Eusebio Gil loved his family, the Raiders and cracking jokes. “He sacrificed his life for somebody else. He sacrificed his life for somebody else he didn’t know,”
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Harrison was stealing a car from Ainsworth’s neighbor about 7 a.m. when Ainsworth, who was nearby dropping his two young sons off at their bus stop, intervened. Harrison shot him at close range, leaving him to die on the scene.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
even homeless men:
Chilling surveillance video shows how nobody stopped to help a homeless New York City man (Tale-Ya) who put his own life on the line to protect a woman from an attacker. Video: http://www.today.com/video/today/36776405#36776405
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
McGhee shot Alejandro Sé¡nchez-Té³rrez as he tried to help a man who was being beaten and robbed in Canyon Country on Halloween in 2011. The robbery victim also was shot but survived.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Robinson was driving in downtown Detroit when he witnessed two young women being mugged on Jefferson Avenue near the Renaissance Center. Robinson got out of his car to help the women and then pursued the perpetrators. He was shot in the head a few blocks away, at St. Antoine and Atwater.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Investigators learned that a suspect had approached the woman and stole her purse, and she was stabbed during the confrontation. Troy Cansler, a 47-year-old Yucaipa resident, chased the suspect, who tried to flee. Cansler was found with stab wounds on 4th Street near Yucaipa Boulevard. He was rushed to a local hospital, where he later died.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Deputies said the victim, 49-year-old Mark Anthony Horton, tried to help a woman who was being robbed. The robbery suspect then shot Horton, who died at the scene.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Sheriff’s officials say a Good Samaritan suffered fatal stab wounds while chasing a thief who allegedly stabbed a woman and stole her purse in San Bernardino County. 47-year-old Troy Cansler chased the robber for about a block Tuesday night in Yucaipa until he was stabbed. He died at a hospital.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
A 61-year-old Good Samaritan was shot in the eye after trying to help two women being robbed. After the man saw the women being robbed, he tried to follow the suspect. But the robber turned around and shot him, hitting him in the eye, according to the source. The Good Samaritan was in critical condition this morning. The women were not hurt.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
i am at work so i cant search as i want to. but i do remember a story told by a woman survivor. i WILL find it and post if if i can. but i remember the story.
they were flying, but i cant remember if it was small plane or skydiving. the plane had a problem and it was going to crash… the man took the woman and set her up. he calmed her and told her what would happen, and positioned her. she said he want down with her all the way, and at the last second, twisted his body so that she would land on top of him and crushed him, as his body took the impact and saved her life.
yes.. this is a big issue for me. i have been a firefighter, an EMT… who watched a friend bleed to death as he cried for me to save him… have stopped several muggings, one possible rape… been stabbed and cut…
but now, i am something to be disposed of…
so it irks me that society gives no credence or regard towards the men who in the literal millions have given their lives for others over the course of mankinds history…
and not only that, we do it for strangers.. for no reward. and often leave our families behind with no one to care for them!!!
this story should bring that to light – who would have watched the family of the trucker in this story?
Watch As A Hero Trucker Saves Family From Crash, Explosion, Inferno
http://jalopnik.com/watch-as-a-hero-trucker-saves-family-from-crash-explos-1623102320
David Fredericksen, the trucker recording the video on his dashcam, immediately jumped out to save the occupants inside the car, as his son explained in the video description
and one of my most favorites.. Wesley Autreyh
he abandoned his daughters to strangers and the horror of watching their father die, before they found out he was alive.
It is historically untrue that jihadists and Islamic terrorists don’t kill women. Examples too numerous to mention, from a great many maimed and dead Israeli women to all the female victims of 9/11, give witness to this.
Then again, to someone willing to commit mass murder, lying may well be a minor matter.
Neo, don’t sell yourself short. You and Mr. Fernandez both write exceptionally well (though differently), and both have very important things to say. In this case, you’ve both made the two important points that, to me, seem crucial here —
1. No one knows, until the moment of truth, if he or she can find the inner bravery to be a hero.
2. Our elected leaders, who have sworn an oath to protect us, have already faced their moment of truth, many times… and have failed.
(In a just world, both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama would hear the name “Benghazi”, and see the faces of the four who were murdered there on 9/11/12, every day, for the rest of their lives. In a just world, they would not be permitted to forget, even for a moment, that their inaction and callous indifference caused the deaths of people far, far better than they, whose safety was their responsibility.)
Coco’s choice. A dilemma if ever there was one. I don’t blame her. She was thrust into a situation that no one should have to face. And who put her there? The Muslim terrorists, that’s who. Had she made the choice to defy the barbarians, two lives would have surely been lost, but many others would have been saved. But how many people can be ready to make such a choice in an instant of heroic insight?
If one has a conscience at all, survivor’s guilt follows such a choice as night follows day. It is something I am familiar with. I was never forced to make such a choice, but I lost good friends in a war. Why were they killed and somehow I made it through? It haunted me for years. Coco’s choice will, no doubt, haunt her for years. She will need all the help she can get to get through it. A small tragedy within a bigger tragedy.
Artfldgr: many thanks for sharing these stories. They need to be remembered.
You are probably also familiar with the story that shaped Robert Heinlein’s life, in the early 20th century, in which a young woman got her foot caught in a railroad tie. Both she and her husband struggled to free her, without success. A hobo, walking the ties, stopped to help. A train came along and struck all three of them, killing them.
It made a tremendous impression on the young Heinlein that the hobo could have jumped free at any moment, but did not. He chose to use the last seconds of his life to try to save the life of a woman he didn’t even know… and to this day, we know nothing else about him — not even his name. As Heinlein said, “This is how a man dies. This is how a MAN lives!”
Such stories inspire us, as well they should. It’s no shame to fail to live up to such things; not all of us are made of such stern stuff. But such stories will go on to inspire some of us to do great things… and we should be grateful, both for the incredible individuals in our midst, and for the stories and examples that inspired them to be who they are.
I had the same thoughts as Neo when I read about Coco, and there is no doubt that I would have done the same as she. Throughout most of my life, I had no question which type of person I was. I was the join-the-resistance type, or more likely lead-the-resistance. I would have had Jews hidden in my attic, and the Nazis be damned. All of that changed the day I had my son. It changed the way I think about everything. When he was an infant, I was driving alone in the car when a motorcycle sped by on its back wheel. I was instantly outraged – how dare he?! He could have killed me and I’M A MOTHER with a child who needs me. Damn the men who forced that choice on her.
Saving her child was her biggest concern, as it would have been for me, and will blunt the impact the death of the others would otherwise have had on her.
On the other hand, if you’re a male, and you see a female threatened, you’d be surprised how there’s zero hesitation to throw yourself into harm. There’s not even a passing “if” thought in your head.
To amplify Parker’s thought above (@4:43) the following quote is from Alphagameplan:
Posted by Vox, January 8, 2015 under the title Female Bravery.
The link: http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/
It becomes clear why 105 males are born for every 100 females.
Artfl, I believe this is the story you are referring to:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1283324/Skydiving-instructor-Dave-Hartsock-paralysed-saving-grandmother-jump.html
http://gizmodo.com/5536500/heroic-skydiver-saves-womans-life-after-parachute-failure
And I’ll also note that most of the stories you’re recounting… Men are helping women.
Fernandez (like neo) is a brilliant, subtle, prudent and wise writer.
You can feel their humanity by reading their words.
But the fact that he uses the word “islamism” means we have lost.
It is a ridiculous word. It is a meaningless word.
Worse, it is a word with no good implications for the user, as varied as the implications may be.
As a preliminary, anyone addressing “islamism” or the variants needs to declare: I have read the Koran, I have read Spencer (or the equivalent) and I am not winging it.
And then finally, they need to set forth a case why their “solution” is superior to the goal of destroying the idea of islam.
“But the fact that he uses the word “islamism” means we have lost.”
Lost? As Rilke wrote: “Who speaks of Victory? Endurance is everything.”
I said to my husband this morning while listening to the news reports that nothing of consequence will change until the realization that such a thing as “evil” exists. Presidents Reagan and Bush were both ridiculed for referencing evil. Denial of God is one thing, Christians stake eternal life on that. Denial of evil is altogether different. Even the commentators this morning that are far more conservatives than the liberal administrations calling the shots on the western world stage, speak as though education is the thing that is lacking. Such ignorance of the “education” of so many of the adherents of Political Islam! Educationally many of them could run circles around these “education proponents.”
“Denial of God is one thing, Christians stake eternal life on that. Denial of evil is altogether different.”
We have a winner!
Although, Sharon W., I would carry that one step further. There is every indication that in contrast to not seeing other cultures as evil, leftists do see the West as evil.
In the multi-culti universe all cultures are equal . . . except the West.
You no doubt have read, and probably long ago posted, regarding the exposure of the British Labor Party’s plan to fundamentally and irrevocably change the nature of British society and values through immigration. It was the primary aim of the plan, not just an “incidental benefit.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100025635/labours-secret-plan-to-lure-immigrants-was-borderline-treason-and-plain-stupid/
In Norway and Sweden it has apparently been a commonplace among the left that their societies need to be fundamentally reconstituted in this way as well. To the effect of: “Nothing worth preserving here not oriented toward the redistribution of life efforts and energies”
Stuff you have all seen before …
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/09/23/239736.html
and
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/selling-out-western-culture-in-norway/
Artfldgr – the islamists have little problem harming women qua women; rather, it is a part of their cultural double standard that women be harmed differently and in different contexts than men. Islam has death penalty both for men and women, but there are some details in technical execution – e.g. when stoning, men are supposed to be buried up to their waists and women up to their necks. A person of either sex who manages to escape during stoning get exonerated, but if it is very difficult for a man to escape, it must be well nigh *impossible* for a woman. You can interpret this in two ways: being “nicer” to women (on account of the presumably shorter ordeal) OR being “nicer” to men (on account of giving them an actual, no matter how still miserable, chance of escpaing).
As another example, you have honor killings of “overly Western” children of immigrants, by their own families, and it is daughters who are disproportionately affected compared to sons.
As a part of the Islamic war conquest strategy, they do tend to spare women – but it is only their bare lives that are being spared; after they are caught, they are in for experiences of such order that many of them attempt suicide if at all technically possible (see what was going on with the girls taken by ISIS and given to jihadists, the accounts for those who survived who described the anguish over – the technical impossibility of suicide!) and wish they had not been “spared” for a lifetime of slavery and physical/sexual torture. The islamists are not “nice” to women and “bad” to men – look at the societies they establish as well as their legal-normative sources, it is bad for everyone, but in different ways and sometimes in different contexts. I think that the selective focus only on how they tend to mistreat men is equally pernicious as the selective focus only how they tend to mistreat women.
That there are psychological differences between the sexes that can be reasonably generalized (allowing for exceptions, but not failing to recognize a pattern) is a known fact. You could argue that much of the cultural double standard is rooted in acknowledging those differences, such as, as you point, the women’s generally greater need for security and the more psychologically destabilizing impact of stress or insecurity. This, paired up with the obvious physical inferiority (obvious to everyone except to the nutjobs who call for the lowering of professional standards in order for women to be able to be admitted to jobs their bodies are not equipped to physically handle both in terms of the immediate and long-term damage), produces effects of such order that women tend to be treated differently, IN CHRISTIAN SOCIETIES, but not “qua women” – rather, “qua the relatively WEAKER ones”, because it is only in Christendom (rather, what it is used to be), to my knowledge, that the idea of strength comporting obligation was formulated at all. The men who save women, by calculation, are “only” Christians – who also save the children, the elderly, the disabled, and who in situations when extreme decisions have to be made, but with enough time to coordinate things, broadly group people and save the weaker groups first (that there are individual exceptions between members of the same group is also a known fact, but in extreme situations there is no time to finetune things and assess people individually, so stronger women also get saved before weaker men). Why the moral outrage over people choosing to sacrifice for the weaker? (And it was a CHOICE, not the actual LAW, that in situations of most urgent coordination women were preferred to be saved first – a choice much more rare in a post-Christian society, as we can see from the more recent catastrophes where the weaker groups were NOT systematically preferred. Depending on what are your values, you can see that as a good thing, as a bad thing or as overall neutral.)
On a personal note: most men I know are openly unapologetic about the fact that they would be willing to physically coerce a woman to be saved before them if she started to “play the equality game” in an emergency. Most women do not find it “patronizing”, but loving – and admire the men’s willingness and the ability to do so. Most PEOPLE, in general, only pay lipservice to the notion of radical equality (physical, psychological etc.) of the sexes – I am not sure I know anyone, American or European (I live abroad), who actually buys it. Most people seem aware of the particular moral pitfalls into which each sex is more likely to fall, but also aware of the unique gifts each brings to the table, and manage to love each other and get along. Sometimes I wonder who is fueling this entire “war of sexes” nonsense – the moral degeneration, where peresent, truly seems to be much less of an issue among people my age (mid 20s) than most alarmists would have it.
Oh, and I do know plenty of people who, for reasons of sheer opportunism, will SAY publicly all sorts of nonsense (“all religions lead to peace”, “men and women are exactly the same in all ways imaginable”, “it does not matter if children grow up with mom and dad or with some other combination of adults as long as they are loved”), but few, if any, who actually THINK so – and the atmosphere has been changing about saying it out loud as more and more people understand that there are consequences to such ideas circling around.
ESPECIALLY the French. That is probably the most hypocritical people in whose midst I have been, for the good and for the bad, with their outward genteelness masking much common sense they actually DO have. I mingle with them some, in fact I even hope to marry one of them 🙂 and on the whole, they are A LOT more sane than they will let on – just very apt at playing a certain kind of social game. Most of them do not need a “wake-up call” of any sort, they are fully awake already – just not acting. Yet.
Their MSM are playing eqully dirty tricks as the American ones (I am fluent in French so I read some of that), trying to push a certain agenda with certain “issues” (they even try to “import” from the US) – and most people are aware of that, not buying it, and are slowly getting fed up with it.
I clicked “submit” without rereading my comment and now I notice there are quite a few typos and that it is overall much longer than it seemed to me as I was typing. My apologies, I hope it is understandable anyway.
Women and children first is how it has to be. Failure to protect them is intolerable.
It’s pretty much what I’ve been thinking for over a decade.
Of course. Americans are called paranoid due to the gun culture and the various usage of ammo in actual shooting galleries and training setups, but strength does not come from being lazy on the couch all the time. That’s something Europe, the birth place of the Enlightenment including the dark products like communism, seems to have forgotten under the Pax Americana. Unfortunately for them, Pax Americana is dead. And they helped kill it.
They’ll get what’s coming to them.
[No … but many of us know how physically brave we have or haven’t been. This is not an insinuated boast, since I have to admit that on the few occasions I have done something others thought “brave” it was either a heedless and unthinking reaction, or what Aristotle called being “sanguine” or just being very sure of yourself vis-a-vis the challenge. In other other words, not a bravery so much as relative confidence or adrenalin. So, I claim no moral high ground for myself here. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&q=cache:-yt1xEgwPDsJ:http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/ari/nico/nico030.htm%2BAristotle+on+sanguine+courage&gbv=2&&ct=clnk%5D
Threatened her “with brutality” I think the English translation went. It’s a formulation, (“with brutality” that is) and meaning apparently emotional harshness, which must be some kind of very common locution in French, as I have heard it said in English by French speakers themselves, and seen the phrase parodied in movies.
Now, suppose you were armed and could stop the invasion by simply shooting her as she worked to let the killers in. What is the take of the sensitive and humane kind of person on that choice? Shall we be nonjudgmental there?
Another point: do people who will not defend themselves, have some call on others to defend or even defer to, them? If so, on what precise basis?
What basis for anything related to this?
When I first began discussions with progressives over the RKBA more than a decade ago, I posited (as many had done and continue to do) that a reasonable right to keep and bear arms logically followed from the natural right of self-defense and the preservation of one’s life.
I was fortunate enough to early on encounter an exasperated liberal who, unguarded, replied: “You have no natural right to life or to anything else.”
That saved a lot of wasted discussion time.
We know of course that this is what they, both liberals and Islamists, believe. We know it because we infer it; because virtually every moral formulation they make implies it, and because if you read enough of their primary sources you don’t have to wait around for an annoyed leftist to just blurt it out. Of course, and on the other hand, they also desire, or insist that you grant personally to them, what they deny in principle to you.
What would most people have done? I don’t know. My mother I am pretty sure would have turned to her child, sheltering it with her body as well as possible, and then said “Run!” But then she was a sincere and believing Catholic.
Oh, and speaking of female courage and the like, I was shocked to read my Grandmother’s letters to my Father, as he went, at 17, into the service at the tail end of WWII. She wrote to the effect of: “Be brave and honorable son. Obey your officers and do your duty”
Having grown up pretty cynical, I could not believe what I had read, even though I knew her well and admired her. What she might have said or done, or the many American women like her, I can only imagine.
It’s difficult to justify why personal bravery should be wasted on the French, who have helped destroy their own culture while proclaiming equality and fraternity. They were repaid with the Same Loyalty they gave to their own countrymen, and the Jews they gave to the Nazis some decades ago.
They got what was coming to them. Karma is difficult to question. It often doesn’t make sense, except when it does.
If they refuse to defend themselves, what is the point of wasting other lives on them? If they want to be free, then let them make themselves free by force of their arms. No force in their arms? Then let them die. Humanity has plenty where they came from.
DNW – the French wording is, “(…) deux hommes cagoulés et armés nous ont brutalement menacées”
The translation is fine, it means literally “they brutally threatened us”. In French, just as in English, one sometimes uses too extreme a language to express a point – but there is nothing in this story that would suggest it is _necessarily_ hyperbole and that the situation was _necessarily_ “less bad” than reported. We simply cannot know based on the formulation alone.
This is a good article, and you’re right – we simply don’t know which choice we are going to take until it happens to us – God willing, I’ll never have to face that choice.
“Leftist orthodoxy now accepts the innocence of Islamism as an article of faith,…” Richard Fernandez
That’s true, until… the threat gets personal. Until the threat moves from implicit to explicit.
“Do you think our elites won’t punch the door buttons to let the killers in to shoot us? They already have. They already have.”
Perhaps half of Americans are willing to face that truth, most of the rest are in denial but that denial is thin. ISIS’ earlier spate of beheadings created a temporary drop in Obama’s support among single mothers. All it takes to turn a soccer mom into a security mom is a personally explicit, plausible threat. The less denial can be supported, the less stable is the ground upon which the elite stand. The Guillotine was a resultant consequence of the French nobility’s divorcement from their society.
expat,
The suicidal aside, ‘white guilt’ has an expiration date for most of us. Survival trumps political correctness.
G Joubert ,
Count on it.
Parker,
Yes.
“All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplus, adornment, luxury, and folly, which can and must be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function. As racial (mankind’s) survival is the only universal morality, no other basic is possible. Attempts to formulate a “perfect society” on any foundation other than “Women and children first!” is not only witless, it is automatically genocidal.” R.A. Heinlein
Tonawanda,
Ultimately, it’s the overall message that counts.
Sharon W,
Never fear, the West’s denial of the existence of evil is temporary. Denial of evil is fuel for evil and, evil being evil it cannot help but use that strength to make its presence and existence increasingly clear.
There was supposed to be a social contract, the men would save the women and children (put them on lifeboats) so that the women and children would continue civilization by producing another generation, holding the memory of the sacrifice in legend.
That social contract is more or less broken. I’m not sure where Anna lives, but if she doesn’t live in the US, then obviously US feminism would affect her… why? I don’t note it as a bad thing, but organizations tend to have a limited area of operations. They don’t function internationally, usually, with the same power as their local chapters.
Individual contracts, between lovers and family, still hold. But between employees of the same company? Why would anyone die for their company? Do they even like the people they work with? The Left and their allies, Islamic Jihad, may die for their respective religions, but dying for a company is perhaps a step too far.
The protected must have a value to the protector, to deserve being protected vis a vis anyone else that the protector could be protecting instead. That was the concept between the Pax Americana, where Europe and Japan downgraded their defense and military capabilities in order for America to take charge and handle certain things. But being protected all the time also cripples a person’s ability to stand on their own, and makes them weak willed, cowardly even, since they always prefer the excuse of “let’s have America protect us, that’s what they are there for”. It makes them resentful, even, of their protector. They don’t know why, but it’s guilt really. They should be protecting their own lives and their own family, on their own strength, not by relying on foreigners to do it. And certainly not by kowtowing to foreigners in the way Israel did so often to appease America, only to be betrayed by America, as many other nations have been betrayed by American policy over the decades.
Hello Anna.
You seem to have understood exactly what I was suggesting … yes, “brutally menaced” in English carries the suggestion that the one uttering it is somewhat effete.
Hence my reference to the mocking use of the word “brutality” in entertainment; such as when complainingly used by the petty thief who was shot in the eye with a blank cartridge in the movie “In Bruge”.
I was therefore suggesting that it might be a phrase in which “brutality” has a somewhat different sense and is used in a different way than the cognate word might be used by a native speaker of English; just in the way we sneer at the word “robust” when used to denote strength. Though, it has become a popular catchphrase with economic reporters.
You are right though, to the extent that I don’t know the details, nor how the French conceive of “brutality” under ordinary circumstances.
Most people act instinctively in life threatening situations – instinct dictates self preservation. If that instinct didn’t exist, neither would any of us. Almost nobody critical of her would act differently, not in the time she had to decide and act.
Hell, For all she knew, they were going to take hostages, but not kill anyone.
As for this question “Do you think our elites won’t punch the door buttons to let the killers in to shoot us? ”
I have no doubt the elites like BO wouldn’ just punch the buttons, they’d escort them through the door and lead the way.
They’re no more fans of freedom of speech and liberty than these animals; they’re just too cowardly to get their own hands bloody.
I was struck by Richard Fernandez’s final sentence too. It is the perfect perspective on the larger meaning of the event.
Is Coco culpable? Yes. She did not have to punch in the code. She could have told the attackers the number has changed and that they will have to shoot out the glass of the front door (giving the people upstairs some advance warning of the coming danger). It’s not a perfect solution, but it relieves her of being directly responsible for letting them in without any warning. Will her colleagues ever want her back at work? No. She has shown herself to be unfriendly to their being, and they won’t forget it.
Somewhat off-topic–
Here are some heroic women, taking risks to save others. It happens:
Neo,
I don’t think anyone here is saying that this doesn’t or can’t happen. I would expect the first women to be exceptions would be the combat-trained Israeli women of the IDF. Even with them aside, stereotypes are neither rigid nor all inclusive. Furthermore, I expect (again stereotypically) women would respond more instantly and aggressively to an endangered child than to an endangered adult.
I suggest that is the female stereotype that we’re discussing here; at least I am.
DNW – A bit off-topic: it is only a personal impression, a personal “feel” that I cannot substantiate in any meaningful way, but I would say that words are somewhat “weaker” in English than in French. They are sufficiently “worn out” through disproportionate misuse in both languages (think of all of those careless “awesome”s and, in French, “formidable”s, that retain little of their literal power), but the effect seems to have been more devastating on English than on French. As I am rethinking “brutality”, while the word can certainly be employed overly readily or to comic ends in both languages, it seems to me – I repeat, no real grounds for claiming this, only an intangible personal “feeling” that may well differ from such feelings other English/French speakers may have – that in everyday speech the words are “stronger” in French. When I hear (out of context) “It was brutal” vs. “C’était brutal”, I think that I am more likely to assume the first to be a “weakened” expression, and the second one to be “stronger”, more likely to be used more seriously or literally.
Perhaps this impression is the function of my unequal exposure to or uneven knowledge of the two languages, but whatever it be, as a result, Coco using that word did not draw my eyes with “suspicion” when I read it in French – although I intuitively understood, reading your post, why it may have made you wonder. If I had originally read it in English, maybe I would have been tempted to assign less “strength” to the same sentence than reading it in French.
I had some reservations, at first. Modernism creeping in. Women, through all of time, have learned to submit, and to hide behind their sex. For them, for the most part, this works out. Messes with their heads, but that’s a squirrel nest of wires anyway, so… It is ingrained in women. No more could or should be expected. Instinct.
A woman who chose otherwise would be an incredible woman. Dead, but laudable. Why is it, however, do you think, that women live so long in spite of being viable for such a short time. Because they do yield.
Even the sins, religious or secular, of women, are different from men. This is why, for most of history, women have not been allowed access to power. Because they will yield it to fear and force far too easily. Nothing here, no story, nothing at all.
However, times have changed. She is very lucky she didn’t die along with her daughter anyway. This isn’t a sexual thing, but an ideological one. It is something that won’t forgive, doesn’t care about even biological natures. I do see it as a shame that they allowed her and her child to live, within the murderers’ worldview. Though tactically sound, as it will encourage others to betray trusts in the hopes of living themselves.
It’s a nasty world to contemplate sometimes. Especially some sources of it, in more ways than one.
That last bit rings very true. Too true and it is very scary indeed.
As for the woman named Coco; I will not judge her actions because none of us can say what we would do in that situation. And, God, how I hope none of us are ever faced with having to find out.
But, back to our “leaders” and that last bit – yep, a good many of them have already proven that they would be willing to “punch in the code” to kill us. And it isn’t just because they are faced with deadly threats. Nope, they are too willing to sell our safety for their own political gain. No need to rehash Benghazi, etc., here as the facts are all too clear.
Something was nagging at me. Something I swore to myself at the time I heard of it, never to forget.
I just recalled it, and had to come back here to drop this link.
A woman’s courage.
They should put up a monument to this young woman and emblazon her words on it.
In fact, they appear to have done so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristen_French
And why have our elites let Third Worlders into Europe and the U.S.?
1. For liberals to win elections; and
2. Cheap labor.
And that is one bad, bad deal.
Tonawanda:
I agree the West needs to destroy Islam. But we need to do it from the inside; undermine it.
And we do it through the women.
Check out Chris Buckley’s “Florence of Arabia.” Yes, it a humor book but it makes a great point. We beam in daytime TV shows into Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Shows modeled after Oprah and all that dreck. Soap operas too.
Themes and topics like polygamy doesn’t work. Genitial mutilation is not a good thing. Black from head to toe isn’t your best look. Having your sons droned is not pleasant.
Imagine if the best of Hollywood (paid by the CIA) produced that content. Now that’s a cultural revolution.
“Do you think our elites won’t punch the door buttons to let the killers in to shoot us? They already have. They already have.”
GOP Speaker Bonehead and the rest of the RINO elites have punched the door buttons to let the ungodly Libs (like Obola and his administration) come in the door to destroy us and this country.
RINO elites lack courage. They are cowards. Give all the RINOs the white feather.
“Do you think our elites won’t punch the door buttons to let the killers in to shoot us? They already have. They already have.”
The discussion about the difference between women and men above is interesting. I’m just thinking out loud (so to speak)here and reserve the right to change my mind at any time on the subject.
Ever since women got the right to vote our society has been a de facto matriarchy since women are the majority of our population. Women may rail against the evil patriarchy but our country has in fact been a matriarchy for generations now.
Over time Western Civilization, now a matriarchy, has become increasingly effeminate. The Democrat party should be labeled the women’s party since Democrats are totally dependent on the women’s vote for power. The gender gap is real and since women outnumber men the Democrats have a powerful demographic advantage which favors their ideas over time.
The left itself originated from depraved male brains but over time it has become captive to female power. Leftist females frequently allow their elite men to act like patriarchal barbarians (ex. Bill Clinton and his bimbos) so long as these men are useful to them in subjugating and humiliating the non-elite majority of men. Some people call these elite males alpha males although they are really little more than tools of their female patrons.
The feminists are the ones who have done everything possible to undermine the traditional male virtues and the male prerogatives which accompany those virtues. After they have destroyed their own men the liberated women’s own feminine nature kicks in and their contempt for effeminate men crashes in on them so they turn elsewhere to find virile men who still appear manly to them. This is why the majority of Western converts to Islam are women.
Feminists may not realize it, but by promoting effeminate men to power, and by using those effeminate men to destroy other men within their own society who should be their natural protectors, it is the women themselves who punched the door buttons and let the killers in.
Illuminati,
I might quibble with some details, but I don’t think you’re theses is entirely incorrect. Furthermore, isn’t the entire concept of a nanny state (i.e., Marxism) an overriding female approach to the world (we all need someone to look after us because children are incapable of making their own good choices)?
Just read Sultan Knish (H/T Instapundit). As I noted above, many many people are aware; the stumbling block is our dysfunctional ruling class. Apropos of this discussion, this is a must read.
The teaser:
The link:
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2015/01/lets-laugh-at-islam.html
AS a follow up to Sultan Knish, one might want to visit the following essay:
The teaser:
The link:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/396131/i-am-not-charlie-leaked-newsroom-emails-reveal-al-jazeera-fury-over-global-support
Funny how this never applied to Christianity, Judaism or Buddhism. I think it s time for Mohammed in a jar of urine or seeing “The Prophet’s” face in a rasher of bacon. Any brave curators out there?. . . Yeah, that’s what I thought!
Sorry to over-comment here, but I had to include one more. Was just over at Twitchy where I was reading tweets inspired by Joyce Carol Oates who defended not publishing the Mohammed cartoons:
The Tweet-of-the-day response:
The link:
http://twitchy.com/2015/01/09/who-scrambled-your-brains-joyce-carol-oates-scorches-herself-with-hot-take-on-charliehebdo/
If the US had more black operatives warring against the Left, here’s what they would be doing.
They would be creating fake twitters and other internet viral media, that insults the Prophet of Islam, while doing a false flag attributing it to Leftists.
Then it’s relatively easy to intimidate or have Islam kill their allies. Convenient, isn’t it.
From theothermccain.com (emphasis mine):
If their logic follows, then the west has the freedom to rid the world of their evil, but our dysfunctional political “betters” have their panties in a twist regarding potential Islamophobic backlash?
I think you could say that radical feminism and radical Islam are two sides of the same coin. Radical feminism is everything bad about femininity, and radical Islam is everything bad about masculinity.
Kinda reminds me of how the worst kind of women tend to fawn over and devote themselves to the worst kind of men, and how said men view said women as being convenient, but ultimately worthless and disposable.
Iluminati Says:
January 10th, 2015 at 6:23 am
I defend your right to make this argument.
I wonder if the Artful Dodger would concur with your thesis.
Radical feminism is everything bad about femininity, and radical Islam is everything bad about masculinity.
Feminism corrupted the original concept of female independence, into dependence on male power, victimhood, and sexual slavery (to market themselves and fund the feminist cause). So to them, a few women being raped or killed by the “lions of men” such as Ted Kennedy, is worth the price of power. Since it’s about elite women using rape and victimhood to put themselves on top of every other women and men, and then using stolen Power to keep it that way.
Islam focuses male aggression and fanaticism based upon also controlling feminist charms, sexual resource, and obedience. Isla Vista is a good example of Hollywood raping and damaging women, while also shunting off some socially awkward males to the sidelines, making them despise themselves, their father, or their mothers, to the point where they explode in violence. Track the records of every Leftist school shooting and some signs are obvious. A lot of it is rage towards their own family structures. Islam’s males cannot have access to sexual resources, except by going into the West. Thus they feel condemnation for the West’s weakness and also guilt about their own feelings. Islam provides those people a great outlet to relieve their guilt (kill heretics, Jews, and Westerners). Islamic high leaders, with their harems and polygamy, shunt off lower social status males, using them as cannonfodder and suicide bombers. So the idea of feminism vs Islamic male dominance is an apt one, although I prefer to think of feminism as one faction of the Leftist alliance, just as the Shia are just one fanatical faction of the Islamic Jihad.
Many other religions have had their holy symbols vandalized and insulted. Yet why are they not rioting and committing mass murder? If Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous as they say the right wing militias are, where are the dead bodies of the Left, do they even compare to the numbers the Left killed at WACO, including the children? Where are they then, Fast and Furious? No, it takes an already critical pressure of hate, angst, guilt, and rage before some insult to a prophet will set people off. Even Sharpton and Jackson needs to stoke up the black hate a few weeks in a row before something happens.
Humans talk about freedom and equality, but in truth they prefer to be slaves and prefer to Obey Authority. This is the natural result.
Illuminati – my take on your post, for whatever it is worth (keep in mind that I am young and stupid and live abroad, all of which are very good reasons to take whatever I claim with a grain of salt)
1) Realistically, the women’s vote is not going anywhere. The only way for it to be possible would be to large-scale modify the *overall* legal status of women, largely by assimilating it to that of children, following the shrinking of legal rights by the shrinking of legal responsibilities. It is inconsistent to deny vote to a group of people who are in principle subject to the same laws and, by now, largely to the same social expectations (as to their financial and overall independency). “Going back” would of necessity include all kinds of legal and cultural adaptations that are unlikely to be received well, and note that such “going back” would NOT be free of some built-in dangers and potentials for abuse of the system (both by men and women) – those would merely be *different* than the ones we are facing currently.
2) Realistically, the perfect mathematical equality of the sexes is impossible, as some things disciplined by the law will *of necessity* put one or the other sex in a better position, and the only question is which one we are going to pick. Consider all pregnancy-related decisions, for example: it is the woman who bears the direct physical consequences and the accompanying risks, and it makes sense that any laws implemented (even if you are pro-life) will give HER, not HIM, greater protections and greater range of choices, including such choices as will favor the decision to have the baby. Or, as we have discussed here, consider those extreme situations in which women are at a greater risk when in the “same” peril as men, due to their physical inferiority – most people seem to still be of the opinion that dismantling the traditional broad-brush preference for women is less morally acceptable than protecting women at the expense of men, even when they will agree that it is “unfair” in abstract.
And it is here that I invoke Christianity (note that it is quite irrelevant whether we are personally religious, I refer to it as to the “blueprint” underlying our society and values): our civilization has traditionally, in all such morally ambiguous situations, made allowances for the relatively weaker. In all cases in which actual “equality” was impossible, a systematic preference for the weak seems to have been the case – sometimes built-in in the very letter of the law, but even more often regarding the tacit cultural expectations – and what we are witnessing is a surge of a sort of ideology much closer to Rand’s anti-altruism than to Christianity and which goes against that “blueprint”, trying to undermine it. Feminism attempted to bring about a system which gives a leg-up to women BEYOND some of these traditionally granted protections (while simultaneously abdicating the women’s moral responsibility towards those who are THEIR weaker, such as their conceived children), exploiting the position of relative weakness and “generalizing” it to situations where the analogy is no longer applicable; “masculism”, however, would not strike the proper balance either and it seems to be equally dealing in fantasies of bringing about a “new world” of “equality” essentially built on going against the human nature. It is just as “Marxist”, if by “Marxism” we are going to consider a particular reading of History as a struggle of opposite interests, with an accompanying tale of a future “progress” – bref, palingénésie.
3) The women’s essential need for safety does not HAVE to be addressed by the legislative hypertrophy. Analogously, other social issues do not HAVE to be addressed by the State where they can properly (and more efficiently!) be addressed by means of private charity or other private initiative. My parents and grandparents swear that the world was once much more like that – that the pressure to act was internal, MORAL, rather than external, LEGAL.
But was it really the women’s vote PER SE that brought about the “externalization” resulting in the pathological growth of the State? Or could it be that it merely historically _coincided_ with the start of de-Christianization, as a sort of a half-way “emancipation” from altruism, by starting to charge the State with more and more of what used to be private responsibilities?
4) Anecdotally, I am not sure that I notice a statistical regularity, among people I know, concerning their sex and their place on the political spectrum. The absence of such regularity regards both Americans/expats and the autochtone Europeans. Europeans tend to have overall more “statist” leanings when compared against Americans, but I am not sure women are more “socialist” than men in either group. If anything, the more vocal proponents of any political option seem to be men, including all shades of socialism.
As always, it bears repeating that my anecdotal experience may not be representative of dynamics in the wider society.
5) More good news for the end: most young people I know are a lot more sane than usually credited. I am not sure whether it is the effect of the better (informal) education in the internet era or of the disillusionment with the world handed over to us by our parents’ generation, but if anything, most genuine “conversions” by young people I know of tend to be FROM liberalism – not TO it, many young “public liberals” are hypocrites fully aware of their hypocrisy but afraid to speak their true minds (and they do gain the needed courage as they grow up), and most people my age (mid 20s) seem to be experiencing the “opposite” generational clash with their parents as they find themselves LESS liberal than the latter, not more.
Kinda reminds me of how the worst kind of women tend to fawn over and devote themselves to the worst kind of men, and how said men view said women as being convenient, but ultimately worthless and disposable.
One of the weirder moments I’ve encountered by triangulating different cultural knowledge is that one. Usually in the West, if a woman acts extremely subordinate to a male, in a kind of relationship, there is this expectation that she is low value or that the male will mistreat her.
And yet, we do not expect a military captain to mistreat his privates and sergeants merely because those lower echelon subordinates are subordinate and inferior (in status and rank) to the captain, do we? If the captain is sadistic or incompetent, that is one thing, but there is no natural assumption that a superior is always or naturally cruel to their subordinates… unless we’re watching some American Hollywood based school drama, that is.
So this cultural expectation is contamination, the poison of the Left. There are historical situations and other places which do not treat their subordinate women as scum. That’s because there is a proper chain of command.
There is nothing harmful about a woman subordinating herself to a more competent leader, male they may be. There is nothing harmful about a little sister subordinating herself to the older and wiser siblings in terms of obedience to rules or tactics. The harm only comes from Obeying Evil Authority or incompetent Authority. The Left posits, however, that all Western Authority is evil, that the Constitution is evil, and that the Founding Fathers were slave owners and thus evil, so you shouldn’t obey them. But if that is so, why obey the Leftist Alliance? Because they aren’t evil? They have twisted things. Islam twists things as well.
The responsibility of the superior to his subordinates and the responsibility of that subordinate to his superior, is unknown or at least very fuzzy in a non military context. Western society used to know what it was all about, what the rules were, until the Left destroyed the rules and then burned the contract itself. So right now the zombies obey authority, but have no idea why they are obeying authority. They are mindless in obedience, which is the problem. If they were obeying their leader because they thought their leader was on the side of good and protecting them, that would be different. Yet the Left would obey their leaders regardless of how many women and children end up dead or raped due to the actions of those leaders, rendering that into a cult ala Jim Jones. They Obey only because of fear, coercion, or religious fanaticism, nothing else. There is no free will involved, that is why Obeying Authority becomes a problem.
People used to understand why an older brother would protect his younger siblings, irregardless of gender. People used to understand why a combat leader would protect his subordinates, in return for loyalty. People used to understand a lot of things before the Left made them into slaves.
Just thinking it might be helpful to have an emergency code that would open the door but send a silent alarm, notify police and perhaps lock an additional access door. No one can cast blame on her for doing this.
Anna:
You may be young, but there’s never been a thing in your posts that indicates stupidity of any sort. Au contraire.
Anna (@1:58 above),
My suggestion to you is this: Do not devalue what you write simply due to age or perceived lack of experience. Whether one agrees or disagrees with any of your thoughts, there is much “meat” in what you have written. Do not express your “humble” opinion. Lord knows, no one else here does (including myself). Just express your opinion FWIW.
Now, a couple of reactions to your thoughts:
“It is inconsistent to deny vote to a group of people who are in principle subject to the same laws and, by now, largely to the same social expectations”
And yet women generally still have one overriding advantage in the vote. They can elect a government which will send young men to their deaths in war and yet remain immune from that direct responsibility themselves.
“But was it really the women’s vote PER SE that brought about the “externalization” resulting in the pathological growth of the State? Or could it be that it merely historically _coincided_ with the start of de-Christianization, as a sort of a half-way “emancipation” from altruism, by starting to charge the State with more and more of what used to be private responsibilities?
I am not sure women are more “socialist” than men”
I have been told by several women in my field (financial services) that the key to working with women is to understand that they want to be/feel safe. To extend protection of the self from the male of the species to the nanny state seems to be a natural extension of such a female priority whether it is initiated by women or by feminized men.
Furthermore, I am speaking of stereotypical behavior here, not some rigid all inclusive rule (see my comment above @ 8:35 pm). Sarah Palin and Dana Loesch would support your point about women not being more socialist than men, Barbara Boxer and Sheila Jackson lee would demolish it.
Also I think there can be a congruence of male and female sympathies in the rise of a large state. The classic alpha male goal is to exert control. If the classic female goal is to create overriding safety and support then both goals are fulfilled with the expansion of the nanny state.
“most genuine “conversions” by young people I know of tend to be FROM liberalism — not TO it
. . . generational clash with their parents as they find themselves LESS liberal than the latter, not more.”
We can only hope.
Doug Park,
They have such codes on home alert systems. They are called “Duress Codes.”
Doug Park and T,
I was thinking the same thing. We need an evaluation of whether things that make us feel safe really work.
The main fallacy in this reasoning about innocence of jihadi boys is framing the debates in the terms of guilt or innocence, that complitely belong to realm of Judeo-Christian morality to which these non-humans have no relation. We shoot a rabid dog not because we consider it guilty but because of its danger to us.And we kill enemy soldiers not because of believe their guilt but because we defend our country. It is a war, and war always implies collective, not individual responsibility and collective punishment irrespective of individual guilt or lack of it. That why we firebombed Dresden and nuked Hiroshima.
The comparison of fanatical muslim belivers with rabid dog is not mine, it belongs to Churchill who wrote that Mahometanism in man is just as dangerous as rabbies in a dog.
Sergey,
That really does reframe the argument.
That’s a funny thing from Sergey, since it’s exactly what the Left thinks of Islam, as dogs. If you walk into a yard with Beware Dog signs, start hitting the dogs, and then get killed by dogs… how do you think most people would react?
That’s why the Left thinks Charlies committed suicide by X, aka suicide by cop.
The Left also tends to use even the same tactics as Islam. If Islam needs an invitation from the West to infiltrate, the Left also needs an invitation to get in the door. Once in, however, that institution becomes legitimately theirs and they control it, blocking out any competition views. It worked for the unions. It worked for the feminist movement. It worked for the black movement. It worked for pink SF and pink gamer industries.
Once a Leftist starts talking about inclusion, toleration, and equality, and you take a few on your staff, your organization is going to get hijacked sooner or later.
Anna
I didn’t make any suggestions about how we could remedy the problems caused by our matriarchy. I agree with you that it is not possible to put the women’s vote back into the bottle, and I’m not recommending that. That genie has escaped long ago. We have no choice but to live in the World we inherited including the fact that so long as the West is democratic in nature it will remain a de facto Matriarchy. I do believe that we need to educate ourselves about the lies of the left. One of those lies is the fantasy that Western women in democratic capitalistic countries are the victims of an almighty patriarchy and need the protection of the left. This lie encourages women to seek protection from leftist elites who claim they are there to protect women from lower status men. This serves the interests of the leftist elite at the expense of the rest of society.
Ironically, when the left succeed in establishing their tyranny, the status of women always seems to change for the worse. Any move towards totalitarianism shifts power to the more physically and mentally ruthless members of the population which usually means dominant or sociopathic males. As one 1960’s American revolutionary said, “the place of women in our revolution is on their backs.” Democracy with capitalism is the best way to protect human rights in general and women’s rights in particular.
Ymarsakar Says:
January 10th, 2015 at 4:55 pm
“That’s a funny thing from Sergey, since it’s exactly what the Left thinks of Islam, as dogs. If you walk into a yard with Beware Dog signs, start hitting the dogs, and then get killed by dogs… how do you think most people would react?
That’s why the Left thinks Charlies committed suicide by X, aka suicide by cop.”
The problem here is that the dogs are running loose in our yard, not theirs.
PS this is the only discussion I have seen about Coco’s dilemma, probably because there is no easy answer.
The point about the alarm is well-taken, especially since CH did have guards at one time, and knew they were likely targets.
http://www.lemonde.fr/police-justice/article/2015/01/09/you-are-going-to-pay-for-insulting-the-prophet_4552927_1653578.html
The concern is not with a bad decision made under intolerable pressure. The real concern is whether there was premeditation/collaboration on the part of Coco Rey. Read this detailed account of the shooting reported yesterday in Le Monde. The encounter with Coco Rey is described very differently, and her daughter has completely vanished from the narrative. Perhaps something has been lost in translation from the French?
T: “And yet women generally still have one overriding advantage in the vote. They can elect a government which will send young men to their deaths in war and yet remain immune from that direct responsibility themselves.”
I am not sure what to make of the legal controversy surrounding the question of male-only draft. I will remind, however, that even in those countries where women are subject to being drafted or required to sign up for a sort of selective service there remains in effect a double standard as to the actual protocols, standards, and exemptions applicable to men and to women. The basic physiological differences, the fitness standards that can be reasonably reached, as well as the relative dangers when put in the “same” situation, remain such as to make the military enterprise overall a lot more dangerous for women than for men. This is one of those areas where ensuring an “equal” treatment for men and women will in practice not produce “equality” (of chances to survive, of health hazards following extreme physical toil etc.), but puts women in a relatively *worse* position than men. Of course, the current system where women are exempt from such an obligation potentially puts *men* in a worse position than women. It seems to go back to my point n. 2 – there are situations where, true equality being impossible, an “unfair” choice will have to be made and the question is whom do we favor. So far, our civilization has made such choices as to protect the relatively weaker.
An argument could be made that a solution “fair enough” would be to require both men and women to sign up for selective service, but subject them to the *same* fitness standards in case of a mobilization, which would de facto eliminate most women (and some men, of course – never forget that whenever a mobilization actually occurred, it was not truly *universal* for the relevant age group, as there have always been health and fitness exemptions) – that way, one would be *in principle* fair by imposing the same obligations to everyone, but one would also respect, *in practice*, those physiological differences (although some female-specific hazards would remain – without being too graphic, there are some risks specific to female physiology than men would not face, so EVEN if women were judged by the more stringent male fitness standards, they would not be in a position of equal protection).
However, an equally sound counter-argument could be advanced (and HAS been advanced many times when the question of women in combat – women who were in military by CHOICE – was discussed) by claiming, on purely *utilitarian* grounds, that it is not cost-effective to erect an entire system of checking potential candidates the vast majority of whom will ultimately fail to perform. So, a broad-brush exemption for women qua women could remain both on the utilitarian grounds and on the grounds that, if we cannot protect women to the extent to which men would be protected, it is better to “overprotect” them by exemption than to “underprotect” them and then have them, e.g., get impregnated by rape when caught as POWs (a risk no biological men faces, but every biologically functional woman does). An extreme example.
However, I detect further problems with the idea that the vote and the draft are *necessarily* linked. It is, once more, one of those things that are perhaps more of historical coincidences than two aspects of citizenship between which there is a *logical* connection.
One, the US has a professional army – and it is not only people who chose to go through it that can vote, but the civilian public as well. This goes against the historical tradition, in some other places, that truly establishes a *direct* link between belonging to the military and the right to vote. So, you cannot invoke that reasoning.
Two, even in case of a mobilization, there is only a subset of a population that is potentially affected – and which subset of a population depends on SEVERAL variables, of which sex is but one. Other variables are age, health, even some matters of conscience (there is a place for divinity exemptions, separate deals for pacifists or for those who refuse to bear arms etc.). So, to present the legal and the moral problem EXCLUSIVELY through the prism of the sex variable is misleading – it is not “only” women who can vote men into conscription, but ALSO the disabled who can vote the able-bodied into it (on a smaller scale) and the older who can vote the younger in (and do we not have such a phenomenon, politicians who are very much into the war… after THEY and THEIR sons are past the age to potentially be drafted?).
You could argue, at this point, that the sex variable has a greater *relative* significance than some other variables, as women make up half of the population, while the disabled do not (although you may be surprised what kinds of health issues would get you an exemption in most militaries, including the US forces – once I found online a document with health standards for women, NOT fitness “performance” standards, but health standards that come before any physical tests, and much to my surprise I realized there were *several* I did not meet, yet I never thought of myself as *exceptionally* frail). However, it goes both ways in some other legal issues that can potentially put demands on women’s bodies – men make up half of the population and they, too, vote for political parties that may limit or entirely outlaw abortion (or, if we imagine an exceptionally morally sick party, DEMAND that women have abortion in some cases), although THEIR bodies would not be directly affected if the laws were changed. So, it is not that one half of the population has a leg-up of a kind that *structurally* does not exist for the other half of the population if they both have that vote. In fact, it would be quite an absurdity to strip women of vote on account of not drafting them *potentially*, YET allow men to continue to vote for legislature relative to pregnancy-related questions that will never affect their own bodies… and all of that while drafting them only potentially, only during eight years of their lives, which *in practice* means that for most of them it will remain a theoretical obligation, while for *most* women pregnancy will not remain theoretical.
And then there is of course the question whether the ban on women in combat now being lifted changes things. I am not sure – first, women who join military voluntarily are usually already physically exceptional AND STILL largely fail to meet LOWERED combat standards; and second, the reasoning by which women are ALLOWED in, warned of the specifics of their situation, cannot be the same reasoning extended to a situation in which they are REQUIRED to do so.
In fact the longer I dwell upon this question, the more convinced I am that the typical optics proposed for debating female draft (in function of “equal” citizenship) is anchorated to what are, essentially, moot points – and rests on the idea of *logical* necessity between the draft and the vote. Of the same kind that is NOT invoked when disabled men, or older men who have not gone through the military, or even legal aliens (!) are concerned. Would not the most urgent “inequality” to address, as regards draft, be to stop asking those residents who are not even CITIZENS to sign up for selective service? Casting the question of selective service and draft in EXCLUSIVELY sex terms is, I repeat, misleading, the question being much more complex and I have probably not done a good job of pointing out to ALL of its sides that ought to be considered.
Incidentally, in France they do have “selective service” for women too – not a real database of potential draftees, but more of a database for an non-better-specified “national” service and not signing up for it comports largely analogous “administrative” penalties as not signing up for selective service for the US male citizens (you cannot get some official documents issued, access the matriculation exams etc. for some number of years). But, residents who are not citizens are not required to sign up, nor those naturalized after they are 25 years old. And even in case of a mobilization, it is not specified that the protocols for mobilizing women would be the same as those for mobilizing men (and by the way, France still has a ban on women in some branches of combat).
Do not present Israel as a counter-argument. It is not a good analogy, military service is different for men and women, and one of ways in which it is different is precisely that women cannot be REQUIRED to go into combat – they can do so voluntarily under certain conditions, but they cannot be obligated. As a result, the combat training you brought up in one of your posts is either voluntary (real combat service) or you are referring to the basic initial training that lasts a few weeks and is nowhere near the training that the combatants later receive. Also, the actual combat service for women who choose it is still in some aspects different from those for men, and much argumentation has been advanced against women in combat AT ALL on accounts of tactical and optimization questions, as well as not exposing women to the risk of becoming captured.
Also, while we are speaking of Israel, really that is probably the worst example you can choose to base your argument that there is a *necessarily* link between the draft and the vote. Israel systematically excludes *huge* segments of its citizens from draft by policy, starting with the Arab population, non-Jewish women (the national & the religious criterion of exemption), Jewish men and women who get religious exemptions… factor in various exceptions on other grounds (health, mental health etc.) as well as multiple fictitious exemptions granted to avoid the scandal of COs, you get about half a population that does not *actually* serve, and DOES vote. Again, it is highly hypocritical and misleading to cast that question specifically in the optics of men-and-women, as in that particular case the relevant variables are different ones, so the half population that does not serve is not divided on the sex lines.
And all of what I wrote does not even BEGIN to advance any sort of “traditionalist” argumentation that could also rightly be presented; indeed, a society placing its nurturers and future incubators of its babies ON THE FRONTLINES, by law, with all fo the risks and the long-term consequences that come from it, may be argued to be a crazy one. That is, ultimately, “collectivist” reasoning, but it is impossible to do away with the considerations of physiological inequality even from such an optics. Even in Israel they do not do it, T. EVEN IN ISRAEL, a country that is living under a constant nuclear threat, demographical threat (another reason NOT to expose women even to “equal”, let alone to greater risks than men face), and waging a pretty much constant war on its territory.
So, to repeat what I said at the beginning of this… essay, more than a post: I am not sure what to make of the question and ultimately it is one of those things where a legal solution, in any direction, will be “unfair”. The question is only whether it will be the Christian version of “unfair” (“overprotecting” the relatively weaker) or some other version of “unfair”.
Neo, I apologize. I understand that it is not alright to monopolize your web space for essay-length “comments”, it is just that this particular question (draft and female citizenship) is a sort of a pet peeve of mine, so now that I finally got around to verbalizing what I have been ruminating about it for years, I decided to post it in its entirety. I will do my best to downsize my comments in future discussions.
Anna,
First off, clearly having touched a nerve here, I want it to be clear that I am not/was not arguing for the abolition of women’s suffrage. I was simply making a point based upon your critique.
Actually, I’m not particularly fond of the one person — one vote concept. I my personal preference would be to require voters to have some skin in the game. The problem is that defining such “skin” would basically create a fluctuating system akin to gerrymandering with any ascendant party defining it to their advantage.
On to your essay.
Your expansion of the population to the disabled and others is a valid point. The abortion parallel is, I believe somewhat more clouded. Why? Because in one event a govt sends young men to war; in the other we’re talking about a life that was created by two people. I do not want to see women treated as chattel and forced to accommodate men in the issue of pregnancy and abortion; but some form of input and responsibility of both the father and mother should IMO be the norm.
You write:
I submit that it is precisely theoretical until a woman actually does become pregnant. You imply your agreement to this by pointing out, yourself, that it will not remain theoretical. In this 21st century a woman has a great deal of control over that. Even considering unexpected pregnancies, yes it will change a young woman’s life (it should change the young man’s life, too), but that’s a far cry from lying dead on the battlefield and having no life at all.
I simply said that women get to vote for a govt that sends young men to war; that is a true statement. They do. I didn’t cast that fact as an exclusive element of either the vote or of the draft. To think that I did so is reading one’s own biases into that statement.
I never did. IMO you are again allowing your own bias to color what I wrote. Re-read my post at 8:35 pm. You’ll see that it addresses Neo’s proffer of women who were, in her own words, ‘”taking risks to save others.” Also re-read my citation of that post in my earlier response to you (@2:47 pm). It has nothing to do with the question of the draft. It was apropos of your query about externalization and the pathological growth of the state. My point was that I do not expect women to place themselves in danger. My mention of the women in the IDF cited them as a possible exception to that because of their military training. Your two paragraphs are non-sequiturs to this discussion.
It seems as though you are here confirming my initial point about the draft. Even in Israel women who have the vote will not be put on the front lines.
.
In my mind “fair” is such a ephemeral term; it can mean what anyone wants it to mean at any given moment. If not unfair, then certainly at least uneven. I have no disagreement with your point, though.
IMO a false premise here (or at least an overstatement of the case). Who is to say that an alternate solution would not be Christian? One of the major irritants in my life is to see weaker people being “picked on” simply becausd they are weaker. I have interceded in several such situations in my life. However, to use that as the yardstick against which to measure Christian intent is a gross oversimplification. Being the underdog does not automatically confer any moral superiority. The weaker is sometimes the evil player.
There are problems with the abortion parallel (at least the way that I worded it) to an even greater extent than the one you selected for your reply; unfortunately, I could not address all of the relevant points to frame it properly. I had in mind a prospect of a pro-life policy that would do away with all of the exceptions that are sometimes admitted, by which the two situations do become more nearly analogous: a person who has not “chosen” it being forced to assume very high-stake risks. While rape is rare, and while it is even medically less likely for a woman to become pregnant in such stressful conditions, occasionally it does happen and it creates a difficult morally ambiguous situation. I live in a Catholic country and there are people who would like to see implemented a legal model that would not only limit abortion, but de facto outlaw all of it (much closer to the El Salvador model than to the Polish model). Incidentally, I do happen to have such ethical positions as would qualify for a “pro-life” position, but I am having a hard time reconciling to the dismantling of the few legal exceptions in morally ambiguous cases.
The reason why that angers me is two-fold. One, as far as the actual lifestyle is concerned, I am far more “Catholic” than most Catholics here, to the point of being more vulnerable to finding myself in such a morally ambigous situation than they are precisely *because* I am more “practically Catholic” than they are (e.g. not protected by oral contraceptives). Two, most of the vocal anti-abortionists seem to be men, who by the very definition will never find themselves in such a situation. The two factors, in combination with some health issues which put me at a considerably greater risk for certains kinds of complications in future pregnancies (I am unmarried yet, so at the moment it is not a consideration, but I do wish to have children), create a surreal situation: people who, in theory, approve of my choices, are the very same people who believe that I *ought to be legally obligated* to assume very high personal risks in what is admittedly a very unprobable case, but theoretically possible. So, when comparing pregnancy-related legislation with draft, perhaps I was overly influenced by this particular perspective, without clearing it enough.
I find myself in agreement with the rest of your post, except perhaps with some of the last paragraph. While I certainly recognize that positions of relative weakness can be and ARE sometimes exploited to gain personal advantage and to put unreasonable strain (but, who defines “reasonable”?) to the stronger, it does seem to me that the moral genius specific to Christianity lies in the built-in “structural” preference for the weak of the kind I have not found in any other philosophy or worldview (which may also speak of my own ignorance, of course). I am not sure to what extent an “egalitarian” model would be compatible with what I see as Christianity, even without touching the (very relevant) issue of the arguably different intended roles for men and women and the question of whether it is, legal “equality” aside, *becoming* for a woman to assume a role of a protector and for a man to ask that. However, provided that *I* am too weak for Christianity in general, and in those matters as would directly concern prospects of my own sacrifice in particular (e.g. I cannot, for the life of me, swallow any legal treatment of abortion that does away with those few exceptions, even if I understand that I am engaging in a form of intellectual dishonesty as I understand where, for some of those exceptions, the root ethical inconsistencies lie), I do not find that I have any moral claim to anybody else’s conscience. My reference to Christianity is “cultural”, the way that I redefined it before.
Overall, we probably largely agree?
Actual full “equality” is impossible, as there will be of necessity be situations that will have to be solved one way or the other and it will not be even; men and women are constitutionally different and in consequence more prone to different moral pitfalls; it is possible to exploit both positions of relative strength and relative weakness and human beings, wretched creatures as they are, will find very creative ways to do both; the legal and the moral obligation should not necessarily *coincide*; in practical terms, often we will be faced with the necessity to choose among several evils, and we will not be able to prefer one to another on any but “utilitarian” grounds, while fully aware of the fact that utilitarianism, too, is a moral pitfall on its own and very bad things can result. That would be a more complete conclusion.
My analysis of the solution for people who have the vote but are too weak to stand up for themselves so they end up selling the vote to the highest rapist or criminal bidder, is to take everyone that benefits from welfare or government subsidies, and kill their ability to vote. Temporarily, if needed, but so long as they can’t vote… the government will have to find another way to game democracy. And we all know they will, but at least they’ll leave the voters alone and will have no reason to invite in Islamo rapists to increase their voting population. Well, they’ll probably still do it to spite Western traditionalism.
In the modern world, women aren’t necessarily more dependent on the government than men. It may look that way demographically but anyone on welfare or anyone being subsidized by the government, is in fact the problem, not the solution. Got to find a way to turn them back into productive, loyal, and patriotic citizens. As well as assimilating more citizens.
A civilization that loses its women and citizens to evil Leftists and Islamic Jihadists… won’t be a civilization for long.
Anna,
“Overall, we probably largely agree?”
I would say so!
It’s discussions like this that keep me coming back to Neo’s site. They constantly force readers to think clarify, and refine their positions so often resulting in seeing an issue from yet another point of view.
Ymarsaker,
This is part of the source of my pet peeve, too. Understand I would exempt Social Security retirees because, although they receive govt checks, they are receiving govt payments based upon a contract having paid into a system.
BTW I quite like the phrasing “the govt gaming democracy.” So simple yet so accurate.
Also I never intended to imply that women were more dependent than men on the nanny state (whether that is true is yet another discussion). My point, somewhere above, was simply that if one is looking for an ultimate father figure as an ultimate protector, then the nanny-state fits that bill (among others).
Clearly the problem is more complicated and murky than just that. For instance, legislators are given the tool of passing laws. So when a legislator sees a problem, passing yet another law is his/her fall back position. Intrusive govt grows from that perspective, too.
My point is that forces seem to converge and yet they always seem to converge to the disadvantage of the citizen and taxpayer. This makes Franklin’s quip about keeping a republic even more prescient than we realize. It must be actively tended not just passively enjoyed. I fear we have been poor stewards in that regard.
My point, somewhere above, was simply that if one is looking for an ultimate father figure as an ultimate protector, then the nanny-state fits that bill (among others).
I understand that, I wasn’t arguing against it. My mention of the gender gap or inequality, had more to do with the thinking listed before concerning why voting by women was or wasn’t good for independence in society. It was the line that women were historically subordinate to power and had more reasons to submit to it, than go against it. That was certainly one society version, but the modern society has different end results on that.
That ties in directly with the welfare system that has weakened much of the civic virtues in England, America, Canada, Australia, France, etc. Certainly the argument back in the day against 1st generation suffragettes was that women were too dependent on men and other people, to be able to vote their conscience, thus the vote was wasted on them. In response, many women organizations sought to prove their benefit to society and their stern will, even if that made them scary or radical or unfeminine. British women who wanted the vote, obtained Japanese instruction in judo in order to serve as body guards and prevent their speakers from being jailed or harassed. Some of that was due to necessity and not relying on men, the other part was that it was proof that women could be independent and strong like men, thus backing their argument for the vote.
Now that they do have the vote, there’s no particular reason for them to act that strong. So a lot of the gender gap propaganda these days is about something else, aka the matriarchy perhaps.
The 1820s Democrat slave owners also believed that women and blacks were born to fit their social roles. That the best self interest of blacks were to serve in the fields and in the house as servants to their wiser and more enlightened masters.
They really thought that, Christianity or no Christianity. The Northerners disagreed, so to the South it was the War of Northern Aggression much like white police are the “Man” to the Sharptons and other black slaves of the Democrats. The “Man” is keeping them down. It made a sort of natural sense to Democrats back then that the North was out for tyranny and aggression, since disarming slaves and putting them in their place was a Democrat cultural phenomenon and civic duty back then. It made natural sense that other people would act the way Southerner Democrats thought that any natural person would act like, using force to suppress dissent. What they disliked was the Northern States’ ability to refuse federal fugitive and slave escape laws, when they refused to enforce them. So the South’s “freedom” was essentially the freedom to use the Federal Government to FORCE northern states to give them back their damn property. Anyways, that’s another topic, Civil War I having failed to end slavery, now requiring Civil War II to finish the job in the US.
The reason why I brought this point up concerned how so many Americans believe the self interest of blacks and women and other victim like minorities belong to the Democrat party or to the Left’s Progress Towards Evil future. I’ve seen stuff like this before, but it looks like I’m in the minority here. The rest will just have to learn as they go, ala Soddom.