from What Happened, Hillary Rodham Clinton

Caveat: Rodham’s book is about way more than Trump, but that’s the part I was most interested in.

 

Furthermore, her chapter on sexism is, in my opinion, far too brief and superficial; I’d attribute Lauer’s questions for her on NBC’s Commander in Chief Forum to sexism, if not outright misogyny.

 

“… I saw him dominate a debate with a crowded field of talented Republican candidates—not with brilliant ideas or powerful arguments but with ugly attacks that drew gasps …”  7

 

“[Trump] was wrong about so much.  There had been seventy-five straight months of job growth … Twenty million more people had health insurance … Crime was still at historic lows.  Our military remained by far the most powerful in the world.  These are knowable, verifiable facts.  Trump stood up there in front of the world and said the exact opposite … Listening to Trump, it almost felt like there was no such thing as truth anymore.”  8

 

“To abandon facts is to abandon freedom.  If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so.  If nothing is true, than all is spectacle.” Timothy Snyder, On Tyranny [quoted on p9]

 

“If [Trump] stood up tomorrow and declared that the Earth is flat, his counselor Kellyanne Conway just might go on Fox News and defend it as an ‘alternative’ fact’ … ” 9

 

“It quickly became evident that normal debate prep wouldn’t work this time.  Trump wouldn’t answer any question directly.  He was rarely linear in his thinking or speaking.  He digressed into nonsense and then digressed even more.  There was no point in refuting his arguments like it was a normal debate—it was almost impossible to identify what his arguments even were, especially since they changed minute to minute.  Winning, we realized, would mean hitting hard (since he couldn’t bear it), staying cool (since he often resorted to viciousness when cornered), throwing his own words back at him (since he couldn’t stand hearing them) and making my own arguments with clarity and precision (since he couldn’t do the same for himself).” 105-6

 

“… White House Communications Director for George W. Bush has warned that the Republican Party is in danger of being ‘permanently associated with misogyny’ if leaders don’t stand up to Trump’s treatment of women.”  137  Yup.  Done.

 

“And he has a penchant for saying absurd things such as ‘I know more about ISIS than the Generals do, believe me.’  Nobody believed him.  In fact, more than a hundred senior national security officials from Republican administrations publicly denounced him.  Many signed a letter warning that Trump ‘lacks the character, values, and experience’ to be Commander in Chief.  They wrote that he would be ‘the most reckless President in American history’ and would ‘put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.'”  218  Yup.  Done.

 

“Trump didn’t care about policy at all.  He seemed proud of his ignorance and didn’t even pretend to come up with plans for how he’d build his wall, fix health care, bring back all the lost jobs in manufacturing and coal mining, and defeat ISIS.”  232

 

“The ongoing normalization of Trump is the most disorienting development of the presidential campaign …” Jonathan Chait [quoted on p318]

 

“Trump doesn’t think in terms of morality or human rights, he thinks only in terms of power and dominance.”  334

 

“… despite repeated bankruptcies and even though most American banks refused to lend to him … ”  335  Right.  So where is he getting his money from?

In every roomful of men …

https://zawn.substack.com/p/5-statistics-about-misogynistic-violence

“Dating men is statistically the most dangerous thing a woman can do—followed closely by living with and having children with men.”

Men, read that sentence again. And again. And again. Until you get it.

“The specific statistics each study uncovered vary a bit, as you might expect. But the findings remain incredibly consistent. They show that in any roomful of men, no matter how you define abuse or violence, there will be many men who have engaged in both.”

“Ninety-five percent of men admit to using sexually coercive tactics.”

Excellent piece on calling women crazy

https://zawn.substack.com/p/why-is-patriarchy-so-obsessed-with

“We tell women deprived of sleep and support in the postpartum period that their exhaustion must be due to their crazy woman hormones. When girls enter puberty—and the world of dehumanization and male abuse it brings—we pretend their distress is due to vague “puberty hormones.” And when, after a lifetime of exploitation, women are angry, tired, and keen to get away from problematic men, we tell them their problem must be menopausal rage …”

“This woman-specific craziness somehow makes women incapable of ever being honest or rational …”

“Men are victimizing women en masse. It is men, not women, reacting in unhinged ways to normal human experiences like rejection. …”

“A woman is asked to go weeks or months without sleep while recovering from a major medical event, and almost always, she just does it, no matter how bad she feels. / Yet somehow we continue to believe that men are logical …”

But do read the whole thing!

How to talk about AI

Excellent article by Emily M. Bender and Nanna Inie about how to talk about AI to avoid anthropomorphizing (because, yes, words matter!) (and no, AI isn’t conscious, can’t communicate, has no agency) at https://buttondown.com/maiht3k/archive/how-to-talk-about-ai-without-adding-to-the/

I expecially like their list of alternatives:

artificial intelligenceprobabilistic automation
hybrid intelligenceaugmented human intelligence
image recognitionimage labeling
speech recognitionautomatic transcription
the model shows biasthe model reflects bias
model mistakesmodel errors
chatbots are good at …chatbots are good for …
hallucinationundesirable output
goalsuccess condition

prompttext input
answeroutput
chatbot / conversational agentconversation simulator

ChatGPT assisted studentsthe students used ChatGPT
revealing the solutiondisplaying the solution
AI agentprobabilistic, unverified software manipulator

who’s right?is the machine output correct?
they produce resultsthe team uses it [the system] to produce results

 

A woman alone

“When a woman is all alone, she stands out as a woman, but she becomes invisible as a person.”

Malcolm Gladwell (in Revenge of the Tipping Point, p123) paraphrasing Rosabeth Moss Kanter, who is speaking about women in groups, such as at work or in sport.

Bbut I’m thinking it describes women in life, in general.

from Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan

I used to think Trump was just stupid.

Then I thought he was just a front man, a puppet, for oil CEOs and other rich people.

Now I realize that he is, perhaps in addition to the above, really good at blackmailing people for whatever he wants.

Reading this book has released me of my addiction to youtube videos in my attempt to understand what the fuck.

“But beyond the bare concept, no actual plans for the department [DOGE] yet existed. Musk carried himself with the bravado of a man accustomed to ruling his companies by fiat, but that was not the way the government worked. He had only the vaguest sense of the mammoth problem that he had set himself to fix. He had little knowledge of the labyrinthine federal system, nor how its budget functioned. And he had even less interest in the Constitution, which could severely hobble the dramatic unilateral reengineering of the government he imagined.” 45

“Underscoring just how ad hoc the [tariff] plan was, at one point in the meeting, Trump realized that he had forgotten to include China. ‘Where are they?’ he asked. Off the top of his head, he added, ‘Put them in for ten.’” 90 [Later, he’d raise it to 125%.]

“… Trump and Miller decided to redefine the very concept of an ‘emergency’ [to justify executive orders]. … Trump declared a national energy emergency, citing ‘inadequate energy supply’ even though the United States was energy independent when he returned to office, with domestic oil production at a record high.” 94

“One Republican senator said later that he could not believe ‘how poorly thought through the tariff strategy was. It’s not clear what their objectives is, let alone their strategy. And it seemed to change from day to day. Sometimes the stated goal was to raise revenue. Sometimes it was to eliminate the trade deficit with every country. Sometimes it was a negotiating tool.” 119

The whole second section, “Retribution” — Talk about misusing the office of the President. Stunning. Absolutely stunning. How did he get away with all those personal take-downs? Blackmail. As President, he could do anything. Take away a broadcasting licence. Prevent a merger. And how did he get away with that? Because he fired anyone who objected.

“… [p290] These were previously unimaginable uses of a White House communications department, to taunt adversaries and mock everyone else.”

The book shows Trump as such a petty, vindictive man, irresponsibly and illegitimately, using the office of the President—and of course, by implication, taxpayers’ money—to get revenge for every little thing said or done against him.

It’s easy for rich people to sue others. They simply say to one of their lawyers, do it. (Apparently, Trump has sued 2500 people.) The rest of us have to just suck it up, the wrongs, the slights, the injuries, the insults. (And of course, taxpayers are paying for the courts to process his very many lawsuits.

“But [the Epstein files] was still a horror story that revealed a hidden strata of society whose business was dense with insider favor-trading, market-moving information, … It was a story of depravity and entitlement and shocking indifference to human suffering, all run through with the sickening, clubby banter of rich men and women indulging a pedophile because he hosted entertaining dinner parties and funded their causes or lifestyle.”377

Great comment about the trade imbalance (aka deficit)

“I’m going to leave you with this, okay? If you’re MAGA, if you’re conservative, okay, you don’t like that trade imbalance, right? Because you’ve only ever heard of it from Donald Trump and he doesn’t understand it. He doesn’t want you to understand. I want you to think, just um a test for yourself, an intellectual uh exercise. Why do you think that America might buy more from Canada than Canada buys from America?

“Have you considered the relative populations of our countries [Canada has 1/10 the population—why would you even expect us to buy as much from you as you buy from us?], the relative wealth of our countries? Is it in fact potentially a good sign that America has so much money to throw around on the world stage buying products [or maybe just a sign of their addiction to consumerism] and not actually a sign of either weakness for the United States or that we are being taken advantage of?”

 

from “The Damage Report”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI_ZC4TQbBk

Fighting Words (fiction from Fighting Words)

 

She was so tired of it.  They all were.  Every day, as they walked from one classroom to the next, or to the cafeteria, or to the gym, “Hey, ho!”  “Gonna do me?”  “C’mere, I got somethin’ for you!”

Then from school to the bus stop.  “Y’all jus’ bitches, you know that, right?” “She’s a slut!” “No, she’s a slut!” Laughter.  Always laughter.

And as they wandered through the mall.  “Hey, look, a bunch of cunts!” “Yo, slag, c’mere!” This last, with a British accent.

Of course, they’d all tried to respond in kind.  Problem was, there was no ‘in kind’.  ‘Asshole’, ‘dick’, and ‘prick’ just meant idiot.  ‘Stud’ was a compliment.  There was no word—

Then one Saturday afternoon, when she and her friends were standing in line to see a movie, one of the older boys they knew called out to a guy, “Oh, look at the little puss-in-boots!”  The guy was a young man, actually, not someone from their school.  And he completely lost it.

Someone called 9-1-1.  Everyone got it on their cell phones.  Mall security managed to stop the fight and hold onto the two of them until the police arrived.  Shortly after, the paramedics wheeled them both away, and they read all about it in the following weeks.

There had been a number of nasty punches, resulting in one very broken nose and one seriously bruised kidney.

The boy charged the young man with assault.

The young man responded with the ‘fighting words’ defence.

And won.

They looked up from their smartphones.  He won?  The same eureka-moment flickered on each of their faces.  They started googling, as they settled into more comfortable positions in Teague’s room.

Women had tried suing men for defamation.  After all, surely relentless sexual insult ’causes injury and damage to the woman’s character’.

“It fucking dismisses her character,” Teague muttered when they start read the definition.

“Maybe the courts didn’t see it as making false statements,” Sophe suggested as she continued to read the rest of the definition.

Teague and Em stared at her.  Fuck.  She could be right.

“It also says,” Sophe read aloud, “‘The statement must have been made with reckless disregard for the truth, meaning the person questioned the truthfulness but said it anyway.'”

“Right,” Teague said with disgust.  “How often do men question the truthfulness of anything they say?”

Em nodded.

“They’ve been bullshitting so long,” she added, “they believe their own bullshit.”

“But,” Em pointed out, reading, “damages include ‘pain and suffering’, which covers ‘personal emotional reactions such as shame, humiliation, and anxiety’.”  She looked at them.

Yeah.

“And,” she continued, “‘being ostracized from a social group’.”

That certainly applies,” Teague said, angrily.  “Every time a woman is called a cow or a cunt, she’s ostracized from humanity.”

“So,” Em said thoughtfully, “wouldn’t sexual insult be cause for a class action suit?”

“You’d think so,” Sophe murmured, tapping away, “but the charge seems to stick only when lost income is at issue.  Figures.”  She looked up at them.  “Money.  Business.  The world.”

In any case, they discovered that defamation was considered damaging only when the statement was public; one-to-one didn’t count.

“Maybe it’s just as well,” Sophe said, leaning back, “because do we really want to limit freedom of speech?  I mean, remember that article we read in class?  ‘Freedom to Offend’?  The way to deal with something you don’t agree with is to make a counterargument.”

“But when they call us sluts, they’re not making an argument,” Em pointed out.  “So there’s no—

“True, but—”

“And remember Stoltenberg’s comment,” Teague added.  “Exceptions to freedom of speech exist because some speech causes harm that cannot be redressed or undone by more speech.  That’s why defamation is illegal.”

They turned back to their phones.

Women had also sought remedy on the basis of ‘intentional infliction of emotional distress’.

“Also called ‘outrage’,” Sophe announced happily, looking at her screen. “‘This cause of action may be available for cases that involve just words or in cases that involve both words and acts’,” she continued with optimism, then deflated: “‘In order to be actionable, the defendant’s conduct must be extreme, meaning that it exceeds all bounds of decent behavior.'”

She sighed and leaned back.

“And that’s the problem,” she said.  “This sort of thing has become normalized.”

“Yeah.  Wonder how that happened,” Teague said bitterly.

Because they knew the answer.  The internet had made porn easily available, and therefore (therefore?) widely viewed.  And it had become, almost all of it, so completely degrading: women were invariably presented as subservient, doing, willingly or not, whatever disgusting thing the men wanted them to do.  And apparently boys, and even men, were unable to distinguish reality from fantasy: they came to believe that women actually existed to please men, sexually; they came to believe that they were entitled to women’s bodies.  And so boys, and even men, routinely reached out and touched women’s bodies.  Grabbed women’s bodies.  Not only their behinds, but also their breasts.  Thus routinely proclaiming that girls, and women, were sexually available to them.  Hey ho.

“Hang on,” Em had a thought.  “Schools already have rules about bullying … ”  She started tapping at her phone again.

Sophe nodded and joined the effort.  “Here we go.  ‘Bullying can be defined as repetitive, aggressive conduct growing out of an advantage in power and a desire to control.  Said conduct can include the repeated infliction of verbal abuse such as the use of derogatory remarks, insults, and epithets.'”

“Perfect,” Teague said.

“‘While the techniques of bullies vary,'” Sophe continued, “‘their object almost always is to gain control over the victim by engendering shame, anguish, fear, and/or humiliation.'”

“Our entire sexist society bullies,” Teague said.  “It’s designed to enable bullying.  By men.  Of women.

Em nodded.

Sophe continued.  “‘Most victims of bullying experience guilt, shame, fear, embarrassment, and diminished self-worth.  These effects can lead to anxiety disorders, depression, and insomnia.  The targets have an increased risk of suicide and other forms of self-harm.'”

They looked at each other.  Anorexia.  Cutting.  Two girls killed themselves last term.

Not to mention the self-fulfillment prophecy.  Call a girl a whore often enough …

They found dozens of articles in law journals about bullying.  But not one presented a gendered analysis of the phenomenon.  Not one specifically addressed males bullying females.

And bullying in itself was not a crime.

Go figure.

“Why can’t we just charge them with hate speech?” Em asked, then turned back to her phone.

“‘A hate crime'” Em read, “‘is a criminal offence committed against a person or property that is based solely upon the victim’s race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, or disability.'”

There was a moment of silence.  Then Sophe pointed at the elephant in the room.  “Sex isn’t on the list.”

“How can that be?” Em was aghast.  She looked it up again.  And again.

Five definitions later, she echoed Sophe.  “Sex isn’t on the list.”

“Which explains why Reddit banned GenderCritical as hate speech,” Teague grimaced, “but continues to allow AntiFeminists and StruggleFucking.  Previously called RapingWomen,” she added with a grimace.

“Wait,” Em was catching up, “how was GenderCritical hate speech?  Gender isn’t on the list either.”

They looked at each other.  Blankly.

“So,” Teague concluded a long moment later, coming full circle, back to their starting point, “‘fighting words’ it is.”

Em nodded.  “If ‘puss-in-boots’ is considered an instance of ‘fighting words’, surely ‘cunt’, ‘slut’, ‘ho’—”

“Not necessarily,” Sophe interrupted.

“What?  Why?” Em asked.

“They’ll consider the context.  For a man to be called a woman is more insulting than for a woman to be called a cunt.”

Sophe was right.  And they both knew it.

“A lot of men genuinely believe that,” Teague added anyway.

“So a judge might decide that calling a woman a cunt is … okay,” Em said, with disbelief, “because it’s just … ”

“Fact.”  Teague’s voice was hard.  “Women are sexual.  They are to be fucked.  They are to be incubators.  End of story.”

Geezus.  How the hell did they get here?

“Even ‘girls’ is used as an insult,” Sophie said.  “And ‘ladies’.  When they say it … The way they say it.  You know what I mean.”

They did.  Bottom line, it was insulting just to be called female.  What do you do when what you are is an insult?

“Regardless,” Em said, “it’s a defence, right? ‘Fighting words’?  So we have to be hit first?”  She wasn’t keen on that part.

Sophe started tapping again.  “‘Fighting words alone are not considered assault,'” she read, “‘but may be folded into an assault charge,'” she emphasized the word, “if accompanied by threatening acts, for example, raised fists—'”

“A grabbed crotch?” Teague suggested.

“What about a smirk?” Em asked.  “A facial expression is an act, right?”

Sophe sighed again.  “That would probably be hard to prove.”  And she wasn’t sure what ‘folded into’ meant, exactly.

“Wait a minute,” Teague said, “I thought I saw … Here it is.  ‘Fighting words are words intentionally directed toward another person which are so venomous and full of malice as to incite him/her to immediately retaliate physically.  … The offensive language is such that the person temporarily loses control of their actions.'”

“And that’s exactly why women are at a disadvantage,” Sophe said with frustration, leaning back again.  “We’re more mature than they are.  We have greater self-control.”

Em nodded.

“Which is truly ironic,” she added, “given the laws against contraception and abortion, which deny us self-control …”

“Well, we’ll just have to change,” Teague announced.  “The critical factor isn’t the retaliation per se, it’s that the resulting fight is a breach of peace.”  She’d continued reading.  “We just have to make a fuss.  We have to breach the peace.”

“And,” Sophe was thinking it through, “we just have to do it often enough to convince the courts that it may happen.”

“Exactly.”  Teague consulted her phone again.  “‘Provocative words may be justification for an assault, provided the person uttering the words understood or should have understood that physical retaliation would be attempted. The words must be ‘fighting’ words.'”

“And,” Sophe was getting on board, “since the court uses the reasonable person standard …”

“What difference does that make?” Em asked.  “I mean, it’s not always reasonable to retaliate—”

“Because the ‘reasonable person’ in courts of law has always been assumed to be the ‘reasonable man‘.”

“Ah.”  A reasonable man would retaliate.

“That’s interesting,” Teague said.  “Maybe we’ve been unreasonable not to retaliate.  By ignoring it all these years, we’ve been doormats.  We’ve let them insult us.”

“And so stayed alive,” Em protested.  “Atwood.”

Yeah.  Men are afraid women will laugh at them.  Women are afraid men will kill them.

“Hang on,” Sophe said, backing up.  “Isn’t it the case that if escape is possible, assault isn’t justified?”  She started tapping away again.  Teague and Em, as well.

“Here it is,” Em said.  “‘According to the Castle Doctrine, victims threatened with physical aggression are required to retreat if they can safely do so, before responding with force.  If the victim were to respond with physical force when she could safely retreat, she would be charged with a crime concomitant with the amount of force used and the harm done to the aggressor.'”

“Oh, sure, in that case they identify the person as ‘she’!” Teague said with disgust.

“But it’s everywhere now,” Em said, thinking about retreat.  “Where are we supposed to go?”

Teague agreed.  “Some days I feel like I’m spending all my time trying to avoid these assholes.”

“Wait,” Sophe said, still reading.  “It’s changed.  The Castle Doctrine has given way to the Stand Your Ground Doctrine.  ‘In the last ten years, most states have extended the Castle doctrine to both public and private places.  In these jurisdictions, everywhere a person stands is his or her castle.  That is, most states have jettisoned the duty to retreat.'” She looked up at them, a smile creeping onto her face, then continued.

“‘The major justification for Stand Your Ground laws is summarized most succinctly by the Supreme Court of New Jersey in State v. Abbott’, which says ‘The law should not denounce conduct as criminal when it accords with the behavior of reasonable men'”—she grinned at Teague—”‘The manly thing is to hold one’s ground, and hence society should not demand what smacks of cowardice. It is obvious that the interests to be protected by stand your ground laws are dignity and pride.'”

Sophe looked up to see both Em and Teague smiling, then finished the paragraph.  “‘So, if pride is a protectable interest … why should the law not protect other emotional and psychological interests …?'”

“Yes!” Teague almost shouted.  “Why shouldn’t we be able to defend our dignity and pride and everything else required for our emotional and psychological well-being?  Especially since defending one’s physical well-being is allowed!”

“Wait—” Sophe sounded discouraged again.  “‘Although the law is currently without protections for those who use physical force in defense of their emotional and psychological well-being,'” she glanced up, then resumed, “‘jurisprudence’—that’s the lawyers and judges—’has always vindicated the idea of physical force when certain non-physical interests of the victim are at stake.'”

“Aha!” Teague raised her fist.

 

They organized it on social media.  On one of the ‘by invitation only’ sites.

“I don’t know,” ChatCat posted.  “I’ve never hit anyone in my life.”

“I’ll do it,” NotYrPrincess posted.  She was a boxer.

“Me too,” HockeyStick posted.

“Keep in mind that we don’t have to really fight,” Teague posted.  “We just have to retaliate in a way that causes a fuss.  The point, if we understand it correctly, is that the insult disturbs the peace or whatever.”

“And if you don’t feel comfortable with the physical part of it,” Sophe added, “that’s okay.  You can be one of the people at the edge getting it all on your phone.  We need people to post the incidents online.”

“We also need someone to call 9-1-1,” Em chipped in.  “You can be that person.”  She was going to be that person.

“And we need people who can write about it,” Sophe said.  “So everyone who blogs, tweets, spins …”

“We have to be prepared,” Ruby49 cautioned.  “The backlash will be vicious.”

“Agreed.  Hell hath no fury like a man one-upped by a woman.”  Sportster described an incident wherein she was playing basketball in a mixed league.  She’d set up such a perfect pick, the guy ran right into her.  Hadn’t seen it coming at all.  He was understandably embarrassed.  But so embarrassed, so humiliated, by a woman, that he actually came at her and proceeded to plow her right off the court.  No foul was called.  Duh.  She withdrew from the league.

“And that’s how they do it,” ButListen remarked. “They don’t even have to pass any laws, to keep us offside ….”

“Yeah,” Sportster replied, “but it wasn’t fun anymore.  As it was, the guys hardly ever passed the ball to me.”

“A metaphor if there ever was one,” said ButListen.  And everyone heard the sigh.

 

The first reported incident was textbook perfect.  If there’d been a textbook about this sort of thing.

“Hey ho!”

She glanced at her friend to make sure she was recording it.

“What did you call me?”

“A ho!” he laughed.

She started to walk toward him.  Three other young women walked with her.

“Take it back!”  one of them said.

“No!” he laughed again.

So she shoved him.  So hard, he fell down.

Then, as predicted, all hell broke loose.  His rage!

Someone called 9-1-1.  The young man’s broken nose was tended to.  The young woman’s black eye was tended to.  They were both wheeled away for various x-rays.

And they were both charged with disorderly conduct and assault.

The young woman’s lawyer argued that ‘fighting words’ had been uttered.  Six different videos proved it.

Within an hour, said videos had been posted.  Everywhere.

Accompanied by commentary that placed the blame, the responsibility, clearly on the young man.  None of this ‘A woman was raped’ shit.  No, it was ‘A man, with malicious intent, provoked an assault, with complete disregard for women’s moral right to be free of sexualized insult …’

Even so, the young woman lost the case.

But the idea spread like wildfire.

Early on, someone suggested organizing ‘Take Back the Day’ marches, reminiscent of the ‘Take Back the Night’ marches of the ’70s.  Someone else suggested that ‘Take Back the Public Space’ was more accurate.  But it was ‘Take It Back!’ that caught on.

“But we don’t want them to say it in the first place,” Sophe had lamented.

No matter.  ‘Take It Back!’ got its own hashtag.

Social media exploded with videos and reports …  ‘Men triggered five fights today …’   Then ten.  Then twenty.

It was hard, though.  Women had to overcome a lifetime of ‘Don’t hit,’  ‘Don’t hurt’…

“And that’s how they’ve kept us subordinate all these centuries,” ButListen posted.

And so the women who’d already broken through helped the others.

“Aim for their knees,” JustDoIt7 posted.  “Once a man’s down, their upper body strength isn’t as much an advantage!”

“Men have a weak spot,” FightFire posted, “front and center, that we have not taken advantage of.  It’s time.  Surely, it’s time.”

Schools had to hire extra security personnel.  They’d already had to hire guards to oversee metal detectors at the entrances because so many young men came to school with weapons.  Now they had to have personnel walk the halls all day.

Malls had to do the same.  They too had already put guards at the entrances to watch for ‘trouble-makers’. Now they had to have circulating guards.

Every day, the police lay more and more charges.  Breach of the peace, disorderly conduct, causing a disturbance … and, always, assault.

Apparently, men couldn’t help themselves.  They kept up the insults, and once they were shoved, they could not just walk away.  Let alone take it back.  As requested.  Said request seemed, universally, to elicit a ‘Fuck you!’  Which didn’t help matters.

When was society going to get fed up with their young men?  (‘Young’ as in ‘under forty’.  That seemed to be the age at which misogyny—  Well, no, it didn’t disappear, it never disappeared, it just …  went underground.  Still.)  When would they be shamed for their immaturity?

“I get it,” a prominent black man posted.  “I’ve been called a nigger my whole life.”

“Thank god for the SNCC, right?” a prominent black woman responded.

“You know it, sister!”  He attached a smiley face.

“You do realize,” the prominent black woman then posted, “that Stokely Carmichael said the only position for women in the SNCC was prone?  Stokely Carmichael, the civil rights leader?  What does that tell you?”

Apparently the prominent black man had logged out.  No doubt, he had something important to attend to.

“I get it,” a prominent gay man posted.  “I’ve been called a faggot more times than I can count.”

“All in one day?” a woman asked.

“And when it happens,” another woman asked, “do they reach out and grab your penis when they say it?”

Apparently he too had logged out.

And, as predicted, the men upped their game.  First, by outnumbering the women.  No insult was made unless there were ten of them present.  They were used to acting as a gang.

Women responded in kind.  No retaliation was made unless there were twenty present.

“No fair!”  The beaten men cried.

“No fair?” One blogger responded.  “But gang rape—gang rape—that’s fair?”

Then the men made sure they were armed.  Baseball bats were too obvious, knives and guns could be discovered, and would most definitely lead to more serious charges, so they started putting palm-sized stones in their pockets.

Women responded in kind.  And discovered it was relatively easy to swing a purse full of marbles.

Even so, fearing cracked skulls, those who already had pepper spray started using it.

Men started wearing face shields.  And using acid.

And then, in a long-awaited landmark case, a judge was convinced that the young man before him should have expected retaliation.  He should have known that a scuffle (yes, ‘a scuffle’) would ensue when he called the young woman in question ‘a fucking cunt’.

The young woman in question won her case.

Sexual insults were considered fighting words.  No question now.

 

And then, much to women’s surprise, and delight, several of the lawyers who had been involved in pushing the ‘fighting words’ defence, pushed for sex to be added to hate speech legislation.  Pushed to make the insults themselves an offence.

They succeeded.

Sexual insults were considered hate speech.  No expectation of retaliation required.

 

And then, surprisingly, wonderfully, years later, when men no longer routinely called women sluts and hos, when they no longer heard other men routinely call women sluts and hos, they just … stopped thinking of them in that way.

 

But not after many, too many, young women had died from their injuries.  They were appropriately remembered as martyrs to the cause.  One headline that made mainstream news said it all: “Young woman dies defending our humanity”.

 

A huge insight late in life

“We all wield different portfolios of knowledge.  We have different values, different priorities, and different understandings of all that unfolds around us.”  Neil DeGrasse Tyson

Yes.  There.  That first one.  My life-long error.

I have assumed that we have different values and different priorities, and I’ve been prepared to argue for my values and priorities.

But I’ve always assumed we share the same portfolio of knowledge.  That is, I’ve always assumed that the other knows what I know.

But they don’t.* And that we each start with a different set of facts—that explains our disagreement.

(Not, perhaps, our different values or priorities.)

(Or, more likely, the different set of facts also explains the different sets of values and priorities.)

Because if they knew what I know, they surely wouldn’t hold those views.  (Or values or priorities.)

That explains, for example, why some people voted for Trump and still support him.  And, and, and, and, ad infinitum.

To repeat, I’ve always assumed, incorrectly, that the other knows what I know.

(Why?  Because I’ve been conditioned to believe I know less.   I’m a woman.  It follows that I know less.)

Knowing this now, I know that all along, I should have been making sure that, first, the person I was speaking with (or the person about whom I hold opinions) had the same set of facts as I did.  Then, I could proceed to argue with them about our conflicting views (or form my opinion about them).

But … no.  That would’ve been impossible.

Because even when I have assumed, correctly, that the other didn’t know what I know, I wasn’t ‘permitted’ to educate the other, as a prerequisite for ‘solving’ the disagreement.

(Again, because I’m a woman.)  (‘You can’t tell me … anything!’)  (‘And how dare you try!)

So establishing that common starting point would have been, in itself, a source of … challenge.

Sigh.

___

* If only because with no kids or spouse and a job of only 20 hours/week, I read 3-4 books a week.  But also because my job requires that I be widely-read (so I spend a lot of time reading the academic and popular literature in many different disciplines).

about knowledge and fraud and rationality …

“… we would further learn not to claim knowledge of a newly discovered truth until a majority of researchers obtain results consistent with one another. … If you commit outright fraud—if you knowingly fake data—and subsequent researchers on the subject uncover this, the revelation will end your career.” Starry Messengers, Neil DeGrass Tyson

Pity the bar isn’t set as high for those in business and politics.

And his chapter on law and order, including an explanation of the three times he was refused for jury duty — just … sad.  Absolutely and dismally sad.