April 18, 2016

"Men locked in their cultural ghetto hear the siren song of Trump. He speaks to the eternal adolescent..."

"... and awakens in him his secret envy of the high-school punk who always seemed to get the girl. Pajama Boy is appalled, and the angry man smiles at his discomfort. But the angry man needs to grow up, to put away childish things, and to see that every moment that Trump commands the national stage is another contribution to feminism’s ultimate triumph. The answer to feminism is and always has been manhood properly defined. It is not — and never will be — the toxic masculinity of the arrogant. The answer to the predator is the protector. One of the great tragedies of this year’s Republican primaries is that for months the predator prowled and his opponents were too timid and too calculating to act as protectors. For want of a sheepdog, the wolf will devour the flock."

From "Trump’s Counterfeit Masculinity" by David French in The National Review.

I'm not agreeing with this, just putting it up for discussion. I don't accept the hand-wringing over "feminism’s ultimate triumph." French doesn't speak of the defeat or suppression of feminism, only the "answer to feminism," but his answer is, apparently, male supremacy, understood as rightful dominance. And I don't accept the alarmism or even really understand the metaphor. Who's the flock here that Trump is about to devour? And who's the sheepdog — men "properly defined"? What's so manly about proper definitions? And, ironically, French is himself trying to sing a "siren song" to men. Come my way, and you'll be a proper man. It all sounds like a load of trash to me. And by the way, a "siren song" is a song sung by a woman. In your hodge-podge of metaphor about manliness, could you at least control the outbursts of femininity?


"The Siren," by Edward Armitage.

153 comments:

Ann Althouse said...

"Hodge-podge" is the word that sprang to my mind. I looked it up in the OED and was delighted by this historical example.

1641 News from Hell, etc. in Harl. Misc. (Malh.) IV. 398 This covered mess is a gallimawfry; or, as the Flemings calls it, a hodge-podge, wherein are sundry meats stewed together.

I love the book title — from 1641: News from Hell.

rhhardin said...

National Review is under the thumb of Kathryn Lopez, humorless Catholic.

Roy Jacobsen said...

Where do you see French calling for men to dominate women?

Qwinn said...

So, in a culture with kangaroo court campus rape trials and the constant denigration of men at every cultural level, where no denigration of any other group is even permitted, any pushback whatsoever can only be attributed to a desire for "male supremacy"?

Wot a surprise.

rhhardin said...

The differing of male and female thinking is explained as a failure of men to think correctly, by women.

Men just exchange a knowing look.

holdfast said...

"but his answer is, apparently, male supremacy, understood as rightful dominance"

Epic reading comprehension fail.

n.n said...

Patton lead a bunch of adolescents to victory over left-wing oppressors, while suffering vicious barbs by ivory tower elites and right-wing crossovers.

Bob Boyd said...

National Review is becoming a cargo cult.

Bay Area Guy said...

National Review has just been awful about Trump. And, they keep doubling down.

Trump is an Alpha Male, when the criteria for Alpha Male status has been challenged by leftists and feminists.

John Wayne was once the Alpha Male standard.

Now, he is not.

Somewhere between Pajama Boy and John Wayne rests the new Alpha Male standard.

Maybe, it's Steph Curry of the Golden State Warriors?

Who knows?

Bob Boyd said...

Look at that picture. Is that the trunk of drowning elephant sticking out of the water there?

Mike Sylwester said...

Should National Review address Trump's positions about illegal immigration and international trade?

Or should National Review publish an article about Trump supporters being eternal adolescents?

Apparently, National Review has decided to do the latter.

Karen of Texas said...

@Bob Boyd - table leg? French provincial?

Dan Hossley said...

Clearly, Mr. French has some issues he needs to work through.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Oh great, I am SO GLAD that the phrase "toxic masculinity" has apparently gained traction on the Right. It's a valid thing, now; it's something people on the Right feel comfortable using as a real thing to attack other people with. Thanks, asshole.

buwaya said...

Article is confused word salad.

However, Feminism, understood correctly, is communism by other means.
Not quite as effective (unfalsifiable) an argument as environmentalism, but since the practice with respect to feminist matters is to only use emotional arguments, it does fairly well.
And if taken seriously, which it actually is by at least a few people, leads to failure to reproduce and auto-extermination.

Ken B said...

But it's crazy to suggest NR is just sneering at Trump supporters. CRAZY.

Oso Negro said...

It is a temporary state of affairs. Poor people will again be skinny. The U.S. will have to stop printing money. Women will behave like women. I hope you have all enjoyed your holiday from reality.

Chuck said...

Qwinn:

I hear you, on the matter of the Obama Administration "campus rape crisis" nonsense.

And I would defy you or anyone else, to find a publication that has more consistently and effectively pushed back in that issue, than the National Review.

Voters in general are free to support Trump, or reject Trump. But conservative voters can't find much justification to support Trump.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...I love the book title — from 1641: News from Hell.

Apparently a pamphlet allegedly written by John Milton!


Catalog entry, found Googlin' around:


Title: Nevvs from hell, Rome and the Innes of court wherein is set forth the
> coppy of a letter written from the devill to the pope : the true coppy of
> the petition delivered to the King at Yorke : the coppy of certaine articles
> of agreement betweene the devill, the pope, and divers others : the
> description of a feast, sent from the devill to the pope : together with a
> short advertisement to the high court of Parliament with sundry other
> particulars
> Author: Milton, John, 1608-1674.
> Publication Info: [London : s.n.], 1642.

Google Books: Leeds Public Library Catalogue A-P

damikesc said...

French doesn't speak of the defeat or suppression of feminism, only the "answer to feminism," but his answer is, apparently, male supremacy, understood as rightful dominance

Seems that French expects men to act like mature adults. I don't see much of a demand like that out of modern feminism, where getting blacked out drunk and having regrettable sex is rape. Seems French would expect you to not BE black-out drunk in the first place. Third-wave feminists are all for the infantilizing of women.

Mind you, I find the whole movement on the right of "Just deal with it" for men is absurd. Non-stop denigration of men, drugging masculinity out of children, and shunting men to the side is disastrous. At the worst of "male domination", the men felt it was their duty to protect women.

Feminists do not REMOTELY believe the same about men.

Trump is an Alpha Male, when the criteria for Alpha Male status has been challenged by leftists and feminists.

He's awfully whiny for an alpha.

damikesc said...

And I would defy you or anyone else, to find a publication that has more consistently and effectively pushed back in that issue, than the National Review.

Hell, they have a writer (Katherine Timpf) whose ENTIRE area of reportage is on the idiocy on campuses and modern feminism.

Hagar said...

It's the prow of a previous wreck.

BTW, what appears at first to be Vikinng longships actually are Greek galleys, if you enlarge the picture.

Bob Boyd said...

"It's the prow of a previous wreck."

I know. I was making a joke. Elephant = Republican Party.
I guess it wasn't very funny.

buwaya said...

"And I would defy you or anyone else, to find a publication that has more consistently and effectively pushed back in that issue, than the National Review."

Brietbart, Instapundit, RS McCain and Milo Yiannopoulos. Among many others.
Compared to all the above, nobody reads NR.

Rick said...

French doesn't speak of the defeat or suppression of feminism, only the "answer to feminism,"but [David French's] answer is, apparently, male supremacy, understood as rightful dominance.

What a bizarre interpretation.

Birkel said...

I do not think French's article is insightful or helpful.

Althouse's (faux?) inability to grok French's meaning is disappointing and unsurprising.

The problem with denying reality (e.g. Gender is not a social construct, but rather a biological fact.) is that reality will never care. A man, properly understood, would never want to dominate a woman, recognizing his yin demands her yang. Divisions of labor benefit society generally and households specifically.

There are many feminists who think men are bicycles. Even men do not appreciate being equated with personal property. We are aware enough to despise those who evidence their hatred of us.

rcocean said...

French is an idiot. He's another one of those "we need to win in the right way" types, who deep down don't really want to win.

Whatever his faults, Trump is anti-PC, so of course French fires at him instead of the SJW's - 'Cause policing his own side is the most important thing.

rcocean said...

NR has shown their true colors over Trump. I expect their Hillary endorsement in July.

JAORE said...

Why, oh why does the most conservative side of the Republican party feel put upon?

They are counted upon to vote for whatever candidate with an R after their name. They are treated with (being generous) a total lack of respect. They watch as the candidates they helped vote into office fail, time and again, to enact measures they support.

Why it's almost like being black in the Democratic party...

Except the conservatives might just revolt....

BDNYC said...

Althouse comes a bit unglued when she reads something even mildly critical of feminism. The point he's making about a "proper man" has nothing to do with dominating women. Being a "proper man" -- secure, confident, smart, responsible, steady, mannerly -- is the perfect response to modern feminism's critique of masculinity and patriarchy. How can "patriarchy" be defended if the men we put in charge are loud-mouthed, ignorant fools? In other words, the ridiculous feminist fringe gains respectability when women distrust the male leadership and feel threatened or anxious.

Trump is an insecure and childish bigot who relies on intimidation and bluster to get his way. It's a repulsive and degenerate form of masculinity that most people reject (and laugh at) by the time they reach 20. And it's rooted in grievance and resentment, which is never a good look.

mockturtle said...

All politicians are egotistical assholes. Some, like Kasich, just put on the humble ['umble as Heep] facade. Others, the veneer of civility or erudition. Say what you want about Trump, he seems more genuine to me [a female] than do any of the other candidates.

Sebastian said...

""but his answer is, apparently, male supremacy, understood as rightful dominance" Epic reading comprehension fail." No. Conventional "feminist" trope. Not a fail: works for Progs.

"Trump is an Alpha Male" vs. "Trump is an insecure and childish bigot." You're both right: Trump is the beta male's version of an alpha male.

Oso Negro said...

It is a temporary state of affairs. Poor people will again be skinny. The U.S. will have to stop printing money. Women will behave like women. I hope you have all enjoyed your holiday from reality.

robother said...

When William F. Buckley is your idea of an Alpha male, mincing words and obsessing over proper definitions is what the real manly men do. David French's whole raison d'être is revenge against the early maturing adolescents who made the team, got the girls and gave him wedgies.

The Godfather said...

Gee, I thought that Tromp's appeal was because he was against Brown people or foreigners in general or Muslims. Or maybe because he was against trade with low-wage countries. Or because he's got great hair.

Here's an idea: Before you agonize over what draws some people to Tromp, why don't you ask them? Do a survey of Tromp supporters and ask them why. My intuition tells me that the issues that French identifies would show up pretty far down the list, but maybe I'm wrong. It would be nice to know.

tom swift said...

News from Hell is a corkin' good title, all right.

Right up there with my favorite comic book title, Weird Science, and movie title, An Invention for Destruction. Great stuff.

NR, on the other hand, needs a new title, now that it's so spectacularly succumbed to acute Trump Derangement Syndrome. National Shipwreck, maybe; that even preserves that "siren" theme.

Paddy O said...

I don't think alpha males have to convince other people that they're alpha males. They just are.

Also, it's a weird point in American consciousness where a New York real estate guy is propped up as being the alpha male.

"Let's make a Deal!" is the new mantra for the American man, I guess. And supporters are willing to pick whatever is behind curtain #2

Nonapod said...

Speaking as someone who has been very critical of Trump, I think directly insulting his supporters with a rambling incoherent article isn't perhaps the best tactic, assuming your goal is to actually sway people away from Trump. But was that the point of all this? Is this just venting? Preaching to the choir? Do people who may be leaning toward Trump even read National Review? I'd find that hard to believe.

Ann Althouse said...

"Where do you see French calling for men to dominate women?"

"The answer to the predator is the protector... For want of a sheepdog, the wolf will devour the flock."

The male role, "properly defined," is protector of the flock, the sheepdog that fights off the wolves. I think women are the sheep there, but as noted, it's a hodge-podge. If I'm misreading his intent, let him rewrite the column in plain English. Manly English.

damikesc said...

The male role, "properly defined," is protector of the flock, the sheepdog that fights off the wolves. I think women are the sheep there, but as noted, it's a hodge-podge. If I'm misreading his intent, let him rewrite the column in plain English. Manly English.

Do the police "dominate" the citizenry?
Does the military "dominate" the country?

Guards aren't necessarily oppressors.

mockturtle said...

Do people who may be leaning toward Trump even read National Review? I'd find that hard to believe.

You might be surprised. There is a lot of condescension among the anti-Trumps toward Trump supporters and it would seem to have the opposite of the desired effect. And let's just say that some of us are former NR readers.

traditionalguy said...

That Article is Grade B Propaganda hooking together educated sounding big words with a profundity that serves as a substitute for real understanding of the subject.

This is a reminder of why Trump is hated. He has out thought, out talked, and out used wisdom compared to these pretenders of intellectuals like the famous Wm. F. Buckley, but have now been shown up by Trump to be low level hack writers.

Stupidity is not the sign of a Pure Conservative.

Kate said...

David French speaks Evangelical, a sub-dialect of American English. (Actually, he also speaks Military, which shares terms with Evangelical.) "Masculinity", "sheep/flock", etc. are short hand for broader concepts. I know this from the pre-Trumpian days when I used to read NR.

walter said...

damikesc said...He's awfully whiny for an alpha.
--
Yes. Especially when he pouts and notes someone "wasn't nice to me".
But I couldn't help but imagine French writing this between sips of cocoa in his jammies.
He's clearly not ready to "Trump that bitch!"
Maybe he can track down that punk stolen love on Facebook.

Bob Ellison said...

Nonapod, the anti-Trumpists have been coalescing lately, one might even say hysterically (if one weren't concerned about seeming misogynist), around the notion that it's now too late just to criticize Trump. They must exorcise Trumpism, whatever it might be, and all Trump-supporters, from conservatism.

At the National Review, William F. Buckley is famous for having exorcised the John Birchers from the right about sixty years ago. French may be tempted to repeat the exercise.

I'm sympathetic to the notion. Jonah Goldberg wrote here, "The Trump candidacy has been a like a dye marker, highlighting traits and inclinations on the right I didn’t appreciate or acknowledge." I agree.

Brando said...

Trump seems more like an omega-male trying to pass himself off as an alpha male. Like he read about what alpha males are like, and is saying "yeah that's what I gotta be" and so he goes out of his way to overcompensate for what is a sad emptiness inside. He does not carry on like a man who is happy with himself. It reveals itself in the whining and petty bickering.

What alpha-male would have gotten into the obsessive mess with Megyn Kelly?

Paddy O said...

"There is a lot of condescension among the anti-Trumps toward Trump supporters"

It goes both ways. This whole alpha male discussion is really trying to one up each other about which side has the more manly man.

Maybe Cruz and Trump can settle this in the wrestling ring. Winner takes the nomination.

boycat said...

It's telling that the GOPe, exemplified by NR, believes their way to victory includes, maybe even requires, the sliming of Trump's supporters. As if they don't anticipate ever wanting needing these voters in November. This is a big fat why the Republican Party is referred to as the stupid party.

Fernandinande said...

French used to sound more reasonable...

Modern Feminism: Appalling Stupidity Backed by Hysterical Rage
by David French November 17, 2014 2:32 PM

It’s hard to believe this isn’t in the Onion, but read the words of a modern feminist man, a stay-at-home dad who’s just fine with his wife doing this:

Star Wars Proves Feminists Are Clueless about Science Fiction
David French December 21, 2015 3:10 PM

StephenFearby said...


One woman who is definitely not impressed:

"...[Elaine] Kamarck, who started as an aide to President Jimmy Carter and became a top White House official during the Clinton administration in the ’90s, wrote a book called Primary Politics (2009), which explains the history of how the modern nominating process for Republicans and Democrats came to be...."


John Ward (Yahoo News) What do you think of Trump’s complaint that the system is corrupt and unfair?

Elaine Kamarck: "Trump’s out of his f***ing mind. Every single presidential candidate except for him knows what this system is. It’s not corrupt. It’s the system by which the parties pick their nominee. Parties are protected under the First Amendment’s freedom of assembly. No American is forced to participate."

"Do you want that on the record, that Trump is out of his f***ing mind?

Yes. He’s out of his f***ing mind. He’s an a******. No other candidate has ever run for president so unprepared."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/party-primaries-are-not-public-decisions-rules-154558765.html



walter said...

Paddy,
The "cage match" Cruz referred to in the 1st debate.
Dunno..Trump showed his moves during his critique of Carson's stabbing story.
But that would be nothing compared to Hil wrasslin' Berno.

Gahrie said...

One of the great tragedies of this year’s Republican primaries is that for months the predator prowled and his opponents were too timid and too calculating to act as protectors. For want of a sheepdog, the wolf will devour the flock."

Trump arose precisely because of the lack of sheep dogs at the top of the Republican Party. The ruling establishment are instead shivering poodles, frightened of the MSM.

Rob said...

That woman in the painting you depict is nekked as a jaybird. This exploits women!

Paddy O said...

"It's telling that the GOPe..."

I can't believe those horrible people would slime the people they need in order to win!

Lumping those who have trouble with Trump's candidacy as somehow part of the establishment--as if they're Jeb Bush supporters--isn't the way to garner support for Trump.

My argument is that Trump is the Establishment, as his history suggests. A few strong statements early in his candidacy got him on the radar but the overall trends doesn't seem to suggest those were anything more than ploys.

If you don't see this whole argument as boiling down to great outrage about the establishment from different direction then you have to demonize the other side. I get why people support Trump, but I just haven't been convinced that he's more than a salesman, and that ultimately he is going to be like Schwarzenegger or Christie.

Could he sell himself as a candidate? I'm open to it. But saying he's a manly man sounds silly. Complaining that he's an alpha male sounds weak. He has to show that he wants it--which he didn't show in Colorado--and that he can interact with national and global issues in a coherent way.

Cruz is currently the only other alternative, and while he's not ideal either, to be sure, he is more coherent and focused (which I know is arguable). I don't get the sense he'll cave just because someone fancy invited him to a fancy dinner, or because someone put up a fight. I didn't want Christie, and I still don't want his more popular ally.

buwaya said...

"No other candidate has ever run for president so unprepared."

And yet, so many others, presumably better prepared, have done much worse.
There aren't a lot of people who have gone to their convention with 1000+ delegates.

This raises the question of what one must be prepared for.
Or perhaps, that the nature of the contest isn't quite what the professionals thought it was.

Its as if they had mastered the rules of a game, but were used to a low level of play.
A baseball team that knew all the rules but was used to pitching underarm, softball style, meets, for the first time, a pitcher with a fastball. OK, so the fastball pitcher hasn't got it all down about stealing bases. But he sure can put those batters away.

Char Char Binks said...

Trump is both the Good Shepherd and the Lamb of God, the Alpha dog and the Omega dog, and he's ready to separate the sheep from the goats.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

I just found out the German Shepherds aren't herding dogs in the sense that they herd sheep. Rather, they're apparently very good at guarding sheep from wolves and stuff.

And Border Collies are unique among herding breeds because they don't pursue sheep so much as they circle around, cut them off, and then drive them back the other way. They use eye contact to intimidate the sheep.

Kind of like cops, who I presume are no longer allowed to wear those mirrored aviators like they used to.

walter said...

Blogger Paddy O
I don't get the sense he'll cave just because someone fancy invited him to a fancy dinner, or because someone put up a fight
--
See Cruz Ehanol subsidy while in Iowa...now find Trump reading some sort of pandering script.
He's "flexible"

M Jordan said...

I've reading French recently and was commenting there, til I got kicked off. French and his buddies at National Review simply don't get the Trump phenomenon at all. I know at least a dozen men who like Trump. Of them, one is a highly successful insurance executive who caters to Hollywood celebrities, a multi, multi-millionaire. Another is a successful podiatrist, a former football star and wrestling state champ (or finalist, can't recall). The rest are professionals, none lacking in maleness: a couple teachers/coaches, a farmer, an L.A. county water board executive, several pastors, several businessmen, and so on.

None of these men have maleness issues. None have identity issues. None are looking for a leader to worship. None are looking for a bully. None are looking for a Sexual Conquistidore. What they're looking for is someone who isn't afraid to take on the PC crowd. They don't like Pajama Boys, this I can tell you. But more than that, they don't like the way progressives have taken over the cultural megaphone and hold the cultural handcuffs.

National Reviewers and #NeverTrumpers are really, really missing the boat on Trump. He is the Republican Party's last best hope. I just hope they come to their senses before they do something really, really stupid

tim in vermont said...

We locked you people in a ghetto, now shut the fuck up, is what I think he means. This and the ugly and hateful propaganda art and sending people to shut down Trump rallies makes me think that support for Trump is almost a duty for those who value civility and democracy.

Char Char Binks said...

I agree with AA that French is promoting male supremacy. It's something that all the Abrahamic faiths started out with, but is now strongest in Islam. It IS enticing to a lot of men, but don't listen to that mermaid music.

tim in vermont said...

Cruz and Trump remind me of Edith and Archie.

walter said...

Nothing upholds "civility" like uniformly prepending your opponent's name with "Lyin'"

Fernandinande said...

Eric the Fruit Bat said...
I just found out the German Shepherds aren't herding dogs in the sense that they herd sheep. Rather, they're apparently very good at guarding sheep from wolves and stuff.


They herd and guard.

And Border Collies are unique among herding breeds because they don't pursue sheep so much as they circle around, cut them off, and then drive them back the other way. They use eye contact to intimidate the sheep.

They pursue the sheep, then stand in front and away to keep them from moving. Here's a nice demo.

Rick said...

Ann Althouse said...
"Where do you see French calling for men to dominate women?"

"The answer to the predator is the protector... For want of a sheepdog, the wolf will devour the flock."

The male role, "properly defined," is protector of the flock, the sheepdog that fights off the wolves. I think women are the sheep there, but as noted, it's a hodge-podge. If I'm misreading his intent, let him rewrite the column in plain English. Manly English.


He perceives a responsibility, not a right to dominate.

Fernandinande said...

I finally skimmed the article, which mentioned Heartiste, who is often amusing:

Why It’s Called ‘Virtue Signaling’ And Not ‘Virtue’

Roughcoat said...


My border collies and I take part in sheepherding trials. See my avatar? That's a picture of Attie, my blue-ribbon champion herder. Border collies don't pursue sheep, they "fetch" them to you, moving or "driving" them with their "eye" and strength of personality. They are highly intelligent problem-solvers with an extraordinary work ethic and astonishing cognitive skills. The moves they make with sheep are the moves of a predating wolf absent the kill. Their goal is to move the sheep and bring them to you without spooking the sheep. I love border collies. When I'm told that "The male role, "properly defined," is protector of the flock, the sheepdog that fights off the wolves," I'm honored. I think that's a good thing. A very excellent thing indeed.

That'll do.

walter said...

Somewhere in this stew of metaphors, there must be a place for the guard Llama...

Alex said...

Yeah another GOPe media outlet insulting Trump supporters. That always works! More virtue-signalling to other GOPe outlets I suppose.

buwaya said...

"Somewhere in this stew of metaphors, there must be a place for the guard Llama..."

Someday there will be a robot for that.
Every woman will go about with a guard llama/robot, that will hold handbags and purchases, as well as kill on command and scare off anyone with testosterone.
The human species will die out soon after.

walter said...

A sheep rancher once told me that the guard llama is driven by curiosity to go running up to any new presence to check it out. Due to its size and enthusiasm, it ends up scaring them away...i.e. unintentionally effective.

mockturtle said...

The whole campaign reminds me of the battle between the urbane, polished diplomat, John Quincy Adams, and the roughly-hewn but highly successful general and populist, Andrew Jackson. Adams considered populism dangerous, as both parties do today, but Jackson prevailed. People seem to be in a populist mood this year, with Trump and Sanders unexpectedly gaining traction. No matter how one feels about it personally, it's a lot more interesting than most election years.

Roy Jacobsen said...

"The male role, "properly defined," is protector of the flock, the sheepdog that fights off the wolves. I think women are the sheep there, but as noted, it's a hodge-podge. If I'm misreading his intent, let him rewrite the column in plain English. Manly English."

I'm more interested in how you made the leap from protecting to dominating.

Unknown said...

David French, kevin Williamson, Lowry have been shoveling a large stinking pile for about two months now. They reach farther and farther out as their frustration grows that no one is listening to them.

buwaya said...

"I'm more interested in how you made the leap from protecting to dominating."

The ability to protect is the ability to dominate is the ability to destroy.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing."
Has nobody learned anything from "Dune"?

Comanche Voter said...

Pajama Boy will become a protector of womankind. He cant even protect his cup of cocoa when his Big Sis wants to take it from him. There is a lot of codswallop out there these days.

Fernandinande said...

Roughcoat said...
Border collies don't pursue sheep, they "fetch" them to you, moving or "driving" them with their "eye" and strength of personality. ...The moves they make with sheep are the moves of a predating wolf absent the kill.


So they do pursue the sheep, and control the direction of the pursuit as opposed to just chasing them in whichever direction they happen to run.

Fernandinande said...

walter said...
A sheep rancher once told me that the guard llama is driven by curiosity to go running up to any new presence to check it out. Due to its size and enthusiasm, it ends up scaring them away...i.e. unintentionally effective.


They might scare away coyotes. The people down the road from us have llamas and they're guarded by two big "Anatolian shepherd" dogs. Mountain lions aren't afraid of llamas, but they prefer to avoid two big dogs.

Fred Drinkwater said...

fernandinande: one of those French articles ends with this (which French clearly thinks is ridiculous):
it wasn’t long ago that one prominent feminist argued that our entire “postindustrial society” was just “better suited to women.”

I've heard this and similar arguments made over the last few decades. It's exemplary of what I call the "magical thinking" attitude toward modern civilization. The belief that certain physical attributes of our current way of life are like air: just there for the taking, and free. Or, at least, producible for negligible cost and with no difficult, messy, or dangerous labor.
I usually try to rebut this idea by asking "What is the most important thing about a house?" Since the answer is never "clean cheap water" or "working sewer system", there's sometimes an opportunity to do a little education.
There's nothing particularly "post-industrial" about sewer systems, water systems, safe highways, or even chip fabs and iPad factories. The soi-disant "post-industrial" society is still, and is likely to be into the foreseeable future, supported by an essential and immense and definitely "industrial" structure. Like it or not.

David said...

Feminism will rise in something like its current male disrespecting form until we have to go to war with a serious national effort. Right now it rises because a vast swath of our population assumes that a war like that will ever come again. Given human nature and human history, that assumption is likely to be incorrect, and the consequences of the error are likely to be spectacularly fear inducing.

Phunctor said...

And who is better qualified to define masculinity than David French? We have been honored.

buwaya said...

" The soi-disant "post-industrial" society is still, and is likely to be into the foreseeable future, supported by an essential and immense and definitely "industrial" structure. Like it or not."

"The Machine Stops" - E.M.Forster

R. Chatt said...

Obsessing about masculinity and what is true masculinity seems like something young men who are unsure of themselves do a lot. They’ve been told they are not supposed to be like women and have a lot of inner conflicts about their feminine side. As men get older they relax about it and even allow women to make important decisions if they are better at it. No one else even bothers much about masculinity except for men in patriarchal cultures or men stuck in patriarchal mindsets who fear losing power over/to women.

How Trump some how represents some different version of masculinity from Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders is beyond me. None have served in the military and none of them represent the true macho warrior and protector type. Both Cruz and Sanders have managed to offend different groups of people, that's all. But the media has not focused on it or made it an issue as the anti-Trump group has. Surprisingly Cruz’s willingness to throw LGBT under the bus has been ignored by liberal media. Where are the strong males protecting the weak males when you need them?

Despite his supposed reputation, Trump never shirked his responsibility to his former wives and his children. If he had we'd be hearing about it. When Trump refused to fire Corey Lewandowski a major reason was that Lewandowski has four children. There is no question Trump is a family man.

Ann Althouse said...

The best definition of feminism, said long ago: The radical notion that women are human.

Frankly, I think Trump exemplifies this and would agree to the proposition. French has a problem. I haven't had time to fisk this article and others, but he deserves it.

walter said...

I would think "humanism" makes the genders equally human...but maybe true equality is not the intention..

hombre said...

"...the high-school punk who always seemed to get the girl."

Punks alway seemed to get the girl? Spoken like a nerd.

I think Trump is unfit tempermentally and intellectually for POTUS and that his Trumpkins are the 2016 iteration of Obamadupes, but I don't see Trump support reflecting "toxic masculinity" as much as frustration and/or ignorance.

buwaya said...

"Where are the strong males protecting the weak males when you need them?"

That's not a thing.
Weak males are surplus to requirements anywhere and anytime.

BN said...

Looks like America can't lose this year. Trump and Hillary are both awesome alpha male choices for president. I say we don't even bother voting. Just have them whip it out and measure it off.

BN said...

Oh, and National Review? What have they ever done to thwart history? I mean compared to Trump over the last 6 months or so? He's called people names and everything!

Sebastian said...

"The best definition of feminism, said long ago: The radical notion that women are human." Best because it serves the actual agenda perfectly: what better way to claim privilege than in the name of humanity?

Not defending French though. Betas are on their own.

BN said...

"Trump for all his faults does not betray his own."

Tell it to his first 4 wives.

buwaya said...

" I mean compared to Trump over the last 6 months or so?"

Well, two fairly concrete things he has done, this year, just by yelling a bit -
- Got Carrier to stop moving their Indianapolis plant to Mexico. Probably temporary political measure, but still.
- Got Disney to stop switching all their IT jobs to H1bs or outsourced to India - also temporary probably.

Both, temporary as they may be, rather more than NR has achieved in 60 years.

walter said...

buwaya..
Has Trump settled on a consistent stance on H1Bs? Seems like he's been "flexible".

BN said...

"Both, temporary as they may be, rather more than NR has achieved in 60 years."

Well, except for Reagan and the consequent (1) saving of the USA from the Carter "malaise" and the (2) fall of the Soviet Union.

walter said...

Fernandinande,
Pretty impressive lapdogs: Male 50–65 kg (110–143 lb)
;)

buwaya said...

"Well, except for Reagan"

NR was responsible for Reagan? In their dreams.
And I liked NR at the time. It served some small purpose. But it was a small purpose.
Buckley wasn't NR, was bigger than NR, got to more people than NR; but even he was a very minor player in the ideological wars. The 700 Club (for one) was FAR bigger.

BN said...

NR was more responsible for the election of Reagan than Trump is for temporary decisions made by Carrier and Disney.

Quaestor said...

On the subject of sirens and the metaphors constructed on them. Sirens first appear in the Odyssey of Homer, which is to say around 720 years before Christ. In that work the sirens are not described as anything other than malign beings who lure sailors to their deaths by their singing. A sixth century piece of ceramic called a stamnos was decorated with this depiction of Odysseus lashed to the mast while sirens, monstrous birds with human heads, dive and swoop from above; the crew meanwhile are working the ship, oblivious to the sirens and their song. Homer and his classical interpreters want us to understand that is the singing alone that works its evil magic. The sirens themselves are dreadful miscreations. To protect his men Odysseus needs only to stop their ears with wax because nothing they can see can tempt or distract them.

It is only since the sex-obsessed Victorian Age that artist have felt compelled to sell us the notion that the siren appeared to their prey as lusciously naked women who tempt lonely men to their doom with a promise of coital bliss. Consider that piece by Edward Armitage Althouse chose to accompany her commentary. She seems to be boisterously enjoying the destruction her erotic blandishments have wrought. Has there ever been a more blatant testament of mysogyny?

Gahrie said...

The best definition of feminism, said long ago: The radical notion that women are human.

Bull fucking shit.

BN said...

"And I liked NR at the time."

And some of my best friends are feminists.

Michael K said...

"National Review is becoming a cargo cult."

I wish I had thought to include that with my comments on their recent fund raising letter.

They are killing their brand and I don't care.

Derbyshire is still available and Mark Steyn so I don't need them.

Gahrie said...

Feminism after the 19th Amendment (curses be upon it) was captured by the Marxists, who co-ruled the movement with radical lesbians and was purely about two things...abortion on demand and power politics.

Today feminism is ruled by radical lesbians and is about two things, abortion on demand and power politics.

It stopped being about equality nearly 100 years ago.

buwaya said...

"And some of my best friends are feminists.'

My wife and daughter are, or so they say. So ...

William said...

I wonder if this alpha male thing isn't some kind of literary invention like the unicorn. Horny asses are sometimes mistaken for unicorns. Thus so with alpha males. A lot of so called alpha males were in fact wretchedly insecure. Napoleon, Patton, Hitler--these were guys with major issues.......I'm definitely beta--and that's on a good day--so this might be sour grapes on my part, but I've got no great need for a forceful leader and tend to be distrustful of charisma. I favor Kasich precisely because he lacks glamour and excitement. The Game of Thrones is coming back on. That's all the drama and excitement I need. I don't look for validation, redemption, or excitement in my Presidents. The duller the better. Except Hillary. She's more annoying than dull.

Paco Wové said...

"She seems to be boisterously enjoying the destruction her erotic blandishments have wrought."

"Hey there, Ulysses, how's it hangin'? You wanna row over and maybe put some sunscreen on my back? It's totally safe!"

SGT Ted said...

Trump supporters need to quit pretending he has any principles. He has said things that need saying but he isn't interested in limited government, nor will he govern with that in mind.

French is right in that Trump is a loud mouth ignoramus.

Bob Ellison said...

Y'all mean this David French?

buwaya said...

Some perspective -

Althouse, probably, reaches more people than NR did in the 1970s, which was IIRC well under 150,000 per issue. The high point for NR was the 1990's when it was fairly obscure. In the 70's it was pretty obscure.

Side-note - Althouse also probably publishes more material, semi-monthly, than each NR issue of the day. I'm not saying its better material (hard to compete with the likes of Florence King), but interesting.

The WSJ editorial page reached tremendously more (daily in the millions), Buckley on PBS enormously more, Milton Friedman on PBS more than that, and the Christian broadcasters made all the above footnotes.

tim in vermont said...

If you blandish gifts and gifts are blandishments and you brandish weapons, is a weapon a brandishment?

tim in vermont said...

Has nobody learned anything from "Dune"?

Just been re-reading that. It's still great, but then Muslim terrorism is guaranteed to be an evergreen topic. It's even got the slipping of sleepers among refugees.

tim in vermont said...

That book is due for a decent movie to be made from it, though Star Wars wasn't bad. Lucas split "Fat Bastard" into Darth and Jabba, oh yeah, and he was Moab d'ib (sp?) grandfather, not father. Still it does seem like the original text, kind of like the movie "Mr Rock and Roll" was for "The Blues Brothers."

buwaya said...

"That book is due for a decent movie to be made from it"

Sci Fi channel made a reasonably OK miniseries back in 2000 or so.

BN said...

Let it go, Buwaya. NR not only influenced the electorate to elect RR, but it also was instrumental in shaping RR's political philosophy:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428055/paving-way-reagan

BN said...

But you may be right, Walker still has a shot due to the good perfesser's vast influence.

BN said...

"National Review is becoming a cargo cult."

Trumpets perhaps should avoid the word "cult."

Quaestor said...

The best definition of feminism, said long ago: The radical notion that women are human.

How trite a notion. Sorry, but that's a counterfactual cliché no matter which approach one takes. And certainly not radical.

No culture past or present has made the claim that women are less than human. The question was been what class of human. Most societies have been hierarchical, which definitely includes our post-modern America. Classical civilization generally viewed women as subordinate to their men in the domains of war and politics, yet there were always exceptions like Cleopatra and Artemisia II of Caria. Even slaves were seen as human, just humans on the bottom of the socio-politcal pile. Some slaves were valued for their education and skill, which was acknowledge as superior to that of their masters. Also remember that freed slave sometimes rose to positions of high authority in the classical world, so it can e argued to the hierarchies of Greece and Rome were more malleable than even those that dominate our culture today.

Steeped as it is in pretense and uber-hypocrisy our self-appointed cultural elite denies the existence of hierarchies, or invents non-existent ones, which is just one example of their pretense and hypocrisy. Today the bottom is of the pile is occupied mostly by white men who deny the orthodoxies (how ironic that the ruling elite once lionized the unorthodox as cultural heroes), particularly the orthodoxies of gender which demand we embrace the absurdity called self-identifation, that claiming to be of the opposite sex ones genes dictate is the same as being that monstrosity.

Feminism has no definition. It is a label that attaches to anything which the cultural elite chooses, which is why it can seek to destroy a good man for nothing but innuendoes of one woman, and at the same time protect a wicked man whose transgressions are attested to by many women and forensic evidence. Feminism has no definition because it cannot logically have one. That which explains everything explains nothing.

buwaya said...

"Let it go, Buwaya."

I won't, so there.

The article is a rather strained piece.
There is no doubt that Buckley was influential- he knew everyone and yakked with everyone - and he had a big TV show, as political shows went at the time, as well as being a widely syndicated columnist. Buckley got far more eyes and ears than NR ever did. He as a household name, a celebrity. Comedians could mention Buckley and people got the joke.
Buckley wasn't NR, and NR wasn't Buckley.
And Reagan wasn't created by NR. It sounds like he liked it as I did. But that doesn't get you very much does it?

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Here is the genesis of the sheep/wolves thing--I will link and also excerpt it. It's an old entry from a blog that Bill Whittle used to maintain.

__________

A few weeks ago, a reader was kind enough to send me a link about a theory and seminar called The Bulletproof Mind, written by Lt. Colonel Dave Grossman. Just the small blurb I read enlarged my mental horizon by an order of magnitude, because it clarified many of the confusing things I have been feeling as so much of the country plunges deeper into irresponsibility, fantasy, bitterness and delusion.

I excerpt a small portion of it here, without permission, in the hope that those of you who are serious about surviving things like Katrina will go here and buy it.

Lt. Colonel Grossman, a far better man than me, a man who does things I only talk about, writes in his introduction to The Bulletproof Mind:

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident."
This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.

Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million total Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf." Or, as a sign in one California law enforcement agency put it, "We intimidate those who intimidate others."
If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen: a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath--a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? Then you are a sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

{continued}


He continues:

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial; that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools. But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are dozens of times more likely to be killed, and thousands of times more likely to be seriously injured, by school violence than by school fires, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their children is just too hard, so they choose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheepdog that intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa." Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

Bob Ellison said...

"Any sheepdog that intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed."

But the sheep don't know that. Only the farmer knows that. Even the dogs don't know that. Sorry, but they don't reason forward that way.

The farmer, of course, takes lambs and slaughters them. The sheep and the dog don't know that. It doesn't seem quite right to the ewes, and the rams will occasionally rush, but they're easily scared off.

It's a problem.

Michael K said...

"What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another."

I'm reading "The 10,000 Year Explosion" by Harpending, who just died, and Cochran. They have written an amazingly good discussion of evolutionary biology.

One section on mutations that are helpful is called "The Hawk and The Dove problem." Some people are genetically hawks and some are doves. As long as hawks are a minority, they can profit by attacking and intimidating doves. The problem is that this causes the number of hawks to increase until the odds of attacking another hawk rise. There is an optimal level of hawks, as far as the hawks are concerned. For doves, zero hawks would probably be best.

I think we may be seeing this in inner cities. The Warrior Gene might be the basis of the "Hawk." That gene is more common in blacks.

In humans, there is a 30-base repeat sequence repeated in one of several different numbers of times in the promoter region of the gene coding for MAO-A. There are 2R (two repeats), 3R, 3.5R, 4R, and 5R variants of the repeat sequence, with the 3R and 4R variants most common in Caucasians.

And

A connection between a version of the monoamine oxidase A gene (3R) and several types of antisocial behavior has been found. Maltreated children with genes causing high levels of MAO-A were less likely to develop antisocial behavior.[22] Low MAO-A activity in combination with abuse experienced during childhood results in an increased risk of aggressive behaviour as an adult,[23] and there is evidence suggesting that men with the low activity MAOA allele are more genetically vulnerable even to punitive discipline as a predictor of antisocial behaviour.[24] High testosterone, maternal tobacco smoking during pregnancy, poor material living standards, dropping out of school, and low IQ also predicts violent behavior in men with the low-activity alleles (which are overwhelmingly the 3R allele).[25][26] Even in the absence of such interaction factors, the 3R allele has a small main effect on aggression and antisocial behavior, according to a large meta-analysis, which found no significant publication bias.[27]

Wiki goes to great length to avoid mentioning the fact that it is more common in blacks.

traditionalguy said...

The word Cult applies where ever you find a False Doctrine is being taught by a false Prophet.

That would be Lyin' Ted, precisely. Kasich is just a good politician past his sell by date. Hillary is just a Crook, American style.

Only Bernie and Cruz are creating cults.

bagoh20 said...

Sometimes democracy is a bunch of sheep deciding who's a wolf and who's a sheepdog. Do very wealthy sheepdogs file for bankruptcy, or is that more of a wolf move?

SOJO said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Guildofcannonballs said...

I always find it odd when people complain Buckley didn't do enough or wasn't effective enough, given anybody who would say that essentially looks at WFB as a servant to advancing other than the undeniable advancements Buckley made.

Buckley did what he could, being Bill.

What have you done?

Oh, you have an excuse of some sort don't you, so you can't compare yourself to WFB, only demand he should have done more in his 82 years? Or in place of demand, you only complain about what he should have done because your life isn't as Eutopic as it could be now, in 2016?

I see things written amounting to "oh Buckley never should have purged the Birches and now decades later that's why cuckservatism sucks" and conclude I am indeed a failure for not living up to the standards Buckley advanced, not that Buckley was a failure for not advancing more better.

Reagan taught me freedom is ALWAYS one generation away from extinction and yet the truths contained within that maxim seemingly have been tossed aside to satisfy the ego's need to say "ain't my bitch."

Tupac rapped "I came into this world I didn't make it" as an excuse to cause trouble, without realizing he did make a bunch of the world his lil homies and babies mommas do indeed now inhabit. He has an excuse being murdered at 27 years old. In addition he contributed a lot of wisdom and beauty. I hope we can all say we contributed beauty in some way to this world of ours.

Guildofcannonballs said...

"The century’s most blatant force of satanic utopianism is communism. We consider “coexistence” with communism neither desirable nor possible, nor honorable; we find ourselves irrevocably at war with communism and shall oppose any substitute for victory."

- See more at: http://clarionadvisory.com/?p=22143#sthash.SJi58EfI.dpuf

walter said...

Cults tend to have an actual doctrine and don't resort to shoolyard taunts like "Lyin' Ted".
Trump that(,) bitch!

Guildofcannonballs said...

I am still pissed of at Samwise and Frodo; sure sure the world wasn't overrun by Orcs, but where the Hell is my free education and healthcare MOFO's?

And Sam at the end even has a sort-of grimace after having been given the chance to be so famous and heroic facing death so many, many times unlike folks who had to stay back in the Shire baking cookies and abusing drink like pedestrians do and would. My God.

Guildofcannonballs said...

We can all agree now, with Venona and all, Patton was a treasonous traitor for knowing what he knew and not Killing Truman and Ike in order to finish off the Soviets.

Right???

I mean, to know, as Patton did, the evil that was Stalin, and yet not kill it, is much worse than sitting at home shoveling shit, right?

Right???

Roughcoat said...

"Dune" is a rip-off of "The Sabres of Paradise: Conquest and Vengeance in the Caucasus" by the great Lesley Blanch. The author published her history of the Great Caucasus War in 1960; Frank Herbert must have read it shortly thereafter. The book is astonishingly well-written, a historical narrative that reads like epic fiction. Herbert "borrowed" heavily from it. In many instances his borrowings venture into the territory of literary theft and cross the line from imitation into plagiarism.

And there's this: Blanch is a better writer than Herbert; a better storyteller, by far and away. And her story has the the virtue of being true.

narciso said...

it's more in the nature of how lowry and williamson, to name two, have squandered his legacy, how they threw steyn under the bus, how they mau'mau'd themselves into discarding derbyshire,

Guildofcannonballs said...

"Buckley's principles were determinative in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) in which a 5 to 4 decision held that both unions and corporations could also spend unlimited money from their general treasuries during elections."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

What is, or what will be, your wiki entry?

William said...

I worry most about my tender vines. I can handle the wolves, but those damned little foxes can make life a misery.

narciso said...

interesting I wasn't aware of such a connection, odd that Herbert would use jihad, and not ghazavat.

Guildofcannonballs said...

My beauty bestowed will involve the course of coarsening dialogue taught by University discourse.

It won't be God and Man at Yale and for a lil bit that dismayed me; no more.

verb
gerund or present participle: coarsening
make or become rough.
"her hands were coarsened by outside work"
synonyms: roughen, toughen, harden
"hands coarsened by work"
make or become crude, vulgar, or unpleasant.
"her experience has not coarsened her or made her cynical"
synonyms: desensitize, dehumanize; More

https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=coarsening&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Absolutely all crudeness, vulgarness, and unpleasantness Donald Trump has shown was taught to him by the same now condemning him for it; all to enrich themselves like the skyrocketing student debt and blackballing of persons such as Chris Langan has proved time and time again to have been done and to do; across seas and eras alike.

narciso said...

the principle between citizens is sound, 'congress shall make no law' however the practical application is something else again, the dems made better use of the tool, they deny with a straight face, priorities usa, adelson provided some some support, to newt as fries did to santorum,

coupe said...

Wasn't David French part of the torturing Iraqi prisoners which created ISIS? He won a Bronze star for being a lawyer?

I couldn't get a bronze star unless I made it to a HQ company. Dirt bags got an expeditionary medal, and a 25 cent cigar.

"Yea, sure torture them, kill them, I don't care!" Man, Sir, by golly, you deserve a medal.

traditionalguy said...

Cults have a Lyin' Doctrine proclaimed by a Lyin' Prophet that fools those easy to mind control.

The first thing the false Prophet proclaims is that you cannot trust truth tellers.

Deception rackets protect the decieved from interaction with truth tellers. (See, Scientology)

But the false prophet goal is destruction of his cult victims. That is why he feeds them cool aide, but never drinks it himself.

MikeD said...

" And who's the sheepdog — men "properly defined"? What's so manly about proper definitions?"
Well, in my patriarchal pre-boomer education the "sheepdog" was the defender of Western Civilization. Of course, in today's post modern world "Western Civilization" is the root of all evil. Sad to see our hostess has bought into the fallacy! Althouse may think/believe a "sheepdog" protecting civilization is some sort of anti-feminist but, a true feminist would understand the only guarantee of equality is a strong man believing in it. See Islam/Sharia for the weak man!

Bob Ellison said...

This gets tiring to oppose.

Feminism and racism have rockets behind them. You can't stop them. There are other rockets behind them. Longer boats are coming to win us.

BN said...

"Wasn't David French part of the torturing Iraqi prisoners which created ISIS?"

Yes, he did it personally in fact. And that's what created ISIS. And all the other Muslim armies that committed atrocities throughout history.

Or was it Frank Herbert?

I always get them two mixed up.

walter said...

trad guy projects..bigly.

tim in vermont said...

Thanks Roughcoat, I just bought it.

tim in vermont said...

So that's what they are saying at the Daily Kos, not that abandoning large swaths of territory and leaving a power vacuum created ISIS, or giving weapons to Syrian rebels created ISIS, or even that the corruption of the Iraqi and Syrian governments created ISIS, but that waterborading a couple of guys who were behind a massive terror attack against the US, that's the thing that created ISIS?

Wow, if it resembled reasoning at all, I would consider that a prime example of motivated reasoning.

gadfly said...

"[E]nvy of the high-school punk who always seemed to get the girl" is not a feminist thingy nor is it championing masculinity - so why are you reading stuff that isn't there? Try this:

First, in the reality of it all, there were 15 male sheepdogs, a berserker wolf and a matriarch trying to lead the pack of dogs. But only the matriarch snarled at the wolf, so the wolf had his way - until most of the dog owners decided that a lone wolf could never lead. So the majority Dog Owners formed a #NoWolf alliance to block the Wolf in a dog pack in order to force the wolf loner to run with his brethren among the wild wolves. The End.

Robert Cook said...

"So that's what they are saying at the Daily Kos, not that abandoning large swaths of territory and leaving a power vacuum created ISIS, or giving weapons to Syrian rebels created ISIS, or even that the corruption of the Iraqi and Syrian governments created ISIS, but that waterborading a couple of guys who were behind a massive terror attack against the US, that's the thing that created ISIS?"

I haven't read the Daily Kos thing--as I don't follow Daily Kos--but I agree that Isis arose due to a multiplicity of reasons, many having to do with our own actions, (starting with our illegal invasion of Iraq and continuing with our continued presence in Afghanistan, and our expansion into who knows how many other areas of the middle east). However, if you think our use of torture was limited to "waterboarding a couple of guys," you're just not paying attention. Heck, the photos leaked from Abu Ghraib--which were considered the least disturbing and awful--show that torture was and is a regular practice in our war of terror. (And don't say Abu Ghraib was "the actions of a few bad apples." That's simply the scapegoating of low-level grunts when the high-level dogs of war are caught in their crimes.

dbp said...

Please, it is National Review not The National Review. No "The" in the title. Even the web presence is called National Review Online. If you were to throw in a "the" as part of a sentence about National Review, "I was looking through the latest issue of National Review" or "I was on the National Review website". The first "the" is not by the title and so not a problem, the second is right before National Review, but not capitalized and so not implied to be part of the title.

tim in vermont said...

Whatever Bobby

poker1one said...

Screw all the conservatives who are content to argue among each other and never win. I support Trump because, as Lincoln said of Grant, "...he fights." This is important in a war of survival, which we are in, despite the elites best attempts to mask it.

SGT Ted said...

"starting with our illegal invasion of Iraq"

Not illegal. Maybe not wise, but perfectly legal and authorized by Congress via the War Powers Act and continued funding.

Parroting that old Democrat talking point will never make it the truth. So why don't you stop telling this lie?

SGT Ted said...

And don't say Abu Ghraib was "the actions of a few bad apples." That's simply the scapegoating of low-level grunts when the high-level dogs of war are caught in their crimes.

Yet another lefty lie that Cook continues to parrot.

I was at Abu Ghuraib when it went down. The Taguba Report lays out who was responsible for it and at what level and all of those people were disciplined in some manner.

It wasn't Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld. Get over it.

mikee said...

I, for one, will crawl a mile over broken glass to vote against the Hillary, whoever her opponent might be. And yet, I'll lose a $100 bet if she does not win the presidency.

Such is my contempt for the person and respect for her massive, corrupt, destructive political machine. God help us if she wins.

mockturtle said...

God help us if she wins.
He probably won't want to!