I awoke this morning to a message from Fr. Siewers. He shared a NY Post article, “Young men leaving traditional churches for ‘masculine’ Orthodox Christianity in droves,” which I read with my coffee. This is a trend within Orthodoxy, and arguably I’m part of it, where (relatively) young men are leaving the consumerist ‘Big Box’ and the compromised traditional churches for a weird alternative that feels foreign to most Americans.
I know, in past blogs, about Orthodox growth, I’ve done a sort of victory lap about Orthodoxy and in doing so left out valid counterpoints. Yes, indeed, many young men are finding Orthodoxy. But it may not be as big a trend as articles like this NY Post story or the Orthodox faithful make it out to be. The growth from fundamentalist reactionaries is limited—most especially if it is only drawing in males. It is difficult to sustain this if no accompanying young women are willing to procreate with these transplanted men.
The truth is that Orthodox, in the United States of America, only number around 6-7 million. Who knows how many show up on Sunday? For sake of reference, that is less than the estimates for illegal immigrants who currently live in this country, around 11.7 million, and basically makes the Orthodox contingent a demographic drop in the bucket. Yes, growth is good, but is this sustainable? Or is it just a blip driven by those desperate to do something a little different from everyone else and destined to fade like Hipster fashion after a decade?
My own conversion to Orthodoxy was not the same as the template laid out in the NY Post article. I wasn’t running from a church with a ‘woke’ or social justice agenda that replaced the Gospel. Yes, maybe I was a bit disgruntled with a feminized church culture where marriage and family were sacrificed for impossible ideals and visible missions. But it wasn’t in reaction to liberalization. I had done it from a conservative Mennonite church and was attracted to Orthodoxy as it was different from fundamentalism.
Ironically, this new flow of reactionary men to Orthodoxy may come at the expense of the attitude of the church that had initially drawn me. While adopting the Orthodox worship ritual, some bring their Protestant or Catholic baggage with them, there are too many Ortho-bros or those simply trying to be edgelords and unique. It is part of the Alt-right vibe, those who have rejected the far-left’s absurdity on one hand and yet are still looking for a reaction more than they are serious about their faith.
There will always be that small percentage of people who will buy a Tesla Cybertruck to be strange. Those who do things to piss off everyone else with normal tastes. And the growth of Orthodoxy is as much a rejection of the political mainstream as it is about seeking God. It feels more like cosplay, in my experience, than it is something born of a repentant spirit and desire to truly submit to the authority of Christ vested in the church. It is a bunch of dressed-up Protestants.
Case and point? The parish I left has an old Baptist convert as a priest who offended a couple (very fragile extremely idealistic homeschoolers) and the mom of this union made it her personal mission to pull as many people away as possible through lies and attacks. That’s where much of the new growth in the ROCOR parish down the road has come from and why I’ve been inclined to stay home on Sunday to be away from all of it. Not all growth is good growth.
As a postscript, my wife and I do not share the same perspective as far as worship and what church is ideal. She got along with the folks at Holy Cross. But didn’t get much out of the preaching (which was fundamentalist in flavor more than Orthodox) and practice. We sometimes attend a generic Protestant consumerist church, with a rock band and a coffee shop, because it is what reminds her most of her own generic Evangelicalism in the Philippines. My son and new daughter remain unbaptized.
We love technology because it makes our life easier. Machines do the back-breaking labor that once took an army of men, we all get more as a result, travel between places is a matter of gassing up the car and going rather than a perilous ordeal. In general social media platforms and online retailers reduce friction. That is to say, they facilitate an interaction at a much lower cost of time and effort. Why go shopping or hang out at the mall when you can sit on the couch?
That was a key revelation this week: Snapchat and TikTok have taken the place of roaming the corridors of what was once a retail Mecca. Entertainment is as simple as picking up your smartphone and finding out what Mr Beast is doing. He’s so much cooler than even the cool kids at school, so why even bother to see what they’re doing? It is too hard to make plans with friends, to get dolled up, to drive ten miles and walk on your feet when you feel as if you can get the same reward wearing your underwear at home in your bedroom.
More are living in a fantasy of life, following a path of least resistance, and not realizing the full cost. Social media is to the community what pornography is to sex. Sure, you have escaped the grip of boredom. That desire for interaction has been gratified. It is even more sterile and safe. That pretty girl won’t reject you here in virtual reality, she doesn’t compare to what is available at your fingertips anyways, so why be treated as second rate by what is second rate? We escape our limitations with our imagination.
However, it all comes at a cost, much of this cost is hidden or deferred. The cost is that we don’t accomplish what we could—in the real world—by our reliance on a meaningless space where nothing of value is accomplished.
Our convenience-seeking way is a form of depravity, that is to say, it is trading current pleasure for future pain. If we don’t get any physical exercise, for example, because the machines do all the work for us, we will lose our muscle mass and gain weight. Cuts in calories and gym time can counter this, but there must be proper sacrifices, or diabetes and quality of life decline will follow. Why not walk rather than ride in a vehicle? The exercise would do us good.
Oh, you don’t live in town?
Everywhere you need to go requires a drive?
The suburban sprawl and development built around the automobile have led to an increasingly dependent lifestyle. And that is not a typo. Our convenient mode of travel has made it easier to close a distance; we don’t need to live next to our sources of food, employment, or social interaction. Yet, as a result, everything is now more distant, and this is how we end up commuting forty minutes to work rather than spending the day in our own neighborhood. We can be everywhere all at once and are scattered to the wind because of this.
This is true regarding schools. Even after the one-room schoolhouse had gone away the schools were within talking distance in my hometown. But now nearly every child is either bussed or dropped off since all of the schools are part of the sprawl. It just amazes me, that in an age where we’re worried about sustainability and subsidizing EVs for a marginal reduction in carbon emissions, we are still—as a public policy—developing our communities in the direction of more dependency rather than less.
A smartphone feels so secure in our hands, so intimate, and yet will divulge our secrets (without our knowledge) to anyone with resources. For all we know it is a bomb waiting to explode given we are only the end user of the device and have no idea of its inner workings—let alone who had hands on it before it came to us. And simultaneously, while vulnerable to every nefarious actor that exists, we’re more isolated when it all goes down. Suddenly, in North Carolina, after the flooding, they can’t do business without cold hard cash.
One cost of convenience is dependency on long supply chains. Even those face-to-face transactions often involve third parties who skim a bit for themselves. We empower the global corporate conglomerates and are always at the expense of local control. Could your community survive without trucked-in food and consumer goods? How far would you need to walk for basic needs if the electric power went out or tankers stopped bringing in fuel? A century or two ago most people could find enough to eat simply stepping into their own backyard.
Sure, having a big garden and animals is inconvenient day to day, but it is much more sustainable. Our cars and phones make it easier to travel, but they also have put us in a bubble. As in, not being 100% present even to our own family beside us, where we drive past each other in a metal shell at 70 mph and never meet the people who supply our needs. We feel sophisticated because of the gadgets in our hands, when in reality an Amish man living a century ago had life figured out better than we do.
Given what we’re discovering about microplastics, the Amish were right even in their rejection of rubber tires. Why? Well, it isn’t because they had special knowledge. No, in simply rejecting most new technology they also avoid the unintended consequences as well. This disposition to be wary of what is generally accepted as improvement, asking what it will take away from the community and our humanity, is good. It is moral to take a little time to consider the long-term costs of our technology decisions.
As soon as we embraced technology that we could not manufacture or sustain by ourselves we became vulnerable. Humanity suffers as we look to technology. Sure, the benefits of innovation also can’t be ignored or downplayed. But we must always be as aware of the downside and, therefore, have an intentional approach when adopting the next new device. There is always a price to be paid for convenience. We need to do the hard work, to help rebuild those strong local communities and foster robust humanity.
The battery electric vehicle (EV) versus the internal combustion engine (ICE) powered debate is one of the most irrational of our time. On both sides of the discussion, you have those frothing-at-the-mouth types who attack the moment you disagree. And this is exactly the response that I got after I had casually mentioned that ICE is 1/3 the cost under a click-bait post…
Model Y starts at $43,990 FYI.
One just called me ignorant, but others tried to make an argument, including this response:
I’m trying to figure out what car cost 1/3 of the price of a Tesla🤔🤔? The long range Model 3 (the one you want for a roadtrip) is $42,500 – $7500 tax credit is $35,000. This is not factoring in gas savings. Please tell me what new car is availability for under $12,000 (that’s the 1/3 cost of a Tesla you mentioned)?
Fair enough question.
Note, I never said new, but assuming that I did…
Believe it or not, and even in this inflationary age, there are still reliable sedans that come in under $20,000. Starting with a Mitsubishi Mirage G4 ($18,500), the Kia Rio ($17,875), and the Nissan Versa ($17,075), the lowest-priced option is half of even the subsidized price of the Tesla base model.
But you can’t exclude the subsidy from the cost of the EV, the government doesn’t have a magic wand to create value and we all end up paying for their expenditures in our taxes or by inflation due to money printing. And it only begins with that “tax credit” (so-called) given directly to privileged people who can afford a new luxury car.
What is the true cost of subsidies?
According to a study by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, the cost to us is nearly $50,000 for every EV produced:
Federal and state subsidies and regulatory credits for EVs totaled nearly $22 billion in 2021, or nearly $50,000 per EV, socializing the true cost of these vehicles to taxpayers, utility ratepayers, and owners of gasoline vehicles
Tens of billions of dollars have been spent trying to make EVs viable, and yet still the average cost of these vehicles is $65,000, compared to $48,000 for ICE. Why haven’t these subsidies leveled the playing field? It is simply the fact that batteries require tons of extra material and a much more complex process to produce.
So we can at least double that visible “tax credit” subsidy and already the true cost of an EV is close to three times a comparable ICE sedan.
We could stop there—the 1/3 number reached—but let’s continue…
What is the true cost of production?
The cost of a vehicle isn’t just the window sticker price or the money that it takes to manufacture. The bigger question—given the reason many say we should switch to EVs is about emissions—is what the increased environmental impact is of producing the batteries that go into these cars. Is this a trade-off we are willing to make?
Lithium batteries are costly, they require an enormous amount of water and also leave a toxic legacy that will grow exponentially as EV is adopted. Is it worth this cost to only marginally reduce carbon emissions? That is to say, around 17-30% less emissions according to European Energy Agency?
Sure, it could get better with a heavy investment in electrical generation and transmission—yet that is another huge cost financially and environmentally…
What is the cost of infrastructure demand?
This is where the conversation is the most interesting. We have the refining capacity and distribution network already built for ICE vehicles. Gasoline and diesel fuel have the advantage of being energy-dense and can be moved around using the existing highways. But what about EVs?
There is an illusion that comes with plugging something in. The load we put on the system is invisible. But there is no magic to it. Electricity is something that must be produced somewhere and then transmitted to the charging stations. If everyone adopted EV technology the grid would collapse.
We’re currently nowhere even near what it would take in capacity to convert everyone to EV. The easiest route to more electrical generation is to go anuclear. So how many new nuclear power plants would it take? Well, if we use miles driven and the number of cars on the road today, then we would need to build 250 additional nuclear power plants as big as the largest plant in the US, and the supporting infrastructure to keep up with this demand.
So are you willing to have a Palo Verde in your own backyard?
It cost 5.9 billion dollars to build one in 1988 (the equivalent of 13.9 billion in 2023) and we needed to start building 250 of them yesterday. The solar and wind equivalent would be even more costly to build and maintain.
The costs would be astronomical and that’s just considering only passenger vehicles. Switching Class 8 trucks would take even more of these massive power plants and spending—the cost of switching would be insane. Not to mention you would need more trucks to do the same work as you did with diesel. And remember, every dime that we spend on this mass EV conversion could go to health care or education instead.
Can you now see how extremely costly EVs will become as they are adopted?
But it does not end there…
Why is the cost of wear items greater?
Batteries are heavy and weight is the enemy of “wear items” like brakes or tires—which is not to mention the additional damage to the highway infrastructure.
EV tires wear 20% faster than comparable ICE vehicles. That is a cost out of your own pocket and also a concern for the environment. And do not forget, to be safe you’ll need those heavy-duty EV-specific tires. Sure, maybe this is not a very big problem for those who can already afford the premium cost of a new EV? However, for that waitress struggling to make ends meet she will have to make the choice between safety and home utilities.
Next up is excess road wear. Big trucks are obviously the leading cause of damage to roads. However, EV proliferation will start to cause problems for existing infrastructure:
A 6,000-pound vehicle causes more than five times as much road damage as a 4,000-pound sedan. A GMC Hummer EV, which weighs 9,063 pounds, will cause 116 times as much road damage as a Honda Civic, weighing 2,762 pounds.
The article cited above isn’t about EVs yet does apply given it is about the vehicle weight. Even the Model 3 is a whopping 3,862 to 4,054 lbs. Sure, one vehicle is not going to do a whole lot by itself, but the volume over time will significantly impact bridges and parking garages that were designed for lighter ICE vehicles. This EV vehicle weight bloat caused by batteries will require very costly upgrades to prevent catastrophic failures—like the Ann Street Building Collapse:
Speaking of disasters. With EV there is potential for a thermal runaway or reaction that can’t be stopped—like an ICE fire—by simply denying the source of oxygen. This hazard will result in more damage to road surfaces, more time spent in traffic jams after incidents, and additional toxic emissions. This is a cost to be seriously considered with all of the others.
Cost of time, capability, and resale value…
Many of the costs and drawbacks of EVs are hidden under a pile of subsidies or are moved upstream like the emissions—out of sight out of mind.
But what cannot be ignored is performance in terms of range. Time is by far our most valuable resource and nobody wants to spend hours in a place they don’t want to be because their vehicle battery is drained.
As far as capabilities, even EV trucks are useless for towing, both the Tesla Cybertruck and the Ford Lightning—both costing around $100,000 in the higher trim levels—aren’t so good at doing typical truck things. Sure, they produce a ton of low-end torque and are very fast. But the F-150 EV only went 90 miles pulling a camper and the Tesla only fared a little better.
7000lb luxury land yachts
And finally, we need to talk about plunging resale values. For a while EV was a novelty, the “way of the future” every suburban geek needed to virtue signal. But it appears that this is now starting to fade and reality is starting to take over again—46% of EV owners in the US plan to ditch EV to return back to ICE—and many will not recoup their cost because the floor is dropping out for used EVs:
A recent study from iSeeCars.com showed the average price of a 1- to 5-year-old used EV in the U.S. fell 31.8% over the past 12 months, equating to a value loss of $14,418. In comparison, the average price for a comparably aged internal combustion engine vehicle fell just 3.6%.
ICE costs less to build, but the hybrid will likely emerge as the winner for being the best of both worlds. It has range like ICE, and torque like an EV, while also keeping its value and not requiring vast new expenditures to upgrade the electrical infrastructure. If costs are reflected in the market hybrid will come out victorious in the end. Some can afford EVs today, but only because others are absorbing more than half of the real costs.
As a footnote, I’m not opposed to EVs nor do I think they are destined to go extinct. If resale values continue to drop I would even consider owning one. The whole point of this article is simply to give a bit of pushback against the Pollyannaish sentiments that would lead to an ill-advised mandate. There would be an enormous cost, and opportunity cost, that would come with this. Just the fact that EVs need massive subsidies to be sold should tell us enough. If it isn’t viable in the market it isn’t viable.
As I ponder my responsibilities, bringing a daughter into this world, my patriarchal protection is a given.
The West has been so successful at privileging women that many women do not comprehend the risks of true equal treatment. Feminism is only possible as a part of the patriarchal duty that men feel to protect women. What it amounts to is using male power to enforce standards that are friendly to women, that allow them to walk freely in the street in all manner of dress (or undress), and ignore the reality of what has existed outside the walls of patriarchalism.
Even the idea that sexual assault is a bad thing is an extension of patriarchalism where natural desire must be restrained by structures created by men. A buck in the rut doesn’t ask permission. Hormones direct it’s behavior and only the bigger male can ward off the advances it will make on a doe. It is a hierarchy that is built only on strength. Moral conscience is built off the idea that there’s a big man up there who cares about property rights; who says that a body belongs to someone and is therefore not ours for the taking simply because we desire it.
Yes, eventually this evolved into an idea of everyone owning themselves that we now assume is simply the universal truth. However, nothing in the animal kingdom suggests this is the case. The real world is often a brutal and unforgiving place. When a new group of male lions takes over a pride they will kill the cubs of the previous males. And human morality developed in a very similar manner. This was the default, whether the Psalmist’s fantasy about bashing the heads of an enemy’s infants against rocks or the book of Deuteronomy giving some rules for the treatment of war brides:
When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God hands them over to you and you take some of them prisoner, and if you see a beautiful woman among the captives, desire her, and want to take her as your wife, you are to bring her into your house. She is to shave her head, trim her nails, remove the clothes she was wearing when she was taken prisoner, live in your house, and mourn for her father and mother a full month. After that, you may have sexual relations with her and be her husband, and she will be your wife. Then if you are not satisfied with her, you are to let her go where she wants, but you must not sell her or treat her as merchandise, because you have humiliated her.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
To our modern ears, this is horrendous. There is no asking for permission. And, other than saying to wait a month, the men were free to rape their captive females. But the reality is that this was a radical step in the direction of protecting women from physical violation. One hopes that this delay would’ve ensured a more compassionate and gentle approach rather than some blood-soaked orgy during the heat of battle and immediately after her male relatives were slaughtered. As grotesque as this seems, it was better for her to belong to one man (with some rights after he rejects her) than to be passed around as a mere sex object in the manner of a Japanese comfort woman:
CLAVERIA: (Through interpreter) A Japanese soldier got his bayonet and started peeling my father’s skin while saying, tell us the truth – your child is part of the guerrillas with the owners of that empty house.
MCCARTHY: As Claveria pleaded to let her father go, a soldier wrenched her arm. Birdlike, petite, Claveria strokes a badly set bone as she picks up the story of how she followed her mother’s screams up the stairs.
CLAVERIA: (Through interpreter) I saw my mother lying down with her skirt up, and there was a Japanese soldier on top of her. I ran. My two youngest siblings took little sticks and started hitting the soldiers. The Japanese soldiers then snatched away the sticks and bayoneted both of them.
MCCARTHY: They died. Claveria believes her parents were killed when the village was torched. Japanese soldiers hauled away two older sisters to a garrison and took Claveria to an infirmary for her injured arm. She does not recall how long she was there recovering, but she remembers a soldier named Terasaki. One day, he told Claveria she smelled, but she refused to take a bath, saying she had no change of clothes. Ordering her to wash, she says he gave her a uniform to put on.
CLAVERIA: (Through interpreter) I was to be taken to the garrison where my two sisters were. Before we reached the garrison, he raped me. I thought that I was going to die because I was in so much pain.
MCCARTHY: Terasaki would be the first of many Japanese soldiers to sexually assault Claveria, who was not even a teenager at the time. She was 12. She said her sister Meteria had been driven half mad by the trauma she’d experienced at the garrison. Claveria was shocked when she caught sight of her there.
CLAVERIA: (Through interpreter) She was burned with cigarette butts and boiled sweet potatoes. When one soldier after the next raped her, she put up a fight, but my sister was not brave. She refused because she was in so much agony from all the abuse.
MCCARTHY: Claveria believes her other kidnapped sister was moved to a different garrison. She was never seen again. Historians have estimated that at least 200,000 women were forced into sexual servitude during World War II, mostly in areas occupied by Japan, prominently Korea. The women were euphemistically called comfort women, and the organized system of comfort stations to supply soldiers sexual gratification ran from Seoul to Singapore. Writer Evelina Galang has documented women captured in the Philippines.
EVELINA GALANG: And these are women as young as 16 years old – really, some of them 8, 10 years old. In the Philippines, historians estimate that there were probably about a thousand women and girls taken and put into military sex slave camps.
Men can be monsters. Worse than animals. And, in many parts of the world, immodest dress is taken to be a sign she wants it. Morality does not hold back the aggression of the rapist. No, rather it is the role of other men to restrain evil. Women are protected by their fathers, by their husbands, and by institutions that represent these men. Political structures were created by men and are defended by men. Yes, even if women were granted the right to participate. E.g. even if Kamala Harris takes the patriarchal role—she is still acting in a patriarchal manner and will need the strength of men to impose her will.
There will not be a feminist left in Europe if Islamists take over. That is not to bash Islam or say they would kill off all women who did not submit. No, it is to say that feminism cannot exist outside of the Christian West. The notion of individual rights, that people can independently make their own decisions, cannot exist only on paper or it is impotent. It requires men willing to sacrifice themselves to preserve this egalitarian ideal for their wives and children. Self-sacrificial love is not natural nor a priority in every religious patriarchal structure. Feminists cannot exist in Islam because only the respect of patriarchal institutions gives them power.
The alternative to the current patriarchy is not the absence of patriarchy, men (or those who act like men) will always rule, but the real choice is what manner of rule we wish to live under. It really is survival of the fittest outside of the walls of civilization. Chants of “down with the patriarchy” are about as meaningless as shaking your fist at the wind. It misunderstands the world. It assumes that nature will simply obey our voice because we’re angry and believe rights can exist outside of the structures that guaranteed them for us. It is only in the absence of rule by men who care about more than their own sexual gratification that the value of this benevolent form of patriarchy is known.
Early on in this site, I spent significant time trying to explain the power of description and how bias works. The underdogs are the ones who are assailed by less favorable language by those who have power in the group. A good quality can be twisted into something bad or propagandists can cast the exact same actions in a very different light—which is what these two examples capture:
Bad when Trump proposed it.Good when Harris copies it.
When Trump proposed an end to taxes on tips the focus was on the ‘cost’ of allowing servers to keep more of what they earn. But when Harris copied the idea, suddenly there is no concern for revenues lost and it is all about her “fight” for the little guy. Likewise, when JD Vance offered a $5000 tax credit for children it was “difficult” and yet when the Harris campaign did the same it was all about newborn cuteness. I mean, think of the children!
I suppose we should just be happy that the Democrats are finally coming around to the conservative idea of letting us keep more of our hard-earned wages. It makes so much more sense than minimum wage hikes and giving everyone food stamps. Of course, this means less power in the hands of the politicians, who love to run campaigns that scare their constituents about the potential loss of benefits.
Trump had previously made the mistake of enacting an across-the-board income tax cut. This gave the media propagandists opportunity to claim it was a “tax cut for the rich” since those who pay more get a bigger cut proportional to the amount they paid. That’s fair. If you pay more how are you not entitled to more? But everyone who paid in got a cut and the middle class a higher percentage, as outlined here:
According to IRS statistics of income data analyzed by Americans for Tax Reform, families earning between $50,000 and $100,000 saw their average tax liability drop by over 13% between 2017 and 2018. By comparison, those with income over $1 million saw a far smaller tax cut averaging just 5.8%.This pattern of middle-class tax reduction was also seen in key swing states.
For instance, taxpayers in Pennsylvania earning between $50,000 and $100,000 saw their tax liability drop by over 14%, while households with incomes over $1 million saw their tax liability drop by just 3.1%.Taxpayers in
Colorado earning between $50,000 and $100,000 saw their tax liability drop by over 13%, while households with income over $1 million saw their tax liability drop by just 4.5%.
Clearly everyone was getting a cut, and the middle-class got a higher percentage back than the rich, but the media coverage obsessed with the dollar amount people kept—rather than the percentage being cut—to distort the public perception.
The Trump-Vance ticket has learned and is now outmaneuvering the left. Most people know that keeping more of their own money is efficient and much better than a new government program. It is just that the Republicans didn’t sell it.
But this time, with an idea to end taxes on tips and another to help all young families, the typical deceptive spin doesn’t work.
Harris had no choice but to try to outbid her opponent.
The problem with this?
Harris was the tiebreaking vote on a bill that sends IRS agents after waitresses. Now, yes, the Democrats will claim that they need the 80,000 agents to go after ‘the rich’ since they know CNN, MSNBC, and NY Times would never run a story linking a poor minority woman being audited to DNC policies, yet it in this case is too hard to deny who the true beneficiaries are.
We should question the sincerity of those who only introduced their policies after the other side did. At best, they’re like the kid who cheats on the test by copying off the smart student in their class. At worst, they are simply saying whatever it takes to get elected and have no intention to do what are now proposing. We can’t trust the ‘journalists’ to set the record straight or give unbiased presentation of facts.
Go listen to the interview and see if the headlines match with the reality.
The most frustrating kind of misinformation is factually based.
They lie by structure or omission, by presenting the costs and not the benefits, and sadly it works because people aren’t able to read through it.
They did this with Trump’s tariffs, stories zooming in on the few who were inconvenienced and ignoring the many long-term benefits. But the criticism ended when Joe Biden took over the policy, suddenly it was silence—just necessary to push back against China and finally rebuild some of our deteriorated manufacturing strength. Nothing changed about the actual policy or benefits, only the presentation.
Now the choice is yours, do you go with the side that originated these steps in the right direction or with those who lied about Joe Biden’s declining mental health, saying he was “sharp as a tack” until the debate made the truth undeniable and now would have us believe they’re telling the truth?
Add that Harris is trying to introduce disastrous price controls and could end up creating food shortages as happens when central planning replaces free markets. If you think inflation is bad, then wait until more food-production businesses start to close, like this fruit farm and market, due to the increased compliance costs and lack of profit. We can’t afford four more years of economic mismanagement.
In November, as the world tunes in to know who will be elected president, my wife and I will anticipate something else.
We expect a baby girl, our first child together and second that Charlotte has brought into the world. It has been my joy to raise our son, but having this miracle of life unfold before my eyes is still a powerful experience. How a moment of intimacy can create such potential is just completely amazing.
There is no greater role in the world than a woman who takes her pregnancy to term, motherhood is simply the most important job there is. In a century nobody will care about who won the popular vote or their policies. Truly, short of a civilization ending nuclear war, they’ll remember Trump like we remember Taft or Harris as we recall all the many noteworthy accomplishments of the Harding administration. But old folks then will remember their mothers.
The most powerful position in the world is not one with four year terms. A President can reallocate resources, make things more or less difficult, wage war and destroy, but only mothers produce new life.
Early in our relationship, when marriage had become a possibility, Charlotte was excited about the prospect of a mixed baby. That is a combination of my German genetics “long nose” with her own. But as months waiting turned into years that initial enthusiasm had wore off and, by the time she arrived, it was all about financial goals. We couldn’t afford a baby—we could barely keep up with rising costs due to inflation!
Besides that, we are both getting old. The world seems less stable now than ever, my own skepticism has grown and I’ve become untethered from assumptions that brought me easy answers in the past. Our son was already here, we weren’t bringing a new life into the mess. So maybe it was better that we didn’t bring a child into this to suffer the hardships and pain that we have?
I’ll also admit that my wife, despite having given birth once, had a flat belly and that is completely desirable. We all want to hang onto our youthful appearance. Men tend to prefer women that are in shape or pleasing for aesthetic reasons. Why ruin that?
However, a bottle of wine and nature have won against rational concerns. No, those anxieties about how to raise a child in this environment did not go away and, for the first time ever, abortion entered my mind as an escape of this enormous responsibility. This could all just go away with a ‘medical procedure’ and nobody would need to know, right? Of course, that momentary reflection was swallowed up by excitement.
No, we don’t know how all of the details will work out. Our hopes of moving Charlotte’s mom here didn’t pan (only the parents of US citizens can be petitioned) and we’ll have to adapt as we go. We have no regrets, the kicks we feel now soon to give way to cries in the night, diaper changes and all of those steps of development. But in the end this is the only legacy we will leave to the world—the only future we have.
Preparations are underway for the inaugural moment when this winner against the odds will emerge. We want our daughter to have the very best introduction to the world we can provide—a safe and stimulating environment. We’re stocking up on diapers and bottles, have a crib and car seat that can double as a stroller, friends and family will celebrate—the anticipation builds!
My own views have migrated from spiritual imagination to sustainable compared to the unsustainable. Civilization was built by the participation of many who assumed roles that fit their qualifications and now is on the brink of collapse as we deny nature. We’re on a path that is unsustainable because we deny nature.
What is nature?
Nature is that, as we mature beyond the age of childhood, inborn sexual desires lead us to seek a partner. And, when successful, “A man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.” (Gen 2:24 NIV) The purpose of this joining of man and woman? A multiplication from two to three, four, five, or more. That is to say that in marriage we’re fruitful.
The point of this blog is not to be preachy or tell anyone what to do, rather it is to outline a problem and share a few Bible references for fun. Scripture is part of the tradition and foundation of our civilization and could help us to diagnose where things are possibly going wrong as we stumble. All across the developed world population collapse looms and it will be a disaster for little old you.
This is a topic even more important if you’re irreligious, think this is all there is, and aren’t aiming for “treasures in heaven,” because it could impact your retirement plans. This is purely a numbers game how it plays out, if there aren’t enough people to make stuff or provide services, there is nothing for you to buy—your current lifestyle might be the high point of your life.
But even if you are ‘heavenly-minded’ there is still plenty of reason to reconsider some of the attitudes that I’ve witnessed within conservative groups. Truly, fundamentalists need to fix their courtship gambit more than anyone else. There are plenty of women in those circles who are ‘married to Jesus’ and are really only married to themselves, their idealistic visions—and in total denial of the real cause of their lack of success.
I call out women, in particular, because they are the true gatekeepers of romance. If you are a half-ambitious guy you just know this, I’ve been turned down so many times that I have lost count. There were some, basically average, girls who would sooner get cancer and die than go on a first date with me or a man who did not fit a long list of superficial or social status requirements.
Yeah, it worked out for some of them, but a great many wasted their fertile years trying for unattainable perfection.
What does the Bible say?
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. (2 Timothy 3:1-7 KJV)
I don’t think this is the end of all, but it might be the end of us. Typically verses like those above get applied to those who are outside the group. It is “the world” that is full of narcissistic self-seeking types. And indeed the secular-minded have led the way as far as being unbound to any natural responsibility. But the church is often guilty of the same things albeit covertly and wearing a righteous disguise—in the manner of the Pharisees:
And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)—then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.” (Mark 7:9-13 NIV)
What Jesus is addressing is how the most pious of his day would use sanctimonious claims to override practical commands. In the example he gives they were claiming to be saving their resources to give to God and thus not able to take care of their parents. It was an excuse. They used the missional as a cover for their big neglects closer to home and, likewise, many today say that they are fully dedicated to God’s kingdom by doing fun projects in Uganda—but are they loving their brothers and sisters in Christ?
I suppose we could blame St Paul for being seemingly all over the map on marriage and if we should pursue it. Then again, maybe the point of 1 Corinthians 7 where he makes singleness a higher calling is simply for the sake of encouraging those who did not find that special person and basically reminding them they have greater freedom to do God’s work while not married. But it is abundantly clear that church growth comes through the production of children. And women, those most likely to be led astray, play the most vital role in this:
I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (1 Timothy 2:12-15 NIV)
Again, I don’t expect anyone to believe this, this could simply be the misogynistic blathering of an entitled Jewish guy who found Jesus as a means to advance his social agenda. But, if you’re a Christian, then what exactly does “Women will be saved through childbearing” mean so far as the church today?
First, this is an allusion to Mary and her role in the salvation of the world. According to the Gospel, God chose to come into the world through the natural means of pregnancy and birth. Second, it tells us something about the vital role of women in the church and matches or supersedes any speaking role. This absurdity that shaping the world comes only through opening our mouths is why many women sacrifice their potential as the literal creators of the future.
Motherhood Is Most Important
Feminism measures value in only the most masculine terms. It tells us that the natural and traditional role of women is worthless and that women need to compete with men for money and political power. But the core of this ideology is an attack on motherhood and doing that one thing no man could ever do—only a woman can give birth.
But the degrading of motherhood is not only a matter of women being told that they need to be toxically independent of men economically, but also in turning children into a burden, a parasite and something to be exterminated before they have a chance to say, “Momma.” Birth control and abortion send a message that the next generation is not important, that it is a liability rather than an asset, and there is nothing further from the truth.
During COVID the same people who told us to mask up or we’re killing Grandma or had made shrines to George Floyd continued to lead the assault on the youngest and most vulnerable population. It makes no sense, old people will die no matter what we do to protect them. Black women terminate their pregnancies five times the rate that other women do, but the topic of the day is black lives matter and protecting others through our own self-sacrifice?
The reality is that the war on motherhood is sacrificing our own future. We really should be thinking of our Grandma and what the world will be like if we don’t follow in her footsteps by raising the next generation. The reality is that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and can only be sustained through population growth. Even if it were paid for, money has no value unless there is someone to offer their labor in exchange for it. That savings of dollars is useless without any qualified people to fill positions.
Our narcissism will catch up to us one way or another. The short-sighted pursuit of a career will have consequences. Taking the pleasures while denying the responsibilities that nature has intended will inevitably lead to a snapback. We can artificially cheat the system for only so long before nature starts to push back to eliminate a threat. History is littered with those who thought themselves to be gods only to be humbled.
The Sustainable Church
Evangelicalism, in particular the focus on conversionism, the Bible out of context of the religious tradition that formed it, and a focus on activism, has eroded communities and put the primary conduit of the Gospel (children of Christians) in second place to information distribution efforts. The true Church is about Communion, about bringing a little of the heavenly kingdom to Earth, it is about households being saved. And that is where a woman’s role of bringing new life into the world—which is what sustains any ‘spiritual’ movement.
We need less talk. Rather than push more speaking roles or more of those glamorous foreign adventures, as if this wasn’t only what St. Paul and a handful of others did in the early Church, there should be a move to what has been most effective for centuries and truly where grows a community of the faith. We need to give the men who wish to be married and provide for their wives and families the opportunity to be fathers. We do it by normalizing the natural good again.
There is an overabundance of glory-seeking men and women, desperate for higher social rank and more attention. They love to have their name on a prayer card while living on the dime of others. They’re too busy with information warfare to realize that the most powerful witness of Christ is love closer to home. It was the ‘important’ people who Jesus had condemned for ignoring the bloodied man left for dead along their path or stepping over Lazarus as they went about their business—they thought themselves righteous and were on the road to hell.
There are many reasons why the Christian West is dying and declining birthrates are the biggest contributing factor. This is partly due to the emphasis on missionary work rather than the ministry of motherhood. We would save more people—save even our own future—if we shifted back to fruitfulness and being multiplied. If you have a worldview to spread you don’t do it with tracts shoved in faces. No, you do it by doing it or good old-fashioned procreation. So get married young, have many babies, and you’ll be blessed in your old age.
The role of mothers is as important as any man in the church and most will find out too late why that is. Don’t be one of those who has only regret to accompany them in their twilight years. You’ll need to decide if holding out for Mr Right is truly worth postponing your greatest calling. Many men, currently banished to singleness, would make good husbands and fathers if given a chance.
Social media provocateurs love to push popular controversies to generate clicks on their sites and get those heated comments sections. The question about the gender of two boxers in the female category of the competition was that perfect story. It was not straight up or settled, but generated a lot of strong opinions on both sides.
For myself, it is fairly evident that these two boxers do have a competitive advantage or they would not have won in their respective divisions. I mean, that’s not even a matter of dispute. An advantage is how anyone wins an athletic contest and it doesn’t mean they cheated. However, when not only one but two people with the same extremely rare and potentially enhanced condition—both get the gold? What are the odds?
Only one out of 500,000 people in the world go to the Olympics. But, of course, nothing is ever that simple. Those who live in small countries, like Algeria or Taiwan, have a far greater chance of representing their home countries simply because there are fewer people to fill the same spots. And then not everyone in the world is competing to be in the Olympics. Most of us don’t try out. It is sort of like my being sixth while wrestling in the Eastern National AAUs—many superior to me simply didn’t make the trip.
But to go to Paris and beat everyone? There is a reason why we give precious medals to those who do. It is one thing to be that PhD who identified as a breakdancer and ended up scoring zero, it is quite another to get on the podium. There were 124 boxers in the female category, divided into six different weight classes, and went through three qualification tournaments. This is certainly not an easy road. The champion is one out of every woman in the world who can make that weight and is into boxing.
There is speculation that those two boxers who had been disqualified from IBA fights due to failed gender tests—and masculine appearance—is they may have a disorder called Swyer syndrome. This isn’t a fact, but it would explain why they would have been declared women at birth and always identified as women. Those with this very rare condition have a male Y chromosome despite their female sexual hardware and offer no male advantage.
However, it is also possible that the two have Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, which impacts 2-5 out of 100,000 females, which means they would have characteristics of a female outwardly but also have male testes that are undescended. Severe AIS wouldn’t confer an athletic advantage, according to the sources I’ve read, and yet that does not tell us anything about milder cases.
Some press reports have mentioned 5alpha-reductase type 2 deficiency. This rare syndrome is best reported in the Güevedoces in the Dominican Republic. Affected XY individuals are apparently female at birth because they can’t activate sufficient testosterone to the much more potent dihydrotestosterone to masculine in utero and thus appear female (the default gender in the absence of masculinising hormones). However, they have testes in what appear to be labia. At puberty, the testes produce much more testosterone sufficient to activate receptors and masculinise the child. Such subtleties are beyond the capacity of most regulatory bodies to accommodate.
The chances of two women with these rare chromosomal disorders somehow making it to the Olympics would be incredibly low. For example, Swyer Syndrome is around 1 in 80,000 births. So multiply those odds by the chances of getting to the Olympics and then take that times two. The number is incredibly large. There is a far greater chance of being struck by lightning. If the XY chromosome is present in these two—along with higher testosterone levels—the fact they dominated the field, given what coaches have said, should be considered proof of a potential unfair advantage.
Sources Please Vs. What We See
Much of the smirking response of mid-wit “sources please” types—who simply went along with the ‘official’ International Olympic Committee (IOC) narrative—comes down to many of the slightly dimwitted “I see what I see” types misidentification of the issue as being about transgenderism. When the real issue is whether or not these athletes have intersex characteristics and thus an unfair advantage in female competition.
Yes, the right is too reactionary. However, not without cause, they know too well how the NCAA and corporate media denied that Lia Thomas had an unfair advantage as one born a man and still having a penis as well as the rest of a man’s hardware. And they correctly see that these two Olympic boxing competitors have a masculine appearance. They had incorrectly assumed that this was just another case of a man cheating his way to the top by pretending to be a woman.
However, that misunderstanding of some is being used as a strawman of the real issue, the real argument is source versus source. Specifically, the fact that these two athletes were disqualified by the International Boxing Association (IBA) for having male XY chromosomes. These laboratory tests took place in Turkey and India So, despite the attempts, by bigots, to smear the IBA as being corrupt for ties to Russia. But the reality is that no organization is totally without political ties and there’s a reason why the IOC has never banned the US for our military aggression around the world.
So it really comes down to who we want to believe. The IOC rests its entire claim of gender, on legal documents, passports, and birth certificates, provided by the country of origin, and says this gender assignment makes the boxers women. By contrast, the IBA cites biological science and test results and tells us these two ‘women’ have XY chromosomes. Right off the bat, the criteria of the IBA are science and laboratories whereas the IOC is relying on political entities. Should we follow the science or believe those appealing to non-scientific evidence?
At this point, the mid-wits completely lose the plot and rely on their confirmation bias rather than logical deduction. They’ll simply refuse to acknowledge the obvious, that the official IOC criteria to determine eligibility is entirely inadequate for solving this riddle; that the IBA at least has what appears to be scientific evidence, and thus this is a question to be answered in the lab rather than the court of public opinion—so they double down on their insults trying to deflect from the real issue.
But, in the end, this isn’t about science, what we see, statistics, or sources. No, it is about partisan politics that blind many somewhat intelligent adults to what even a child could see. It exposes those “sources please” mid-wits as just another level of ignorance. And social conservatives could help themselves a whole lot by not jumping the gun and not oversimplifying complex issues. Both sides are guilty of false dichotomies and believing misinformation. Lastly, those who are suggesting that I-man Khelif is representative of Algerian femininity are guilty of the bigotry of low expectations.
As someone who prefers getting news from non-Western sources, I occasionally read Al Jazeera for some perspective, and that is how I came across an article, “Imane Khelif and Western delusions of white innocence” and had to hit back. For the remainder of this blog, I will identify as a minority woman to obtain maximum victim points, and so I don’t need to pull my punches.
Editorials are often wild swings, some are so off-balance and contrived that they invite a counterpunch. I had no idea who Ruby Hamad was. But her profile reveals a Syrian-Lebanese woman obsessed with ‘white’ European women and how they are loved more than her. She has made her name through her racist and misogynistic attacks on ‘white’ feminists. It’s a little bit weird given how white she is. But hatred is not always rational—she only has a platform because she helps ‘woke’ white leftists with their self-loathing.
In response to the recent outcry, about the two Olympic boxers who had previously failed their gender eligibility test, Hamad politicizes. She rides on her favorite hobby horse—that being ‘white’ women—and she tries to reframe the discussion as being about the protection of ‘white’ women rather than a matter of maintaining integrity and fairness in the competition.
Now typically I’m sympathetic to those trying to break free of US hegemony and who are tired of their national stability and desire to self-govern being constantly undermined by US-led Western powers. European colonizers are responsible for the current disorder in many parts of the world. And, I also believe the Palestinian voice should be heard and that their innocent population should be protected by international law like any other occupied nation, and the killing of children and non-combatants in Gaza is horrendous.
Victims aren’t just Israeli — nor are ‘people of color’ the only ones who suffer injustice.
However, Hamad does exactly what those on the Zionist side do to Palestinians—with a broad swipe she tries to make all people in a place share guilt for what governments have done. In essence, she has exactly the same attitude as Israeli spokespeople who claim that all in Gaza share in the blame for the Hamas incursion and—outraged that we care that Palestinian babies die—then turn the attention back to the suffering of their own people on October 7th.
It is a whataboutism. A deflection. And doesn’t deal with the actual issue.
This does highlight one aspect of the controversy, that being the solidarity with the two athletes centers on racial or religious identity rather than their gender. Those who most vehemently deny the complexity of the gender question are Arabs (or Taiwanese, in the case of Lin Yu-ting), which suggests their political partisanship and that the racial motivation is a projection that is entirely their own Hamad believes that it must be about white women because this is how she thinks. But it is really about how gender is defined to keep competition fair.
I guess Istanbul is now white?
Hamad flails in her attack. She makes the row about the Italian boxer crying—which totally reinvents the chronology and ignores the reality of where it all started. People had already been talking about the disqualifications of Khelif and Yu-ting, by the International Boxing Association because of failed gender tests. It had nothing to do with how they looked, where they came from, or the race of the women pounded by them. It is, rather, everything to do with alleged XY chromosomes and higher testosterone levels, and fairness to female athletes.
Guess which one is a woman of color?
But the truth does not need to line up with her narrative. An Italian woman, who has a darker complexion than Haman, is now made into the token example of “white woman tears” for being upset after a disappointing loss to a physically superior opponent. Imagine that, someone who put an enormous amount of time into their sport, then forced to quit the fight after 46 seconds due to the strength of the blows that were landing, having very strong emotions…
Scandalous whiteness!
Had silly Hamad spent 46 seconds thinking instead of trying to force the evidence to fit her own toxic ideology, you would have missed this rhetorical beat-down.
The biggest irony of this all is that Hamad is in complete alignment with the old imperial left—who, by far, are the most meddlesome of the political elements of the West both in the world and domestically with a constant barrage of moralizing emotive nonsense. Like concern over ‘misgendering’ a trans ‘man’ who is competing as a woman and is born a woman at the same time they tell us we can’t question the gender on birth certificates or passports.
The self-loathing face of white privilege.
It is truly only the privileged people who have the time to virtue signal and stir up division between people, the rest of us need to work and provide for our families—hoping these lunatics don’t start another war.
What makes this personal is I have a good friend who is Algerian and is one of the most beautifully feminine women I’ve ever met. Had she not been a devout Muslim (who, unlike Khelif, wore the traditional dress which always included a Hajab) there may have been been good chance of a romantic relationship between us. So this notion that European femininity is somehow different or more vulnerable is plain ridiculous. Khelif is no more representative of Algerian or Arab femininity than I am Britney Spears.
Stunning and brave!
Ultimately this is all political. Hamad does not care about boxing, certainly not things like safety or fairness. She is just another myopic and mean-spirited partisan who only cares about injustice when it comes to her people. She’ll never write an article about the Arab abuse of their foreign help (many of them vulnerable women of color) nor is she intellectually curious enough to know about the slave trade of Europeans (yes, many women) by Muslim Arabs who raided shipping and became enshrined in the anthem of the US Marine Corps: “To the shores of Tripoli.”
Incidentally, the ‘Barbary’ pirates capturing US sailors for ransom led to the re-establishment of the Marines. At the time, the US was not oriented towards global dominance and only started along that path of being a sea power because of this provocation.
Muslim Arabs, before they were conquered themselves, pillaged the Christian Middle East and subjugated all in their path. No, this is to villainize them or say that ‘white’ is better. What it is to say is that conquest is human and we’re all guilty of the best and the worst parts. The only real difference between myself and the Hamad types is that I want to escape the tribalism of the past while she thrives on it. I envision a world where everyone wins whereas she can only be happy when those who she declares “not white” rule. She’s not truly anti-colonial, she is simply enraged that her own tribe lost the civilizational struggle to those she believes are inferiors.
In addition to this, she is like the angry PhD candidate, also from a Syrian background as I recall, and as vile as Hamad, who—despite a progressive feminist lean—was very racially prejudiced and to the point that she scorned me for my once having a black fiance—told me she would never go with a man who had been with a black woman. This is what makes me amused when Hamad gestures towards the African American grievance. Blacks may have been second class in the US, but they would be far worse off in the Arab world she represents.
The truth is that men beating women is as acceptable in Algeria as it is across Arab and Muslim regions. I believe this is why intelligent women from these places have such cognitive dissonance. They believe, on the one hand, this religious cultural identity makes them better. But then, on the other hand, they’re also battered and afraid of the men in their own places. They’re resentful. They would love to be treated as a Western woman and protected. This is why they want to see the women they envy to be hurt. It is displaced aggression:
Displaced aggression is a statistically robust psychological phenomenon. It involves a specific form of attack prompted by rumination on anger-inducing experiences and/or revenge-related thoughts, which might lead to the expression of anger on innocent people. Often, victims of aggression will not seek to confront the actual source of aggression (the original provocateur), and instead bully subordinates in an effort to relieve themselves of the stress that they carry.
Incidentally, in a conversation with a black female neighbor, she described the toxic reality of the community she left and how much she loves to live amongst us ‘white’ rural people who encouraged her rather than trying to tear her down and ruthlessly compete. Her mother, an alcoholic, used to deride her with the slur that she was ‘white’ for showing a little bit of ambition and self-respect. This black woman wisely chose to bring her children to the safety of a community still governed by a culture of self-restraint and looking out for the vulnerable.
White women are targets of jealous rage. Hamad would be better to acknowledge the true origin of her self-loathing and challenge the framing that makes her only care about the tears of those who look like her.
Hamad’s book “White Tears Brown Scars” is an attack on feminism and the West’s culture of protecting women. She popularized the phrase “white women’s tears” as a way to downplay and dismiss the suffering and display of emotions by white women. It is dehumanization. Making her sexual rivals into manipulative animals that do not deserve our empathy or concern. A license for calloused and cruel disregard in response to actual injustice. What it really amounts to is an attempt to normalize the abuse of women who step out of line—which is allowed in the Islamic culture that produced Hamad.
Ruby Hamad should clean up her own side of the street first before commenting on ours.
But I reject her, with her displaced aggression, because it is not okay for men to beat women—despite what her Syrian–Lebanese culture or the Quran says:
Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance – [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.
This is key to understanding the big difference in attitudes between Christian and Islamic traditions, I know the Old Testament treats women more as property of men—like the Quran—but the Gospel radically changed the conversation. St Paul tells husbands to sacrifice themselves for their wives like Christ died for the Church.
My wife tells me you couldn’t walk around in her home country like American women do, go out in revealing clothes, alone. She claims men where she lives would take it as being an invitation for assault and they would likely find your body in the ditch. If it is ‘white privilege’ or some form of imperialism for women to be able to stroll safely through their own community, then so be it. I’m not going to apologize for valuing the tears of my wife, the woman I love, over Hamad’s bitterness about not being able to find a man like me. I’m quite alright with a daughter who cries.
The other day I looked across the gym and saw a familiar grin.
Oh, Ydran decided to pump iron!
My son, still twelve years old, isn’t the most committed to strength training or conditioning and prefers to spend his time lounging at the pool. But with Junior High football being right around the corner he (completely of his own volition) was putting some work in. I gave a salute and then we both continued with our respective workouts.
However, what really impressed me was the weight he had on the bar. His bench is right around 100 lbs, for reps. And this brought me back to when I started lifting weights. I can recall doing the same weight, except in my Junior year of high school! And also how some of the football players would curl my bench weight, as in literally take what I had on the rack and use it to curl. But it was not totally embarrassing for me I only weighed 112 lbs as a Senior. It shows what a difference his genetics make. With a bit of work ethic, he’ll be an athletic freak—while I never was going to be great.
As for myself since school?
I’ve put on enough mass to make up for the sunken chest (which was a consequence of my traumatic birth) and am above average in terms of bench strength—even after being effectively reduced to zero twice due to my neck injury and having to rebuild. With my current body weight around 180 lbs, I have recently broken a personal record with six solid reps of 225 lbs. Which is more than most men will ever do and a result of discipline. I was determined to overcome my limitations.
Still, given where he is now, with a little bit of effort and a few more years, he will do more than what I’ve ever done. He’s just athletically gifted, has very good hand-eye coordination, and is already big and strong enough to give some serious competition. It is only a matter of time until I won’t have any advantage. Fair or not he will be better than me at everything he wants to do and probably with less overall struggle. So long as he will remain healthy he is destined to crush me in any competition.
There is no such thing as an even playing field in sports and competition. If we were all built the same, with the same opportunities or abilities, every contest would end in a tie—there couldn’t be winners or losers. But we do have differences in size, speed, endurance, and even in motivation and desire. Some had parents who pushed them, gave them more opportunities, and made sure they had the best nutrition and coaching, and that’s what gave them their edge.
So what is fair or not fair?
PIAA vs Aliquippa vs Southern Columbia
Pennsylvania has some hard-nosed smash-mouth high school football. In particular, the towns of the coal region have produced dominant players and programs. The Red Tornados, of Mount Carmel, is the storied winningest team in the state (6th in the nation) with a total of 899 wins. But, have taken a step back, it is their neighbors to the North that are setting records today, and that being the Tigers of Southern Columbia with six consecutive State Championships.
However, on the complete opposite side of the state, in a Pittsburgh suburb, they have another team with an incredible tradition of winning, the Aliquippa Quips.
Southern and Aliquippa started in the class A, small school category, they’ve battled in the State Championship game and online it is clear there is some bad blood on the side of the Quips, being humiliated 49-14 in the final back in 2015. But what has really been grinding their gears is that—as the result of new PIAA rules intended to help maintain a competitive balance—they’ve been bumped up multiple classifications (the Tigers only going up one) due to transfers and success in the post-season.
The same exact rules apply to both teams and yet have impacted the Quips more dramatically and this has led to cries of foul—and a big whataboutism.
Their player safety is the first reason they’ve argued. Despite Aliquippa having walloped an undefeated Selinsgrove Seals team, in the AAAA championship, earning them their latest bump in classification, and despite their having a roster with quite a bit of D1-destined talent for a typical small school—the Quips’ loyal fan base has been viciously accusing the PIAA organization of favoritism and their cross-state rivals of being a cheater for avoiding reclassification. But there is zero evidence for either charge. It seems that the reality, under all this bluster about player safety or fairness, is that they want to keep beating on a weaker field year after year.
They’ve taken it to court and have won their first appeal. But the PIAA is fighting against this decision with their own appeal and who knows where it will go. What I do know is it will likely be a matter of prejudice, not merit or metric, that decides the case.
Racial overtones hang over this, as well as the fact that this is East versus West, the Tigers with their rural population while the Quips come from an urban community. Southern Columbia sits in a cornfield, near the beautiful Knoebels amusement park and resort, representing a vibrant community of Elysburg and on the edge of the economically depressed coal region. While jobs and a better place to live is a big enough draw—there is very little doubt that a few parents do move into the school district only for the sake of their child’s athletic future. However, being on the edge of a big city like Pittsburgh is a massive advantage for Aliquippa.
There is talk now of a new “Southern Columbia rule” which effectively will target the Tigers specifically for their unprecedented success within the current regime. Is it sour grapes or retaliatory rules? Who knows. But both of these powerhouses insist that the work they put in is what makes the difference. It is true to an extent. The Tigers, under the tutelage of Jim Roth, went from basement dwelling to the point of nearly eliminating the football team to totally mauling their local schedule and stacking up trophies for decades—coaching with discipline got the ball rolling before it became a dynasty that creates its own weather.
But the sore losers do have a point, talent does gravitate towards Southern like bees to honey. One example is that outstanding quarterback prospect from my hometown who ended up there, with rumors swirling that his dad rented an apartment in Elysburg so he could play and that this kid (who ended up going to Alabama) was still spending most of his time away from Tiger territory. And yet, with the very high level of scrutiny the program has faced I am fairly certain all is done within the rules.
The point is that there is no perfect formula and thus never a fair competition. Yes, they all need to suit the same amount of players to play, scoring rules should apply equally to all teams, and officials should have no bias, but there are a myriad of factors that can’t be controlled or properly accounted for. No two communities in the state of Pennsylvania are exactly the same, some schools are advantaged in ways that others are not, so there will never be a perfect competitive balance.
My initial knee-jerk reaction was outrage. It was wrong that this woman would have to face this obviously masculine figure. And yet, when I started to dig, it turns out the “That’s a man!” reaction is a little bit of an oversimplification. Khelif has always identified as a woman. And that is because ‘she’ was assigned to the female category at birth. Why? Well, it’s because, no fault of anyone, they were born without the male organ. They are one of those very rare cases of being intersex. In other words, the ‘down there’ expression doesn’t match the chromosomal gender rule.
So the “Well Ackshully” mid-wits, armed with this little knowledge, proudly noting that Algeria (Muslim) is a conservative country, dunked on their dimwitted counterparts who saw what they saw. They’re right in that Khelif is officially female because of ‘her’ female genitals. But the weird part is how these same people who believe stuff like “misgendered” despite male anatomy suddenly can’t see the controversy when this competitor is also chromosomally a male and they’ve visibly benefitted from male hormones. The real question is whether or not it is fair they’re allowed to be in the female category so far as boxing is concerned, not if they had been described as female on a birth certificate.
A controversial Taiwanese ‘female’ competitor.
The reason that there are two categories—one for men and another for women—it is a clear advantage to being a male when it comes to high-level competition. Caitlin Clark, as phenomenal as she is against other women, wouldn’t make an NBA roster. That’s not at all sexist, it is just reality in the same way I won’t post up with LeBron James. And to deny this is on par with Flat-Earthism, they can say gender is a social construct (some of the expression is cultural), and yet there’s also overwhelming hard evidence that men have a distinct physical advantage, according to The Trans Athlete Debate “Dilemma”:
Even before puberty, when the differences effectuated by the influence of sex hormones sets in, from a purely genetic perspective, biological males are significantly advantaged.
Case in point, one study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine extensively researched peer-reviewed studies on the health-related fitness data of 85,000 Australian children aged 9-17. It found that when “compared with 9-year-old females, 9-year-old males were faster over short sprints (9.8%) and 1 mile (16.6%), could jump 9.5% further from a standing start (a test of explosive power), could complete 33% more push-ups in 30 seconds and had 13.8% stronger grip.”
Another study of Greek children, published in the European Journal of Sports Science compared 6-year-old females and 6-year-old. Researchers found that the “boys completed 16.6% more shuttle runs in a given time and could jump 9.7% further from a standing position. In terms of aerobic capacity, 6- to 7-year-old boys showed a higher absolute and relative (to body mass) VO2max than 6- to 7-year-old females”
If this weren’t the case, if women were equal to men, why not eliminate classification based on gender and let the best athletes of every country—male or female—compete for one gold medal in each event?
No, the reality is, if women had to compete with men, no woman would ever get to the Olympics—let alone stand on the podium.
It has little to do with work ethic or desire.
There is no point even having a separate female category if some with an XY chromosome and higher levels of testosterone are allowed in the competition. While athletic competition has roots in male versus male combat—I am not right-wing and want my daughter to have the opportunity to participate in sports. I believe there needs to be a return to rationality, fairness, and safe competition.
Khelif doesn’t belong in a ring against a normal woman any more than I do. Get real.
High-level Competition Is Not a Right
The progressive left has got all tied up in a knot over the idea that the difference between genders is a myth—merely a social construct.
It is a feminist fantasy that a woman is capable of everything a man can do and that the only reason women are not equally represented is because of injustice.
We hear complaints all of the time from female athletes who believe they deserve equal pay to men who a) produce far more revenue given they are the very best competitors and b) would no doubt humiliate any female challenger.
Note, for the purpose of this discussion, I’m talking only about athletic events, not about intellectual or other capabilities. The other differences in ability based on gender can be a topic for another day, women have distinct advantages and superior abilities in other areas. But my commentary here is strictly about physical strength, speed, and size—where men are gifted.
Also, my wife and I are equally valuable to each other and the family, she works as hard as I do (or harder) and both of us play important roles in our home and the local community, and yet this doesn’t change the fact I could physically dominate her—or that even her own twelve-year-old son is taller and heavier than she is.
Truly, if I completed in the female category of power-lifting I would have elite strength and a chance for gold—as a slightly above-average male weight-lifter.
If it is a right to be an elite athlete, and if all women deserve a special category so they can have a chance to be recognized, is it fair that short and unathletic men are not represented? Should we keep expanding professional leagues so that all can be champions? Or is the point of these kinds of events to have only the best reach the top for the entertainment of those of us who know that we don’t belong there?
Female athletes, instead of griping about unequal pay, should be grateful that they are privileged with a second-tier category that has given women an opportunity to compete.
No two people are equal. There is no such thing as a fair competition. But if there is a category for females, to accommodate their biological differences from men, then those with a clear competitive advantage because of male hormones or chromosomes should be excluded and how they identify or what is down there doesn’t matter. Sure, the right gets things wrong for not understanding that exceptions do exist, but the left does worse and fails to comprehend that women need protection from those who are physically bigger and stronger. The entire reason for separate categories for men and women is to protect women.
This is why we need to have criteria that go beyond the “identifies as a woman” leftist minimum. We need a standard that also considers the level of testosterone or chromosomal pairs. If those who have very rare intersex characteristics don’t have a huge advantage, then how did two of them beat the odds to end up in the Olympics? Why even have a women’s division at all? This is about fairness for all competitors, not about one individual. Our participation in a competition is a privilege, not a right, and can’t be granted to all or it becomes worthless. In the end, it is always a little arbitrary who is allowed or disallowed.
Irregular Ideation 