I predicted we'd we'd part ways, and it happened exactly as I expected Photo by Austin Chan on Unsplash I'm going to get suspended for this, I kept telling my friend as I wrote my last article for Medium.com. We'd watched the controversial Dave Chappelle show The Closer and I took notes. I especially noted what Chappelle said about the trans community and his alleged 'transphobia', which neither of us could see. Chappelle got 'canceled' a few times on Twitter and was clearly feeling beaten up by the sort of trans 'activists' who demonstrate their acquired womanhood by verbally abusing everyone who disagrees with their party line. Spoken like a real man. Nothing says, "I'm just another entitlement-riddled dude with lipstick when I call women the most cis-het misogynist label there is." Screenshot from Twitter It took me about ten days to write the article and I kept saying the whole time I was going to get suspended. I knew it would likely be my Medium swan song. And it was. I uploaded it, watched it for a few days, and nothing happened. Then one night I visited Medium and was greeted with a big red banner at the top of my screen. "They found it," I said. "Game over!" The first shot across the bow was this summer, when they suspended one of my articles for allegedly violating their Medium Rules. Now you have to read my too-hot-for-Medium articles on Substack, which I joined after I realized I'd need a Plan B. White People Who Hate White People Are Racist This is the part of the Medium Guidelines I seem to have consistently violated: *Hateful content* We do not allow content that constitutes or promotes violence, harassment, or hatred against people based on characteristics like race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, caste, disability, disease, age, sexual orientation, gender, or gender identity. We do not allow posts or accounts that glorify, celebrate, downplay, or trivialize violence, suffering, abuse, or deaths of individuals or groups. This includes the use of scientific or pseudoscientific claims or misleading statistics to pathologize, dehumanize, or disempower others. We do not allow calls for intolerance, exclusion, or segregation based on protected characteristics, nor do we allow the glorification of groups which do any of the above. I don't know whether they objected to my criticism of self-hating race haters (both black and white) or for perhaps 'downplaying' black suffering by noting some seem to suffer in excess of the actual oppression they encounter, but I can tell you that Medium has no use for racism unless it's directed at white people. It's hard for me to buy my article violated their 'hate speech' guidelines when plenty of white and black writers get a free pass for writing about how much white people suck, and how we're all flaming white supremacist racists whether we realize it or not, while several black writers are downright militant in their hatred of white people. Medium's reigning racist writer will never get suspended because she's black. The response I was supposed to offer when they took this article down was to rewrite it, taking out whatever the fuck they regarded as 'hate speech' and resubmit. But I didn't do it. I left it suspended on Medium and added it here and Substack. I decided to just let the whole thing go. The second article, a few months later, got chosen for distribution, meaning someone on the staff liked it, sent it out in newsletters and recommended it for others determined by individual reading algorithms. I'd written it carefully, keeping in mind it posed a highly controversial question that I knew two groups on Medium, antiracists and transgenders, would find provocative. I asked why the left blindly accepts gender appropriation but not racial appropriation. What's So Terrible About Race-Changers Like Rachel Dolezal? I thought I made a very good case for trans-racialism, for argument's sake, but by the time I finished I'd actually begun believing that crossing race like Rachel Dolezal, Jessica Krug and others have done, faking being black when they were born and raised white, was maybe a 'Black Like Me' experience we should consider. People of color call it 'blackfishing', and it probably strikes too close to home for many for its easy comparison to 'blackface', but I equalized the debate. I addressed a point many blacks have made, that white people can darken their skin but black people can't 'lighten up'. Except black people can , and I used Michael Jackson as an example, a man who was literally whiter than most white people when he died. Creative Commons CC 2.0 photo by Marc Levi on Flickr After about ten days, and a lot of positive feedback and comments, the article got suspended by Medium. Now I was pissed. This time I challenged the Medium support team. My response was non-angry, politely worded. I made a strong case for why the article should be republished as is. I noted I'd been careful since I'd had an article suspended before. 'Roger (he/him)' from Medium responded back shortly. As in his answer was short and to the point. No, it violates the Guidelines and needs to be rewritten before it goes back up again. Fuck you, I thought, and I joined Substack, which other Medium writers had recommended, and made that my Plan B for the eventual, and what I expected would be my last, Medium offense. Meanwhile, I heard rumors. Other writers allegedly were planning to leave Medium themselves. Most were far more successful, making lots more money than I, and Medium's ever-changing algorithms resulted in hosing up the monthly income they'd come to depend on. Some began sharing a Verge article alleging the company wasn't doing well and how billionaire founder Ev Williams, allegedly paid for its continued existence out of pocket, because they couldn't seem to raise more investment money. The Mess At Medium: 14 current and former employees explain what went wrong A Medium friend complained about the 'snowflakes' - usually overeducated, highly privileged young women, reporting her to Medium for offending their delicate sensibilities by expressing opinions they didn't like. She later passed on a comment someone had made elsewhere on Medium stating the 'snowflakes' would likely drive him to another platform because they were turning into a big pain in the ass, and that he suspected the snowflake members had their supporters within Medium. Another passed on an article by someone writing that Medium had removed a comment he'd made and threatened to suspend his account if he continued to express 'hate speech'. His 'hateful' comment, reproduced in an article that didn't get taken down or his account suspended (so far anyway), contained valid criticism of how some transfolk were taking advantage of the UK's NHS system because no one wants to get called 'transphobic'. The handwriting was on the wall. When my account went down like the Titanic, I knew what I was supposed to do, if I really really REALLY wanted to get un-suspended. I was supposed to write a groveling kiss-ass email to Medium Support apologizing all over the place, say I made a terrible mistake and that if they reinstated my account I would nevernevernever make this mistake again, and pleasepleaseplease give me one more chance. That's what others had done, but they had a lot more to lose than I. Like, they were making thousands of dollars a month, while I only broke $100+ twice, for two months this year. Once it even included $50 for a new bonus program they'd begun offering writers. I have no idea why the hell they gave me one because I've been a largely unknown writer in two and a half years there. Just as I was finally beginning to make enough money to cause me to set aside income tax in my savings account, they shut me down. Prior to this, I used to joke that I could buy one Tim Horton's lunch a month on my Medium earnings. I wasn't in it for the money. I shrugged and moved on. I'd already begun to psychologically disengage from Medium after the second takedown. In truth, I'd become a bit disenchanted the previous year when my annual subscription renewal came up. After a year, I felt Medium wasn't supporting me as much as they might and that they had 'favorites' they did, regardless of whether they produced good work or not. I knew not everything I produced was gold but I thought at least some of my articles offered different insights that had clearly resonated with some readers, but were ignored by the staff distribution gods. I went to a month-to-month membership, which cost me more but I kept thinking I might leave Medium before it began to cost me. (I didn't.) The weirdest thing about the Grand Suspension: They didn't tell me what I'd written that did it. They didn't actually cite the Dave Chappelle article. They didn't cite anything. They merely quoted the 'hate speech' guidelines again. So, I'm guessing it was the Dave Chappelle defense, especially as I was pretty critical of misogynist extremist transgender activists while making it clear #NotAllTrans. Is It Even Possible For Dave Chappelle To 'Punch Down' On Transfolk? Okay, in retrospect, I think the headline was a little harsh. But I pretty much stand by the rest of it. I suspect what may have 'run afoul' of the hate speech guidelines was the bit about biology being real. However scientifically valid, the left has a HUGE problem with this problematic science today, asserting instead that whatever you 'feel like' is the Real You. (See my comments on the Otherkin in the trans-racialism article and wonder how tolerant we might be of a co-worker who now identifies as a unicorn.) Also, I'm guessing that referring to the cancel-culture-mad 'Transquisition' might have been considered a bit harsh but---if the Inquisitorial boot fits, wear it, n'est-ce pas? It's pretty nearly verboten anywhere now to criticize the trans community, and one must wonder why they think they're above reproach. Or just critical analysis. As a consequence, I've been researching gender identity ideology and issues surrounding the trans community. The only problem I truly have with said community is the narcissistic, entitled, downright misogynist activists - just about all of them trans women , i.e., ex-men, especially the ones still in possession of their penis which might shed light on why some transwomen are always at the center of our trans-culture-war dramas, with their entitled male brains largely intact. Transmen, on the other hand, seem largely uninterested in infiltrating male-only spaces. Maybe some transwomen are as unwilling to give up their male entitlement along with their ding-dong. But examining why some transwomen act and speak more like entitled, narcissist, classically abusive cis-het men, and why some feminist women seem unwilling to acknowledge it or call them out on it, are matters for future articles. Medium has been good to me in many ways. It gave me a better platform for my work and my power feminist philosophy, not to mention finding other centrist folk who are as tired of the excesses of the far left as the far right, and I got to hang out with way better writers than myself for over two years. I believe it's made me a better writer and I've met some wonderful people there. But it's time to part ways, and I consider this the next step up to a new level for my work, in which I'm getting help from people who want to see me succeed. You know who I'll miss most? Watergate's John Dean, a largely unknown name on a platform whose membership is too young to know who he is (Nixon's lawyer who served time in jail) who analyzes Trump's travails and who'd know a thing or two about where this is going. Besides writing on Substack where you can subscribe to my free newsletter , I also write on Vocal.Media now which is a little like Medium, younger and less developed, but in growth mode. So far so good. The biggest difference is that one's stories must be approved by the Vocal staff before they're published. The platform isn't as flexible as Medium's and there's less engagement, like no comments, which is annoying and unhelpful to writers but it's also a lot less work for the staff moderating snowflake disputes like Medium must do. Medium's biggest downside is their snowflake problem, and I too believe the problem isn't just the membership but the censorship gods within. It's been widely criticized for its far-left, social-justice-warrior slant. Black racism is okay, white racism is not; and I can speak from extensive personal experience that they come down hard on misogyny but are far more tolerant of misandry (man-hating). It was good, it was fun, I'll miss the community and talking to folks I came to think of as friends, but I'm working to connect with all of them off-Medium and this is how you build your network. I'm moving on. Photo by Mantas Hesthaven on Unsplash

There's only so far you can go with 'identity', even for an elf. Biology is real. Photo by Victoria Borodinova on Pixabay One of my most embarrassing secrets is that I used to be an elf. My name was Highspirit, and I belonged to a 'holt' (community) of elves largely resembling Kent State University. My friends and my fantasy world came courtesy of Elfquest , an underground comic book series-turned-self-published success beginning in the late 1970s by artists and storytellers Wendy and Richard Pini. The comics were then bundled together in a series of graphic novels and detailed the survival stories of gorgeous, fat-free elves and their battles for survival including trolls and, occasionally, hostile and not nearly as attractive humans. What we and other fans elsewhere did in pre-Internet days when we only encountered each other at fan shows, was to create our own make-believe holt, write stories and create artwork centering around our elven lives. The elf in the self I'm quite sure I would have gotten universal WTF? looks from anyone if I'd tried to claim I was really an elf. Outside opinion doesn't stop ' Otherkin' , people who identify as creatures other than humans. The term itself was first coined in 1990 although it was defined as an adjective in the 1981 Middle English Dictionary as "a different or an additional kind of, other kinds of." Um, okay. A few 'otherkin' I've known included one of my 'elven' college friends who was also a ' furry' (anthropomorphic animal). And at a medieval re-creation event in Baltimore (because my college buds and I were also members of the SCA ), I met someone who considered himself an Anne Rice-style vampire. While my furry friend seemed clear on the boundary between real-life and his online furry fantasy world, as we all were with our elven and medieval personas, the vampire dude seemed fairly convinced he was a vampire, even though he lived by day and didn't drink blood. He claimed he could project--I don't know, some sort of silly-ass mind woo--that prevented him from showing up in photographs. Elfquest fan art by one of my elven college buds who'd rather remain nameless. I'm the busty chick on the left bearing little resemblance to what I actually looked like. The artist confessed in email this week that he'd identified as a hobbit as an adolescent and that it was an example of exploring a role "not based in empirical reality (as a parallel to how some modern adolescents now question their gender identity) in the struggle to define their individual identities as adults." Elfquest art copyright Warp Graphics, Inc. Elfquest, its logos, characters, situations, all related indicia, and their distinctive likenesses are trademarks of Warp Graphics, Inc. All rights reserved. It's one thing to play a role, and another to know when it ends with objective reality. I think about us non-elves, the few 'furries' I've known and the wannabe vampire when more opinionated members of the trans community fight against the simple scientific fact: Biology is real. 'Immersive fiction' and trans culture It's hard to imagine how controversial it's become to state that people who menstruate and possess vaginas are biologically female, however they identify. Or that a person with a penis is a male, however we might treat her. We argue over semantics and language, and anyone who points out biological reality gets called ugly names. Yet one's body doesn't care how you 'feel' or 'identify'. It makes no difference if you feel like a woman trapped in a man's body or vice versa. What it knows is that you get woodies when you're sexually excited, or menstruate once a month, maybe even get pregnant. If you were born without the corresponding equipment you're not going to have a baby. Maybe someday. Feelings and identities are real, but they're not scientific. Not yet, anyway, as science struggles to define and understand both, as it does with human consciousness. Meanwhile, we're left to argue, debate, and cancel each other over two labels that have served humanity for millennia, as evolutionarily, all organisms' roles are to co-create their own. Our biological equipment is how we've been doing this forever. As someone who has adopted multiple personas over the years, but not 'identified' at any significant level with any of them, I'm comfortable with treating people as something other than what I think they are. Crossing sex is a well-documented human experience in many times and places, and today we can take it much farther. A recent book by Kathleen Stock, Material Girls , centers around gender-critical feminism and transgender rights, and presents an idea about how the two sides - biology-is-real vs sex-and-gender-mean-nothing - can perhaps come together. She calls it 'immersive fiction', the notion one can hold beliefs around something that isn't real, or two contradicting one another. In other words, you can accept someone who identifies as a woman even if they've still got their OEM intact. Stock compares it to a legal fiction , which reconciles opposing concepts in law, so one can hold two opposing concepts without a lot of mental drama. Historian and best-selling author Yuval Noah Harari argues in his book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, that creating and believing in fictions are what impelled our hairy apey ancestors to leapfrog ahead of all other species on Earth to ultimate world domination, and uses the example of a legal limited liability company as a fiction we accept as real . He points out we believe in money which mostly doesn't exist since 90% of what we 'have' is what records and computers say we do, since banks are allowed to loan $10 for every real dollar in their coffers. The fake money system works well, as long as we don't all ask for the real stuff all at once as in a financial panic; then, chaos ensues. An otherkin elf tells it like she sees it in Merry Moderne England (2018) Transfolk should be taken seriously, but they can't force everyone to believe their subjective reality. Or even their truth. Not everyone believes the world is round, either. However one feels about the definition of 'sex' and 'gender', the core reality is we can't change our genes and we especially can't force belief changes in others. Just try convincing an anti-vaxxer they need to get the COVID series. We can, however, live in peace with a little compromise and understanding on both sides, like accepting the 'immersive fiction' that while Debbie was born a man, she now lives and identifies as a woman. Not everyone will accept her, but welcome to the human race, where no one is accepted by all. The fiction isn't how the person feels or identifies; feelings are real , but beliefs aren't always. Until about fifteen years ago, we accepted a universal understanding of what it meant to be 'woman' or 'man', 'female' or 'male'. With the exception of a small fraction of people who were born 'intersex'; we understood what woman, man, female, and male meant. Public figures like J.K. Rowling get publicly excoriated, 'canceled', and called the foulest, filthiest names by people claiming to be women but behaving an awful lot like misogynist, entitled men. It's hard to believe a transwoman is an actual woman when the first response out of her mouth is a traditional male gross insult--the 'c' word. All for stating that the genes you're born with you take to your grave. It's fiction to state otherwise. Millions of years of human evolution are indisputable. So's a good DNA test. There's a long-established history of human beings crossing sex long before surgery could render 'man' and 'woman' far more literally. You can go almost all the way, but you can't change your genes. Transmasculine person photo courtesy of the Gender Spectrum Collection What we can all refute is the idea that biology is destiny, that we're slaves to our origins. As humanity and science progress, older ideas fall by the wayside. Marriage is no longer as important as it once was to ensure the paternity of the children; we now have incontrovertible DNA tests confidently stating who the father is; fifty years ago it only proved a particular man wasn't the father; if it was positive he 'might be'. We no longer have to procreate if we choose not to. We can alter our bodies if we don't like our nose, our breasts, our hair. We can now even become surgically altered to be the opposite sex if we choose. What we can't do is force people to accept our identity. It's all part of transhumanism, which explores how humans change and one day will change even more about themselves with science; my friend Dr. Mehmet Yildiz has written about this. In the meantime, perhaps we can stop quibbling about minor details like who can menstruate (female bodies) and spend more time exploring how we can work and live together regardless of what we privately believe. After all, if you have a friend or relative on the far side of a political ideology and you love them anyway, you're already comfortable with 'immersive fiction' and accepting people you disagree with. Just don't ask anyone to deny science. Biology is real. So are feelings. Let's deal rather than fight. When I'm not wondering whether a transhumanist future can enable me to fly with real wings, an upgrade from the large man-made wings utilized by 15-year-old Holly in my favorite science fiction story The Menace From Earth, I help women reclaim their power on my website Grow Some Labia.

How feminist was I, really, when the shit hit the fan? Photo by Anete Lusina on Pexels “Get out! GET OUT! You’re going to get arrested!” There was a kerfuffle of some sort. I don’t know what else to call it. I was poised at my apartment door, peering through the peephole. I couldn’t see anything. The couple in the hall weren’t in my line of sight. Something maybe knocked or thrown around. But not, I thought, a human body. Hard to tell. I suspected it was the young girl in my wing. I didn’t know her, I had only seen the back of her head once, following her down the hall. I couldn’t see or hear the man, but she clearly wanted him to leave. Was he her boyfriend? A friend? Some guy she’d picked up and poorly chosen to allow into the building? Would I be wasting 911’s time if I called? I hadn’t heard clear sounds of actual violence, nor real fear yet in her voice. “If you ever hear something that sounds like a domestic disturbance, Nicole, call the police! You don’t know how many times, when J was threatening me years ago, that I was backed up against the wall praying to God someone had heard what was going on and was calling the cops.” That’s what my roommate told me thirty years ago, when we shared a house in a small town in Connecticut. She had gotten out of a long-term abusive relationship and was living in peace with myself and her two children. I called 911. CC0 2.0 image by Drew Mackie on Flickr I wasn’t sure if I should have, but after I hung up things escalated. Loud whispers I couldn’t quite make out except for the occasional, “Get out! Get out!” They were still in the hall. I could hear the man’s voice but not if he was threatening her. He didn’t sound like a criminal, at least, like a street tough. My guess was that he was middle-class. My own fears kicked in. What would I do? They wouldn’t know who called 911 but I’d be a suspect as one of the apartments in that end of the hall who could hear. What if she was now in real danger? “How feminist are you, really, Nicole?” What was I going to do? Would I cower and hide in my apartment? Would I call 911 again? A little voice piped up. Not my old roommate’s. “How feminist are you really, Nicole? How truly committed are you to stopping male abuse? If a woman is in danger, can you put your money where your mouth is and STOP IT?” It was that sort of come-to-Jesus moment about what you really believe in. How committed was I to stopping abuse if I could? What if I did something RIGHT NOW to stop it? They’d know who I am. They’d know who called 911. They’d know where I live. And if the man, who I didn’t think lived in our building, came back for me, he only had to consult the tenants board at the entrance of the building to find my apartment number and last name. The sounds of physical disturbance grew louder. Now I wasn’t sure if the muffled thumps and thuds were objects or a body. But the woman now sounded really scared and like she was in immediate danger and even if I called 911 again they wouldn’t get there in time. What was I going to do? The shit was hitting the fan. It was up to me. I left the chain lock in place as I opened the door just enough to yell, “GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE RIGHT NOW, BUDDY-BOY! LEAVE HER ALONE! DON’T TOUCH HER! I’VE CALLED 911 AND THE COPS ARE ON THEIR WAY RIGHT NOW! GET OUT OF HERE RIGHT NOW!” “Oh God, now you’ve got to go!” the girl hissed. “Come on, go, leave, before they get here!” I heard the stairwell door open and close. She was safe. Now I was terrified. For myself. NICE JOB YOU DUMB BITCH! What if he comes after me? What do you do when the shit hits the fan? I don’t call myself a feminist anymore because I associate it too much with the fragile, easily triggered, misandrist, ‘patriarchy’-obsessed, chronically aggrieved perma-victims of the modern age. But that night I came to Jesus as my old-school feminism, the kind that taught women empowerment rather than relentless powerlessness, kicked in. I put my money where my mouth was. I shat rather than get off the pot. I’ve criticized other women for being too weak and ‘nice’ and putting up with too much shit. When that young girl told that guy he had to leave, I wondered why she had a tone to her voice indicating she still liked or accepted him in some way. She was young, and prone to bad judgment. But I knew what I was going to say to her in the (extremely unlikely) event that she ran into me and told me next time, to mind my own business. “Don’t ever tolerate that sort of shit from a man. I don’t know who he is or what he means to you but you need to get him out of your life RIGHT NOW if you haven’t already. NEVER allow a man to treat you like that! If you allow him back into your life you’re giving him tacit permission to abuse you again. Stop it NOW before it’s too late!” Women have choices when it comes to men. They have more power than they know. Too many identify with the politics of powerlessness and victimhood and this near-mythical patriarchy thingy as an excuse to ignore their own role in their personal safety. I want women to know they have the power to decide who they’ll allow into their lives. That the earlier you eject a toxic male, the better your chances of survival. I called 911 again. It was hard for me to talk because my thoughts were a muddle. Focus, I told myself. This is no time to lose your head. Speak. When I got off the phone, I was shaking like a leaf. I called one of my closest friends, a man. I told him what happened. I wondered if I’d just put my own life in danger. My limbic system went wild imagining all the ways this could backlash on me. My friend didn’t think my life was likely in danger, he thought the fact that the guy left immediately and didn’t yell anything back belligerently indicated that I probably scared him. That made me feel better. My friend knew how a man was likely to think and act in that situation, even though he himself was the least violent guy I knew. He said I should be more vigilant, maybe not take the elevator with strangers and use the stairs more. Which I already do anyway. I messaged my old Connecticut roommate on Facebook and told her what happened, to see if she had any additional advice. Once the stress hormones diminished I began to feel stronger, in a very Don’t Fuck With Me kind of way. I knew most people didn’t want a confrontation, and I’d taken a calculated risk based on the sound of the man’s voice and judged him to not likely be a physical risk to me. I began to feel proud of myself for doing something ballsy and letting the guy know that someone was willing to stop him. My Connecticut friend said it was good I didn’t step out into the hall where I could get hurt. It got me thinking about how often we women say to each other, “But you could have gotten hurt!” when a man is involved. Well, yeah. But…how far are we willing to go to stop male abuse? How much are we willing to stand up to male power? When a smaller man confronts a much bigger male bully we think that’s heroic and brave. George McFly. My Bodyguard. The Karate Kid. When a woman does it we think she’s crazy or stupid. You could get hurt! Maybe they’re right. I don’t know. What would I do if the man confronted me? I’d thought I might pull the generational thing on him since I’m old enough to be his mother and give him the Angry Mom’s what-for for treating a woman like that and scaring her. After all, he’s far less likely to own a gun, being Canadian, if he’s not a street kid. He might have a knife, but probably not. And he might be cowed by an older woman who shows she’s not as easily threatened as a naive young girl and who’s yelling in his face that when a woman tells you to leave, you fucking leave. No means no!!! That’s how the scenario plays in my head, anyway. I have no idea what I’d have done if he’d confronted me. I might be too terrified to do anything except try to slink past him. Photo by Ilya Cher on Unsplash What would you have done? I offer my story with no suggestion as to how you might have handled it, or ‘should have’. That’s what I did, for better or for worse. I think I did the right thing because nothing bad happened afterward. I was more vigilant as my friend suggested and I kept an eye peeled for strange young men in the building. All the worst-case scenarios my fevered limbic system conjured up never came to pass. Had he confronted me, and hurt me, I might well feel differently. I don’t know if there is a best way to handle these things. I mentally went through an escalation of events that night: A woman who couldn’t get a man to leave. Who began to sound scared. Something that might have been someone being assaulted, if not necessarily O.J.-scary. Then, a woman who sounded like she was in immediate physical danger and with no one around to help except me. If something had happened to her it would be my fault! Maybe in the end I just couldn’t live with that. I don’t know. I make no judgments on women who might have done differently. Who put their own safety first. I can’t blame anyone for that extremely personal decision. But I feel a little stronger and a bit more powerful. I haven’t seen the girl down the hall since then and I hope she makes better companionship decisions in the future. When 911 showed up I listened once again at the door and she sounded okay, her voice was placating. She didn’t sound like she’d been traumatized by a physical assault. I hope she was at least a little embarrassed. I know I would have been, and wouldn’t have wanted anyone calling the police on me again. That’s what I did. What would you have done? How feminist are any of us when the shit hits the fan with a violent man?

Ben was bred to hate the way some women are bred to be victims Photo by Tycho Atsma on Unsplash Ben scowled in his profile photo and oozed contempt for all things female with every word. He targeted every new woman on the social media platform like an estrogen-seeking guided missile. He left snarky misogynist comments, hoping to spark fights with feminists. His spelling and grammar were pretty good for an Angry White Man but his thoughts so jumbled they often weren’t coherent. The moment I strayed from business topics like ‘But What Are You SELLING?’ and ‘Who Really Needs A Company Blog?’ and ‘Hamlet For Goldfish’, (okay, worst business article title ever) to a call for more forgiveness for others, he emerged to leave an irrelevant rant about gun rights. I hadn’t mentioned guns or rights. I ignored him. When I wrote a female-centered middle-of-the-road article about LinkedIn women complaining about sexism, Ben introduced me to the acronym MGTOW — Men Going Their Own Way. He loved to go on about MGTOW. His goal was to put women back in our place, threatening us with what he claimed were our ever-decreasing value to men. The new platform skewed toward older members rather than easily-triggered younger women, so us dumb feminist broads, as he saw us, weren’t much threatened by a powerless dumpy dipstick who claimed a VP role in healthcare systems and had chosen a ratbag Third World country to live in. He wanted us to understand he’d removed himself from the dating scene and he was one more man you’ll never ensnare in your dirty little clutches, you ungrateful man-hating broads!!! To which we digitally glanced at each other, shrugged, and said, “Thank you!” His transparent, tissue-thin armor revealed a man broken by his own perceived lack of power. There’s nothing new about Men Who Go Their Own Way; real MGTOWs just do it without alerting CNN. Women Who Go Their Own Way (I am one) do the same. We just live our lives without an ostentatious publicity campaign. Because M/WGTOWs don’t care what the rest of you do. We’ve got shit to do of our own. Ben was a lone Angry White Man on a new blogging platform, with about ten million users. He was the only one who needed a warning label. He had a story, and I guessed it wasn’t pretty. His monothematic articles reiterated how awful women were, how we were gold-diggers, only wanted rich good-looking tall men, how love and romance and marriage were a sham, how we mistreated men and made them feel like nothing. The last seemed directly related to a devastating event when a partner banished him to the couch. I felt sympathy for his clear pain, but I wondered what life with him must have been like. Emerging from my own Angry Drunken Bitch phase, I couldn’t fault the guy for being angry if he’d been disappointed in love. Hey, that’s how it often starts, bad treatment by the opposite sex. Plus, I recognize today’s feminism manifests a toxic antagonism to men including stereotype man-haters ( La plus ça change… ). Good, decent men are being driven into the arms of misogynist MRAs, an initially-sound movement which had long since been hijacked by haters. I have a personal mandate to reach out to those men who haven’t yet given themselves over to the Dark Side. They are our brothers in sensible, rational gender relations. We need to befriend and de-Ben them. There was no engaging on any adult level with him, though I tried. Ben was too angry to reach. He kept insulting me and trying to pick fights, the Lone Angry White Man most regarded more with pity than anger, including the other male subscribers. How to breed a misogynist Little details began to emerge. Ben ran away from home, joined the military, and made it clear his life lesson was his utter worthlessness to others. He moved to one of the most misogynist countries in the world. Big surprise. Now he’s a Rich American in a desperate country where ‘bride napping’ is a huge human rights issue. I wonder how that plays out for his sex life. He says he’s ‘training’ the future generations of men for the ‘realities’ of dating in the Western world, once again hoping to scare us gals into thinking guys like him have us figured out, soon the gravy train’s going to end and men like him will be back in charge to undo everything feminism ruined. I regard him as a public service filter, removing the most toxic men from the singles world. He’s clear he doesn’t meet Western women’s exacting standards. That anger toward purple squirrel daters is somewhat justified. Although who would want to be with someone that angry? He reminds me of women who complain about all the bad men in the world but never ask what they themselves have to offer, or why they’re attracted to bad men, and vice versa. Ben noted when the family homestead got leveled he couldn’t imagine a more fitting end for the scene of the ‘shitshow’ he grew up in. More details emerged. His father left when he was small. He never knew him. His mother told Ben he was a mistake and his father was worthless. She had a real thing for ‘worthless’. She remarried, and Ben and his siblings suffered numerous cruelties. He witnessed his stepfather murder his mother while he was still in grade school. Ben felt responsible because he’d mentioned she was looking to replace Stepdad after she divorced him. Her murderer got off, Ben claims, by buying the courts off. Hubby #3 wouldn’t have been an improvement as Ben claimed Mom was shopping in the prison systems. He says he attempted suicide many times when he was younger. He was one angry mofo. When speaking of abused women you often hear, “She was raised in an abusive family; it’s the only thing she knows! She doesn’t understand love doesn’t have to come with abuse! That there’s such a thing as healthy, functional relationships! Don’t blame the victim!” No argument here. 110% agreement. Feminists and anti-violence activists too often forget the other victims of violence — the men trained to be violent in horrible environments. I didn’t like Ben much but I couldn’t hate him. He wasn’t wrong about everything, and I recognized a fellow psychological miscreant. Sure, there was a level of romantic entitlement thwarted in his posts. I could relate. It would be easier to hate him without knowing his story. Social media’s global hatefest offers fatuous explanations and a Manichaean view of humanity: Simplistic cartoon comprehension of evil, people suck, white people are privileged, black people are racist and in denial, feminism ruined everything and The Patriarchy ruins humanity. Trumpies are all stupid. SJWs hate everybody. Less do we ask, “How did that person get to be the way s/he is?” Do feminists ever look ‘under the misogynist hood’? Abuse breeds abusers Some have told me they feel like robots or zombies, that they feel their bodies are empty or filled with straw, not flesh and blood, that instead of having veins and nerves they have ropes or cords. One inmate told me he feels like “food that is decomposing.” — James Gilligan James Gilligan detailed his career as a prison psychologist in his now-classic book Violence: Reflection On A National Epidemic. He describes some of the horrible physical, sexual and psychological abuse these former innocent boys underwent by parents and caretakers. His summary of them as the ‘living dead’ describes their own subjective experience. Gilligan felt he was living in “cloud-cuckoo-land” when “…I hear people suggesting that capital punishment will deter murder and induce more ‘reverence for life’. The men I know already feel so spiritually dead that they long for physical death as well.” Ben’s vicious work drew me like that proverbial moth. I wanted to know more. Not out of a prurient interest but to understand the Making of the Misogynist the way I seek to understand what creates and perpetuates female victimhood. He reminded me of me. I used to be that angry. It made me abusive for awhile, too. Not physically, but emotionally and psychologically. My head wasn’t a fun place to live, either. The plot sickens Ben claimed he was molested by an aunt. Was he telling the truth? BELIEVE THE VICTIM! We can’t focus on the problems of young girls growing up with abuse who become serial victims, yet ignore the very same conditions that turn out the men who become misogynist abusers. Let’s remember: Women also respond to abuse by becoming abusers themselves. Some men become chronic victims. Men commit violent physical abuse more than women because they can. Women do it in defense or when they think they can get away with it. We see the latter dynamic in the mutually abusive Johnny Depp-Amber Heard divorce. In audio tapes it’s clear she’s also an abuser, and his response was often to leave the room. I make no excuses for physical abuse, ever. I ask we consider both sides of the coin, and condemn it equally. Women are no angels either. We’re masters of psychological/emotional abuse, because we’re wired for it. Some of it’s neurological; those parts of our brain are larger and more bridged than men’s. It may also be evolutionary; this is how women have survived to get what we wanted or needed where men possessed an outsized amount of power. The beauty of forgiveness “We can live without religion and meditation, but we cannot survive without human affection.” — The Dalai Lama Put aside ‘The Patriarchy’ for a moment. As we debate misogyny, privilege, and entitlement we need to stop looking at men as a cohesive group (they’re not) and begin looking at individuals. The focus on this all-encompassing ‘patriarchy’ has become a fatuous feminist shortcut for not thinking too hard about what contributes to the other side of abuse. Forgiveness has become a dirty little virtue. It’s not even cool for many Christians anymore, who think the only person worthy of forgiveness is Donald Trump. Forgiving doesn’t excuse; it’s about letting go of your anger towards others who have wronged you. Why? Because you suffer, not the ones who wronged you, when you don’t let go, and because, get real, you’ve wronged others as well. You have much in common with your adversaries. You’ve forgotten about it, but they haven’t. Part of the forgiveness process is looking at things from a different point of view, and most importantly, asking what things look like from another’s perspective. It’s NOT the same as giving your transgressors a free pass. You forgive, but you don’t forget. You’re under no obligation to ever have contact with them again, if you choose. After all, you want to avoid this transgression against you in the future. So when we judge others, however deserved, I ask: What do you have in common with them? Plenty of hateful feminists are no better than the misogynists they condemn. Maybe, if you dislike hateful men that much, you don’t look under your own hood any more than anti-feminist misogynists do. Where feminism hurts us all Today’s angry MGTOWs may be juiced by an unhealthy dollop of male entitlement, but there’s genuine hurt underneath. Ben’s tragic life was marred by bad relationships with women. You think abused women don’t know any other way? Neither do their brothers. Ben never had a chance at a healthy, functional relationship because he has no idea what one looks like. Feminists and misogynists need to stop blanket-blaming and start regarding each other as unique, often-tragic individuals. Misogynists need to stop thinking about their own pain for a moment and ask why some women believe in a patriarchy, why they think men still have too much power, why manspreading drives some nuts. Misogynists should try talking to us for a change. And listening. They don’t have to agree with everything. Feminists and activists who blanket-blame men and ‘patriarchy’ need to do the same. No one is born a misogynist or a victim. While there are certain ways the brain can develop that might predispose certain individuals toward one or the other, environment plays a huge role. Male entitlement and privilege do, too. Prisons are filled with violent men, most of whom were made, not born. We need to show as much compassion for men who grew up with violent abuse as we do for women. I rail against victimhood, but I acknowledge real victimhood exists. It often starts in childhood. For everybody. The only way to stop damaged adults is to better protect children. Why don’t we yet understand that? This post first appeared on Medium in 2020.

The religious excesses of 'woke' antiracism closely parallel old-time religion and much of what ails the left Photo by Edgar Chaparro on Unsplash "How is Woke Racism ?" my friend asked. "I'm curious, but I want to make sure this guy isn't an Uncle Tom before I buy it." 'Uncle Tom' John McWhorter ain't. The critics of the Columbia University linguist, New York Times writer, race relations author and regular Bloggingheads.tv commentator who hurl that epithet are angry he isn't part of what McWhorter describes as 'The Elect'. He is not, in their minds, a 'real black person' because he challenges their strict antiracism orthodoxy. Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America responds to what McWhorter describes as modern antiracism's excesses. McWhorter's thesis is that Third Wave antiracism (TWA) arose most recently out of the civil rights protests and riots of the previous decade and assimilates a distinct template lifted directly from American religious fundamentalism. 'The Elect's' secular religion requires no gods or afterlife beliefs but contains many elements of faith-based True Believers , as described by social philosopher Eric Hoffer in the 1950s. McWhorter carefully analyzes and dissects the 'new religion' and lays out how he feels this hurts black Americans by infantilizing them, treating them as children and chronic victims even if they don't feel like they are. He argues it sets black children up for failure and promulgates policies consequently harming black communities. He neither damns antiracism nor denies white racism, but he refuses what he sees as racial essentialism coming from certain black antiracists which closely mirrors the traditional racial stereotypes of the past. He finishes with a three-point focus he feels will better serve an ailing, left-behind black America he says is only partially attributable to racism and 'white supremacy'. John McWhorter. Public domain photo by Jasy Jatere on Wikimedia Commons New-Time Religion McWhorter calls today's TWA the birth of a new religion. If some of its more popular claims seem 'out there'--that white supremacy permeates everything, that you are white supremacist (by birth), that America's twelve-generation slavery institution is the sole definition of American history, or that white people must regularly genuflect, grovel before, or even wash the feet of black people to virtue signal their commitment as 'allies'--once viewed through the lens of religion, McWhorter argues, it all makes more sense. McWhorter counts the ways TWA closely parallels America's long-established culture of literalist Christianity. Here are a few of his points: The Elect have superstition. Have faith. Be skeptical, critical, or even downright hostile to facts or challenges to the belief system. Don't ask, for example, whether more white men are killed by cops than black men. The Elect have clergy. The High Priests (and Great White Priestess) of TWA are Ta-Nehisi Coates, promoter of the 'slavery reparations' idea; Ibram Kendi, author of the bestselling How To Be An Antiracist; and White Fragility author Robin DiAngelo, one of the few white people TWA approves of because she offers zero challenge to TWA's racial excesses. The Elect Have Original Sin. 'White privilege' is that which sinners (by birth) must regularly atone and never be completely free from. The Elect are evangelical. Like fundamentalist Christians, their beliefs are the One True beliefs and there's no such thing as an alternative valid opinion. If you've ever argued with a religious proselytizer you'll recognize that same feeling when arguing with The Elect who ignore all their own logical fallacies and contradictions. The Elect are apocalyptic. There's a Judgment Day coming, and no one knows when. Unlike Christianity's Great Judgment, which is described quite concisely in the Bible (it will arrive with all the subtlety of a nuclear bomb), TWA's Great Judgement is some fuzzy day when America has fixed racism, which will only happen after enough groveling and 'self-mortification' occurs. The Elect ban the heretic. This includes old 'racist' tweets, ancient unfortunate Halloween costume choices, and any challenge to TWA holy writ [See: The Elect's clergy]. Cancel culture. 'Nuff said. McWhorter argues TWA's 'woke' racism harms black people with its attempts to 'dismantle hegemonic structures' in a way that accomplishes nothing. He describes a pervasive sense of performative outrage and response doing little more than serve to point a blaming finger and make white people feel bad about themselves. McWhorter has long been a critic of where black people, in his eyes, fall short of attaining the American ideal by holding themselves back. He notes, "People claiming that the 'work' of white-privilege consciousness-raising is a prelude to political action are like kids pretending their forts are for protection. It feels good to say all of this rhetoric and dismissal [cancel culture job loss and reputation destruction] is necessary for changing 'structures'. But the real reason they are engaging in this suspiciously lengthy prelude is that there is a joy almost all of us take in hostility." How effective is it ever to enact change, especially trying to change minds in power, by telling people how awful they are, how they're responsible for everything wrong with society? 'Deplorable' is now a badge of honor in the Trump camp. Good luck convincing them they need to change. Real action for real reformers "I will not retract [this innocent thing I said or wrote], and you can call me anything you want. And if you want to get me fired, I will push back and write about *you* on Twitter." - Sample script McWhorter's plan for action is what he feels will truly benefit black people more than virtue signaling, performative acts of professional or personal destruction, or even protests. Don't be surprised 'defunding the police' isn't one of them. McWhorter's suggestions: End the war on drugs, which will remove this attractive career path for those unmotivated to do more with their lives. Teach kids who are not from 'book-lined homes' (i.e., culturally disadvantaged black kids) how to read via the phonics method rather than the newer 'whole word method', which teaches kids to approach words as chunks rather than sounding them out, since English spelling is considered too irregular for the phonics route. Phonics better benefits kids who grow up without books, where household language is mostly oral. Fund and promote two-year vocational colleges more, rather than trying to make a college education the only route to a successful professional life. He notes not everyone is cut out for college (including many from middle-class homes) and one can earn a perfectly good living as a mechanic, plumber, hospital technician, and many others, all of which pay more than dealing drugs unless you're at the top of the pyramid (which most dealers are not). McWhorter challenges the reader to stand up to The Elect and get used to being called a racist, the Elect's knee-jerk reaction to any critique. He doesn't leave the reader without the proper tools. The last few pages list how to challenge The Elect, or how to handle them if arguing and debating isn't your cuppa. He includes sample scripts on how to handle charges you're a white supremacist, or who are pushing onto your school system a hardcore antiracism curriculum, or what to do if you get flamed and shamed on social media. He encourages the reader not to apologize when they know they haven't done or said anything wrong, and to avoid 'confessions', especially for birth color privilege. McWhorter's tone is straightforward with a thread of subtle sarcasm throughout. His critique is aimed squarely at what he considers the excesses of 'woke' antiracism, and not the movement itself. His language is somewhat academic but not pedantic; he's easily understood without resorting to the 'academic jargonbabble' of the insecure masking that they have nothing really important to say. I've been a follower of John McWhorter for over a year now, on YouTube as well as his written work. What attracted me early to his views on America's race issues is how closely his criticism of antiracists and American blacks closely paralleled my own complaints about the similarly self-infantilizing victimhood-obsessed elements in feminism. One can also easily transfer such critiques to the trans rights movement, which has become hijacked by a small group of loudmouth, in-your-face trans-activists (almost exclusively transwomen) whose words, actions, and reactions to challenges by natal women closely resemble traditional cis-het misogyny, committing all the same fundamentalist religious errors. The American left in many ways has gone as off the rails as the American right, itself steeped in divinity-based fundamentalist religion. The left's religion may contain no gods or Sunday ritual requirements, but too much of it has become no less dogmatic or destructive than the right's old-time religion. The readers who will enjoy and derive value from Woke Racism are found on both sides of the political spectrum and with all skin shades, but not so far down either side that they've become infected with each side's respective unshakeable ideological sanctimonies, and who want to challenge the racial essentialism and downright bigotry against both blacks and whites. It's particularly valuable for those who seek understanding of what's behind antiracism's Elect and need the justification, along with the right words and mindset to challenge them, or simply walk away with one's dignity intact. Woke Racism is a starting point, in my opinion, for everything wrong with the left. It provides useful, real-world advice on how to handle antiracism extremists one can easily apply to whatever 'woke' social justice extremists are screaming in your face. It will strengthen your backbone and if nothing else, make you sleep easier the next time an Elect calls you a racist for some silly reason. Or a rapist or a transphobe or whatever is the epithet du jour. Originally posted on Vocal.media in January 2022

What we're expected to disbelieve about biological reality approaches QAnon-level credulity Image by Anik Islam from Pixabay Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. - Daniel Moynihan, American politician, sociologist, diplomat, 1983 Has the American left finally jumped the shark? Has it stretched its credibility and influence past the breaking point, as Donald Trump's Capitol coup attempt drove many thousands of voters to switch their affiliation to Democrat or independent last year? The left criticizes the right for its non-commitment to facts nor clearly established reality, such as embracing Trump's Big Lie of a stolen election, along with its overall science-phobic denial or 'skepticism' of climate change and COVID vaccines. Then there's the rise of QAnon: The into-the-ionosphere bugspit-crazy religious fundamentalist-fueled right-wing conspiracy theories so insane social media has been forced to ban them. The left points its scolding finger at the sheer lunacy of what's become of the American right and the Republican party, but what about the log in its own collective eye? The left is no less guilty of science denial. Let's remember how the left embraced the modern anti-vaxx movement's Big Lie linking vaccines to autism, captained by former Playboy Bunny Jenny McCarthy and then-partner Jim Carrey. They relied on their celebrity to influence and persuade others that vaccines harm children, their information drawn from a since-discredited medical journal article linking a childhood vaccine to autism. Some medical professionals question whether her own son was misdiagnosed , since he seems to have 'recovered' as a young adult, and autism isn't a condition one recovers from. McCarthy, Carrey, and many other celebrities suffering delusions of adequacy have done untold damage to children who caught preventable childhood diseases because their parents were afraid to vaccinate them. Not to mention the later damage to the country as a whole when the right embraced vaccine hysteria last year, which has kept America firmly at the top of the global list for infections, deaths and hospitalizations. Yoo-Ess - Finally #1 at something!Source: Bing COVID-19 Tracker Today, there's a newer giant mother of a movement on the left insisting we deny the evidence of our own lying eyes, approaching the level of no less than the right's the-pandemic-is-a-hoax incredulity. Ideology trumps facts in what may be the left's jump-the-shark moment, one that may drive as many away from the left as Trump's insurrection has become GOP voter repellant. Exhibit A Until about twelve years ago, 'transgender' wasn't a word you heard much, and even less likely to encounter such an individual. I met four before the explosion in the late '00s. Today, millions of people worldwide identify as transgender and others regularly state their preferred pronouns except, perhaps, those who need to do it the most. The identification of what once seemed pretty obvious - who's male or female, man or woman - became far more contentious as certain trans-activists increasingly voiced aggressive redefinitions asserting that anyone who identifies as a woman is a woman. Interestingly, transmen's participation is noticeably sparse in this debate. Perhaps because there's no strong push to be permitted into male-only spaces or to be accepted by natal males the way some transwomen have pushed to be included in women's-only spaces and accepted as 'one of us'. What's mind-boggling is how quickly educated, formerly rational minds have assimilated the new assertion that a person with a penis is a woman, simply by demand. Reality is not transphobic 'Transphobic' and 'TERF' (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist) are the go-to labels hurled at those who insist biology is real, and that women need their own spaces to protect themselves from historically predatory men. Especially in female prisons, where sex assaults by 'transwoman' prisoners of female prisoners receive far less press coverage than sexual assaults of transwomen prisoners . I put 'transwoman' in quotes because out-of-the-blue convicted rapist transgender self-identification like the UK's notorious 'Karen White' seems a tad suspicious. It's hardly unreasonable to ask whether a new desire for a convicted sex offender to be transferred to a women's prison and be granted access to women might not be because he suddenly feels like a 'she'. Bring this up, and one is accused of being 'transphobic' as opposed to, say, being 'anti-rape'. Never is it acknowledged, by this small fraction of trans-activists and their supporters, that one can be supportive of the trans movement without necessarily agreeing to every assertion. Just ask Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling . She's become the most visible face of biology pushback against a movement she has otherwise clearly historically supported, merely because she asserts biology is real and people with a penis don't magically turn into women on their say-so. We're told that people may not 'feel right' in the body they were born into and that's indisputable because no one knows how someone else actually feels. Before social media and celebrities lent a distinct air of coolness to 'coming out' as trans, a much smaller fraction of the population made real transitions, at least as far as they were financially able to take it, at a time with far less social and familial support and less public understanding of the more unique gender dysphoria, the kind you don't outgrow. CC0 2.0 image by Tim Eytan on Flickr Feelings are real, but not scientific, and they don't always accurately reflect established reality. I once met someone who believed he was almost a literal Anne Rice-style vampire, except of course, he wasn't. We conversed in daylight, for one thing, and for another, he acknowledged he'd never drunk blood. People believe conspiracy theories because they feel right or 'true'. It doesn't make them right or true. Consider the Flat Earth Society. Or Dr. Fauci about alternative methods to prevent or treat COVID. So you can feel like a man or a woman, even though you weren't born that way. Fair enough, but on some level, one can't change one's biological reality. Which is why transwomen don't menstruate and transmen can't impregnate a woman, and some guy in Baltimore doesn't make an ash of himself when he walks around by day. Biology is real A young couple I know have proven it. They had a baby last year. One partner is non-binary (they) and the other is a transwoman (she/her). The non-binary partner carried a baby in their belly for nine months and gave birth the way women have birthed babies for millions of years. I hadn't been sure whether the baby was their partner's. Although the penis didn't prove paternity the baby's eyes certainly did, when I saw the first photos. They were the transwoman's. This miracle could only have occurred with a biological female and a biological male. I accept them and treat them the way they want, because I like them. It doesn't much matter to me what their genes state, incontrovertibly. I can be tolerant because I hail from a lifetime of other 'identities', even though I've never believed or felt like I was one of those personas. Additionally, accepting others' unrealities is comprehensible if you grow up in any sort of religious country. You become accustomed to highly unscientific beliefs you nevertheless go along with, if only to keep the peace. Demonstrably questionable faith-based belief systems aren't always, and don't have to be, toxic. For all Christianity's faults, it's also promoted laudable moral notions of kindness, compassion, redemption, forgiveness, care for the poor and sick, turning the other cheek and yes, even tolerance. Christianity can recognize when it has erred in the past and self-corrected. It fueled and Biblically 'justified' the transatlantic slave trade, but it was Christian abolitionists who ended it. For all its own faults, the fledgling trans movement forces us to question what we think we know about gender. Sincere trans minds ask how important gender is and whether it's fluid. It reminds me of earlier debates we had in college forty years ago about sexual preference, and whether humans are actually bisexual. Are we simply gay/straight/center-bi? I adopted the view I still hold today, that sexual preference is a spectrum, validated by a senior citizen friend who came out as a homosexual (to absolutely no one's surprise) late in life, despite having been married and claiming to be attracted to, and in love with his wife (whom he'd long since divorced). We were told long ago some are 'born gay', and they can't change that, but that wasn't completely true. I know some who say they didn't know they were gay until they were older. Perhaps something within them changed. I knew an adult woman who was a lesbian until she started falling in love with men. 'Conversion therapy' doesn't change desires but unknown biological processes, or changes in the brain we don't recognize or acknowledge yet, may. Photo by Baran Lotfollahi on Unsplash Sex-based brain differences Neuroscientific research invites interesting speculation on just how tabula rasa the left would like us to believe human brains are. Decades-long accumulation of evidence for sex-based brain differences demonstrates there are, in fact, inherent differences in males and females and they do influence behavior. Its significance is up for debate, but a widely-read Stamford University article on brain researcher Dr. Nirao Shah 's work concludes that in human brains, the influence of neither culture nor biology is set at zero. Shah's research concerned neural brain circuits regulating specific behaviors, so he focused on aggression, mating and parenting differences between the sexes, since the behaviors are innate survival and propagation essentials. He sought to identify the genes linked to sex-differing behavior and thereby identify the neuronal circuits underneath those behaviors. Sex-based brain differences were hardly unknown to science but they hadn't received much attention. Once they did, the left strongly denied there was any such thing as a 'male' or 'female' brain. That's arguably true, although it's incorrect to say there are no differences. It conflicted with the left's traditional hostility to biological explanations for human differences, with good reason. Conservatives have traditionally used said differences to justify an appalling array of human rights abuses and bigotries, such as human slavery and the oppression of women. Shah's research and many others demonstrate well-documented brain differences in men and women influencing sex-based human behavior. Environment and culture undeniably influence the way each individual grows up as well, but it too isn't the only explanation. We don't have much understanding yet of the underlying reasons for why people identify as male or female or some position in between, but we can observe that 'identification' doesn't always match behavior, which can remain remarkably sex-based. It begs the question of why certain transwomen activists sound and occasionally behave so aggressively male and traditionally misogynist or why they default to classically misogynist names against natal women who challenge them . Many wonder why transmen are less on the front lines, why they're not pushing into male-only spaces, and whether a natal female brain has something to do with it, regardless of the biology/culture makeup. Good (original) girls don't make waves. Some may not want to be defined by their birth body but they can't claim one is a man or a woman merely as 'identification'. Being one or the other in what is and always has been a largely binary world is skin-deep. Genes don't lie. Neither do genitals. Why should we accept genuine, but unscientific feelings as the sole arbiter of reality? Asserting someone is a woman because that's how she feels is clearly disingenuous when she's still got a penis and can grow a beard. Asserting that 'some men menstruate' is equally disingenuous; the menstruating 'man' is biologically a woman. One's brain has to be logically crippled not to recognize the reason female athletes push back so hard on allowing 'transwomen' to compete in women's sporting events isn't 'transphobia' but because transwomen still retain their male-born physical strength and superior speed, giving them a biological advantage over natal females. It's why sports are gendered. There's no sport in knowing who the winner will be before the race. A new scientific study released in December found that transwomen still run 12% faster than natal women after two years of hormone treatment (with only a 5% reduction in strength after one year). Try explaining what a victory it actually is for your daughter's track team to be so woke as to allow a 'transwoman' athlete who beats out all the natal girls, every single time. One wonders why transboys/men don't stampede to compete in male-only competitions. In conclusion When I was younger we laughed at willfully scientifically ignorant religious fundamentalists who denied the world was older than six millennia, instead created in six days. The most extreme believed the world was flat, because a holy book strongly suggested it was. Today we laugh, sometimes through tears, at how willfully scientifically ignorant people are when they claim COVID vaccines 'haven't been tested enough' and haven't demonstrated safety. Many of these same people blithely get a flu shot every year and ignore the clear, in-your-face evidence worldwide that vaccines save lives and the unvaccinated wind up at Reddit's Herman Cain Awards . Say hi to Hermie for us, Meat! Creative Commons 2.0 photo from Super Festivals on Wikimedia Commons How much more in-your-face can you be than the biological reality that you can only change the window dressing, but not the genes? We embrace others' identities every single day, however privately we might disagree with them, and they do the same for us. Our self-image and 'identity' may not synchronize with others' perception of us. 'White privilege' is a perfect example. Think You Don't Have 'White Privilege'? It's Not Your Decision We don't agree with each other on everything, yet we can still be friends with or love others, even if they're Antifa or a Trumper or believe that Hanson was the greatest, most underrated band in the history of the world. Scientific denialism just makes one look ignorant. Facts are facts, and the truth is inconvenient. People can see evidence with their own eyes. Do otherwise sane, rational people consider how they sound when they insist 'transwomen are real women'? Or when they attack someone like J.K. Rowling for insisting, essentially, that the sky is blue? People might pipe down privately because they don't want their lives destroyed by anonymous cowards on Twitter, but behind closed doors they whisper to each other how stupid the left is because it can't face a blindingly clear biological reality. The left has jumped the shark and taken the genuine reality of gender dysphoria much farther than it needed to go. Biology is real. Genes don't lie. Everyone knows it. Including, I'm convinced, deep down, the denialist left.

President Biden's pledge to choose a black woman to replace retiring Supreme Court judge Stephen Breyer reminds us how it's never been about the most qualified. Alleged leading Biden nominee fave Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, CC0 4.0 photo by Wikicago on Wikimedia Commons President Biden's announcement he will choose a black woman (he may already have announced his pick by the time you read this) to fill the seat of retiring liberal U.S. Supreme Court Judge Steven Breyer has cued a predictable, and understandable chorus of 'tokenization' critiques. Biden is fulfilling a campaign promise to black voters to appoint a black Supreme Court justice, and now it's time to deliver. The predictable part is Republicans who've suddenly 'got relijjin' on the need for a 'merit-based' pick. As if Supreme Court nominees have ever been entirely about merit and not identity politics, beginning with the first Supreme Court in 1790 consisting of one white male Chief Justice and five associate white male justices, which no one questioned. One initial nominee, Robert H. Harrison, declined to serve, and President Washington replaced him with James Iredell rather than asking, "Hey, I was just talkin' to Martha, maybe we should add a little representation for the other half of so-called free America. Whaddaya think of a woman?" Back then, it was pretty inarguable who could serve. Leadership was 100% white men and women's place was quite specifically in the home. As for those few black freedmen? Not even under consideration, and pretty inarguably unqualified after a previous history of unpaid servitude and no political experience. Then again, seven years after the end of the Revolution, a bunch of baby ex-colonials with no prior experience in running their own society without royal oversight were winging it as much as any white woman or black freedman would have. Had they been allowed any input, one wonders how different America might look today. The unspoken Supreme Court white-guy qualifications remained until 1981 when President Ronald Reagan fulfilled his own campaign promise to shake things up by nominating a woman. Sandra Day O'Connor broke a 191-year-old tradition. Conservatives howled over Reagan as they now do over Biden. Funny how little they spoke of 'merit' in the late teens while a politically inexperienced and demonstrably ignorant President made the government safe for overprivileged, underachieving white men again. Long detour off the Merit Parkway Granted, Biden's optics aren't good today in the ultra-divided Disunited States of America, where both far sides of the political chasm play their own version of identity politics. Ideally, we would pick the best of the best of anyone who'll have the job. Before 1981, the pool of qualified white men was fairly sizeable, and while the choices almost always closely matched the political ideology of the President, few could challenge them on merit alone. A nominee had to have serious legal chops to be considered. It was only when Reagan specifically chose a woman that Americans wondered whether O'Connor was chosen for merit or her biology. Did anyone think to ask whether we were ever truly getting the best and the brightest before anyone thought to nominate anyone other than a white man? Probably there weren't any equivalent candidates among their ranks until women and POC were allowed into the hallowed halls of higher education. Arguably, American POC and women have a lot of catching up to do, having been held back by twelve generations of slavery and 12,000 years of male control. Then again, none of the original white guys back in 1790 had any clue how to run a country as they hammered out whole new, untried ways to govern, including a separate judicial branch unattached to executive authority, apart from the President nominating replacements. Choosing only white men, consciously or not, shut down the pool of opportunity from others who might have added real value and more importantly, an outside-the-box perspective. The pool of prospective black female lawyers Biden is considering will almost certainly be more qualified and less 'problematic' than any of Trump's picks. Republicans weren't concerned about 'meritocracy' when they blocked confirmation hearings and votes for any Obama choice to fill Antonin Scalia's position when the Justice passed away in February 2016. Mitch McConnell claimed the people should 'have a voice' in who appoints the vacated seat, with the October election ten months away, rather than his stark terror Obama would choose a progressive nominee of any identity. Republicans got lucky with the election outcome and Donald Trump appointed Neil Gorsuch to replace Scalia. Gorsuch was a nice (i.e., non-problematic) white former preppy who Trump correctly expected would vote quite reliably on the conservative end . Educationally and legally, he had the chops, and wasn't the worst conservative white man Trump could have chosen but not even close to the best of the best. Next Trump appointed the morally-challenged Brett Kavanaugh, with a good but not exemplary legal background, credibly accused of crimes he could no longer be prosecuted for since his accusers had failed to report them the same century as they allegedly occurred. Without the sex crime allegations, Kavanaugh was at best, okay, but not superlative. Trump appointed his least-meritocratic pick, Antonin Scalia protegé Amy Coney Barrett, hardly exemplary as a legal mind and who had been a 'handmaid' in a traditionalist religious group. 'Handmaids' in the People of Praise performed pastoral care, gave some community advice and organized aid, the usual 'church lady' activities. The group changed 'handmaids' to the awkward-sounding 'women leaders' after the popular Hulu TV series attached an unsavory association to the word. Former members describe the People as pretty firmly entrenched with male leadership and the man as the head of the household. Which is pretty much how Trump views women: Created by Who-Cares to serve men, and part thy legs on command. Barrett likely looked like a loyal 'good girl' who would continue to do what men directed her to do. If ever there was an argument against concern for merit for any government position, let alone the Supreme Court, it was during the Trump years, when the least-qualified human being in America was President. Diversity of perspective matters too The U.S. Supreme Court Justice position is a little like the astronaut profession. Many might aspire to it, but only a handful ever get the job. America doesn't look the same as it did in 1790. White men don't own people and women and POC have more power than they did back then. An all-white Supreme Court doesn't properly represent the country over whose lives they create the ultimate rulings. Neither does an all-male Court. A black female nominee deals a blow both to the male-heavy and nearly-white history of the Court and will introduce a new intellectual, legal experience the Court has never had before. When Americans ask why Biden is specifically targeting a black woman for the role, I'm reminded of the answer Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau gave when asked a similarly weird question after his party won an election seven years ago. Political perspective diversity matters as much as legal qualifications and experience in government, where entrusted others make decisions affecting all our lives. Is it 'affirmative action'? Not necessarily, and it doesn't necessarily mean 'less-qualified'. No one will ever agree on who was 'most qualified' but it's pretty much a given whoever President Biden nominates will be better qualified than a guy who behaved during his investigation hearing like the beery, entitled, affluenza-addled adolescent preppy boy he was, along with a woman whose religious group reinforced traditionalist, anti-feminist views of women. What would a truly merit-based Supreme Court pick system look like? Let's pretend we're somewhere in the future, we don't know how far and it's not important. America is more equal than it was back in the 2020s, even if it's not perfect and we've recognized true parity may never be achievable. We've reached a point where we acknowledge women and POC have caught up enough that we can now introduce a more merit-based system. Who knows, maybe the imbalance by then will be not enough white representation. (The Atlantic disagrees.) I'm fascinated by Malcolm Gladwell's description of 'blind auditions' for symphony orchestras in Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking. He details 1950s criticism that orchestras were heavily white and male, that musicians seemed chosen by favoritism, sexism, and racism rather than talent and ability. Ergo, 'blind auditions' were set up in which candidates auditioned behind a wall or a curtain and were judged solely on their performance. It took a little tweaking; orchestras remained stubbornly male until someone realized the characteristic clicking of female high heels was subconsciously biasing the judges. Once required to remove one's shoes for a silent walk to the chair, and suddenly merit won the day. Some have disputed the blind audition story but studies have supported subconscious bias in hiring overall and I wonder: What if we had an AI system in the future, far more sophisticated than the ATS's (Automatic Tracking Systems) hiring managers use today? One in which reports are generated on a Supreme Court candidate's qualifications and background experience but all identifying information is stripped out. The President's recommendations could be included as well. The Senate sees or hears these reports and then interviews the candidates as they always have done, except behind a wall and with a device to alter the voice to sound like every other candidate's. Some senators might recognize a candidate by their experience, or the way they spoke; for example, if someone speaks with an accent, a particular dialect, or is known for certain catchphrases. The nominees might be coached, or seek coaching, to learn how not to give subtle cues away. It wouldn't be perfect, but it might introduce a genuine return to 'merit' choice from a much broader pool of people and bring us much closer, if not completely, to true parity. No matter what, the U.S. Supreme Court won't be as white anymore and there WILL be better 'identity' representation. The only problem it doesn't resolve is political diversity, which also matters more than we acknowledge. It's not fair, nor is it in the best interests of the country, to be over-represented by any one political point of view. Liberal, conservative, Libertarian, contrarian, even centrist ideology doesn't have all the answers. That might be the much bigger question in our future Supreme Court Justice appointment scenario: How diverse, ideologically, is the Court? In the end, that will likely matter far more than any personal identity 'merit' choices do today. Or ever have been. Did you like this post? Would you like to see more? I lean left of center, but not so far over my brains fall out. Subscribe to my Substack newsletter Grow Some Labia so you never miss a post!

My friend did. She couldn’t see the red flags Photo by Jesús Boscán on Unsplash I used to go clubbing back in the day with a woman who didn’t know how not to get hit by men. Sandy resembled Kirstie Alley, then popular on Cheers. Her face bore a sort of friendly fatuity which wasn’t her resting-dimbulb-face. There just wasn’t much going on underneath. We had little in common. But she was fun to go clubbing with. We were in our mid-twenties; she had three kids and a divorce under her belt. She’d married at seventeen to get out of a bad home life to a man twice her age, her ‘rescuer,’ until the battering forced her to rescue herself and her kids. She bore little curiosity beyond them, her retail job and her search for a man who wouldn’t hit her. The ex hadn’t been the only one. “Sandy, what’s your deal?” I’d ask. “I just don’t have these problems.” I belly danced apart from my day job, performing for men’s birthdays mostly. My roommate, who co-owned the lingerie store where Sandy worked, employed me sometimes to dance outside the store’s entrance on the High Holidays (Christmas, Mother’s Day, Halloween). Men practically came to me in my sleep. None were the sort that set off my Danger Detector. “I can’t imagine anyone abusing you,” my brother once said. “I think you’d rip his dick off.” That about summed it up. I didn’t attract abusers, nor was I attracted to them. I recognized the warning signs at a very early age. “How do you find these nice guys?” Sandy asked one night when we’d eschewed dancing to check out a new Yuppie sports bar. “I’m attracted to them,” I said. “How do you know they’re nice?” Good question. I scanned the clientele. The guys were largely clean-cut, groomed and nicely-dressed. This wasn’t like the redneck dive where I was greeted with a hand on my ass. “Let’s try something,” I suggested. “Which guys here do you like?” We had no plans to chat anyone up that night, but had I been on the prowl, several might have been in my own crosshairs. Sandy looked around. “That one’s cute.” She tipped her beer in his direction. Ugh. Yes, he was attractive. I wouldn’t have touched him with a ten-foot Hungarian. He wore a wife-beater. Had a porn-’stache, although we didn’t call them that in the ’80s. Muscular and manspread-y. “Yeah, that one’s going to hit you,” I said. “Try again.” She picked out another one. No wife-beater this time, but just as macho and he-man. “Yeah, he’s going to hit you too,” I said. “Try again.” She picked out another one. I forget what he looked like. Just another Master of the Universe. The kind of guy whose eye I avoided. “Uh-uh.” “Then who would you pick?” “That one,” I said, pointing to a curly-haired cute guy with a coordinated outfit. “Or that one. That one. That one.” “Boring,” she said after each one. “Boring. Boring. Boring.” “I don’t think they’ll hit you.” Of course, I had no way of knowing, but I had plenty of faith in my own good judgment. Jerkwads weren’t attracted to me, or if they were they didn’t bother because they could tell I wouldn’t put up with their shit. I walked around with purpose, like I owned myself. I made myself heard. I was feminist, but not Ripley-vs-the-Alien. Guys understood I wasn’t a victim type. “Sandy,” I said, “your problem’s clear. You have a thing for abusive men. These macho types are danger boys. The ones you call ‘boring’ are the ones who don’t hit. What you value in men is messed up.” Fishing for abusers My roommate saw Sandy eating lunch in the food court. She watched a skanky guy approach and strike up a conversation. Sandy didn’t do what safety-savvy women would, sending disinterest signals like not looking him in the eye, short, polite, but non-friendly non-answers to his questions, and if he didn’t bugger off say, “I have to meet my boyfriend.” No, Sandy gave him her phone number. “She just attracts these guys like magnets,” observed my roommate, often annoyed by Sandy’s lack of brains and common sense. She knew a thing or two about abusive men from her own former partner. Except that she learned her lesson. She never allowed an abuser into her life again. She married a lovely man several years later. I belly danced at their wedding. Making the right choice My roommate figured out she had the power to decide who to allow into her life. I don’t know how Sandy’s life turned out. We lost touch when we stopped clubbing. I know she died at 45, but from natural causes, with her children at her side. I hope she found a nice guy who wasn’t ‘boring’. I spend a lot of time pondering why I don’t have the same problems with abusive men other women do. I grew up in a non-abusive household with a mother who drilled into my head early never to allow a man to hit me. The first time should be the last. She taught me it’s a choice. Not all women understand that, for reasons that aren’t their fault. What Women Can Learn From Studying Pickup Artists A man who batters is always at fault, but we’re ultimately responsible for our own safety, which some women haven’t learned, perhaps due to upbringing, a repressive religion or culture, or buying into toxic societal myths like the appeal of the decisive, always-leading hero. Not their fault. First glance isn’t always spot-on, of course. When Danger Boy is a Nice Guy I kept an eye on a ditzy-seeming blonde at a medieval re-creation event years ago. Many of us found her kind of annoying because she played at being dumb when in fact she’d majored in Medieval Literature in college. Not quite the ‘doughnut degree’ young women back then often sought when they were more interested in their M.R.S than a B.A. or Ph.D. Men trailed her wherever she went. I watched her, because I didn’t like the company she kept. That cute dumb blonde routine was catnip for abusers. I particularly didn’t like one of her groupies. Young, a ‘fighter’ (in mock medieval battles), strong, masculine-looking, and from New Jersey. Education and smarts didn’t necessarily correlate to romantic common sense. I’d known plenty of bright, battered young women. Canadian radio host Jian Ghomeshi pretended to be a ‘good guy’. His dizzy groupies came back for more abuse, so desperate were they to get into his pants. CC0 2.0 photo by Sarjoun Faour via Canadian Film Centre on Wikimedia Commons Danger Boy turned out to be a pretty decent fellow, once I got to know him. The Blonde Ditz, I found later, also had a thing for nice ‘boring’ guys. I stopped keeping an eye on her. Partner abuse starts with who we allow into our lives. It’s critical to recognize the early danger signals. Plenty of abusers turn dark only after they’ve hooked you in with that fake good-guy crap. Then they turn controlling. They pitch tantrums when you go out without them, even on a Girl’s Night. They offer cheesy excuses like, “I worry about you.” Their overblown sense of entitlement already leads them to believe they have a ‘right’ to a woman, once they have her attention. When she sleeps with them, they think they ‘own’ her. Worst idea ever: Having a baby with them. Then they’re chained to this rage-y manchild. Getting out just got more complicated. Lots more. Sometimes men slip into controlling behavior if they’re allowed. A guy once tried to order me to do things and I responded, “Don’t tell me what to do.” He got the message. I had another, the day he met me, decide he would attend a family wedding with me in a few months. “You’re not going,” I said. “Why not?” "Because it’ll be too soon.” “I can meet your family.” “I’ll decide when you’ll meet my family. If ever.” Case closed. I want women to know they have agency over their own lives. Today’s fragile feminism pays lip service to it but often falls short. We need to examine what we want in our relationships. Sandy preferred masculine take-charge men, probably because she had so little control over her own life. Needing a hero offering ‘rescue’ provides a wide avenue for abusers to move in and seize control. The men she valued were the riskier ones. I wonder if she ever learned from her experiences, recognized the pattern in the men who hit. I wonder if she ever remembered our conversation in the Yuppie bar. Who do you attract? Who are you attracted to? It starts with choice. Did you like this post? Would you like to see more? I lean left of center, but not so far over my brains fall out. Subscribe to my Substack newsletter Grow Some Labia so you never miss a post!

Marilyn Manson's #MeToo moment has arrived, but his victims have nothing new to offer about how women get sucked into these abusive relationships Do NOT date someone with a 'bad girls room'. CC0 3.0 photo by Rockman on Wikimedia Commons You don't have to be Marilyn Manson to abuse women the way he's accused, but it undoubtedly makes things a smidge easier. Last year ex-fiancee Evan Rachel Wood outed the previously alluded-to 'powerful' man who cruelly abused her for years. She was 19 when she met the 36-year-old Manson at a party while he was still married to burlesque queen Dita Von Teese, whom he divorced the same year. Wood told Insider that they looked into each other's eyes and 'knew'. Whatever she 'knew' wasn't much, because she says she went through several years of hell and still doesn't appear to know why. She walked into a relationship with a man almost twenty years her senior, young and headstrong, telling her mother she was getting on a tour bus to see the world with Manson for eight months and if people aren't okay with that, well sorry, she can't live her life for others. Sounds like some may have been warning her it was a bad idea. That's one of the first things you do when you're entering a bad relationship: Don't listen to wiser voices. What do old people know? If anything was less than happy-happy-joy-joy after that, Wood didn't mention it. She spoke fondly of Manson until the mid-teens and prior to that, she publicly commented favorably on their relationship, and then former relationship. Today she details horrific tales of rape, abuse, degradation and humiliation, echoed by several other former partners and lovers who've stepped forward, empowered by her bravery, to tell similar stories. Manson, of course, denies it all, offering the same tired typical abuser explanations: They're lying, they're doing it for gain, they're trying to ruin me. That last allegation might arguably be true, but no one seriously believes anymore that women get rich lying about famous men raping and abusing them, and the 'attention' is often doxing, swatting, rape and death threats. Wood's documentary, Phoenix Rising , about her abuse by Manson, just premiered at the Sundance Music Festival, re-opening examination of her and others' abuse allegations. I'm glad she's finally calling him to account, and has decided to stop lying. The long hard road down to hell Ex-fiancee Rose McGowan and Von Teese weighed in last year, both stating they didn't have abusive relationships with Manson, yet they were supportive of the women. Von Teese, who says she ended her two-year marriage over Manson's drug abuse and infidelities, states he never treated her that way and she wouldn't have married him if he had. "Abuse of any kind has no place in any kind of relationship," she stated on Instagram and encourages "those of you who have incurred abuse to take steps to heal." It's almost like they don't think it's beyond him to behave like that. Worst of all for Manson, even men support his accusers. Nine Inch Nails frontman and former Manson mentor Trent Reznor hasn't hesitated to voice his dislike for Manson, with whom he severed ties 25 years ago. He's also still pissed about a story Manson told in his autobiography that he and Reznor raped a groupie, which Reznor vehemently insists is fiction. Reznor supports the women's allegations with his own testimony of abuse, misogyny, and Manson's violent, dark personality. Former Limp Bizkit guitarist and Manson collaborator Wes Borland said on Twitch, "Every single thing that people have said about him is f---ing true. So relax about the allegations towards the women. Like when people say these women are coming after him right now… f--- off, they are speaking the truth." The 'worst-kept secret' What's always missing in these #MeToo moments for soon-to-be-formerly rich and powerful men like Marilyn Manson is anything more than a cursory look at the deeper meaning of their victims' testimonies. It's extremely unlikely Wood and the others are lying now; three have filed lawsuits against him, and you don't do that unless you're willing to go through the hell of the backlash, including genuine fear for one's life and personal safety. This ain't some immigrant Uber driver you're accusing, it's Marilyn Manson. There's always an unaddressed deeper credibility issue in these stories that doesn't concern whether they're lying about the abuser now, but when they were, or maybe just being highly disingenuous. To the public eye, for Wood's entire relationship with Manson, she made out that they were happy, described their relationship as 'healthy', bristled at the criticism she got for being with him, and never indicated publicly she was unhappy, depressed, or frightened. That's typical for abuse victims, to deny deny deny until one day they tell the truth. For about eight years no one who didn't know the couple had any reason to believe they had anything other than a healthy, functional relationship. Young women who desired a life like Wood's - beautiful girlfriend to a globally-recognized rock star - were encouraged by her seemingly fabulous life. Wood and her compatriots in victimhood presented one view to the world while suffering in silence, while others looked on and did nothing. Then again, neither did any of the others until now. Meanwhile, Manson's abuse of Wood and others has been described as 'one of the worst-kept secrets'. Men like Manson persist because it's a collective collusive effort, including his victims, to enable them by remaining silent. As Kory Wood and James Newman detailed in their Rolling Stone article about Manson, he was The Monster Hiding In Plain Sight. When we dissect the abuser/victim dynamic we ignore how many others are adversely impacted too, whose lives may also be put in danger because of the relationship. Like children, of course. How to learn how to mistreat women, like the example Manson set. Impressionable teenage girls and young women watched Manson's public appearances with glamorous young women beaming in the spotlight on the arm of their freaky-looking Bad Boy. While lights flashed all around them, they gushed to reporters about how Manson was such a wonderful, great guy. Each woman was accomplished at something in her own right, but none were as famous or powerful as Manson. Don't you wish you were me, girlfriend??? You can be someone important if you nail a rock star! That's what Manson's pretty little liars taught girls all over the world. The explanations why they did it, the Stockholm Syndrome, the brainwashing, the cult-like control over them only go so far. These women sought fame, on their own terms and then Manson's, and held themselves up as role models for others, consciously or not. I'm glad they're finally telling their truths, but I'd like to see them undo the damage they've done by telling their fans the whole truth. Like how this happened to them, without mention of anyone else. The 70-year Golden Age of Grotesque There's probably no industry worthier of a glaring #MeToo misogyny-hunting spotlight than Planet RockMusician, where men still rule and women with less power do what women have always done, used their bodies to get a status guy. The problem with Manson's victims' #MeToo stories is that for anyone who's been around for more than a few decades, they sound awfully same-old same-old. Manson claimed in a 2015 Guardian story that he was with his then-unnamed girlfriend "because she is willing to do whatever it takes to be with me." I think he's referring to photographer Lindsay Usich, who he married in 2020. She's not one of his current accusers but is accused by some of them of attempting to silence them. One of Manson's former personal assistants claims he's witnessed Manson abuse Usich on several occasions , and threatened to kill her. So the cycle of abuse by women perpetuates itself: Lindsay Usich shuts the hell up and helps her hubby like a good little collaborator until one day, almost certainly, she will stop lying to herself and the world. Rock 'n' roll is nearly 70 years old, and allegations of sexual wrongdoing, misogyny, abuse, and retaliation against young women and girls have been there from the beginning. Rock pioneers Chuck Berry, Marvin Gaye, Jerry Lee Lewis, Jackie Wilson, Little Richard, and Elvis Presley also pioneered sexual abuse of women, especially underage girls. So what have we learned, children? Seventy years of rock 'n' roll have taught us that boys aspire to become rock musicians so they can have unfettered, unquestioned access to naive girls and women who think they know better, who think they know what they're doing, who think they're in control of their sexuality--except they don't and they're not. We learn nothing as each generation passeth away: Every year, every decade the cycle repeats itself: Older, wiser women call out some celebrity who abused them for years and get lauded for being brave and 'telling their truth'. Yes, they're brave, but they're also complicit in perpetuating the cycle of abuse. When they complain, 'Many knew but no one stopped him,' no reporter dares ask, "Did anyone warn you, and did you listen? What kind of example did you set for other young women when you repeatedly lied about what happened to you until now?" Silence is violence, isn't it, gender theory feminists? When will we acknowledge that with celebrity comes a certain level of responsibility to one's fans? To be honest about what the industry, your career, your partners are really like? When you're 'willing to do whatever it takes to be with him', there's an internal power greater than concern for one's personal safety in play. No woman wants to be abused, but it's sometimes the price you must be willing to pay to stay with him. We don't acknowledge that for some women, it's a profit/loss calculation. How much of his shit are you willing to put up with to be with him? We never learn the deeper truth these women really owe their fans, the ones who supported their idols in their careers, and support them now as they crawl out from under a very sick man's rock. Why did you allow this? It's no longer enough to speak out on what happened and take the kudos for being 'brave' and 'honest' and finally bringing on a much-needed takedown of a deeply misogynist artist. They need to do some introspection, a post-mortem, and tell the truth about why they took the step down that long ugly staircase of abuse. They need to talk about the weaknesses in their psychology that permitted someone like Manson into their lives. They need to address why the well-established, no-news-here serial predator grooming tactics worked so well on them, and really be honest about who warned them about him and why they didn't listen. That's the funny thing about serial celebrity secrets: While the world at large may not know them, absolutely everyone in the industry does. Only people who weren't in Hollywood in the '50s were surprised when classic masculine movie sex symbol Rock Hudson outed himself as a lifelong homosexual by dying of AIDS. My mother learned about it from a friend who'd grown up in Hollywood, played with Loretta Young's daughter, and was friends with Elizabeth Taylor. Everyone knew how many movie stars were homosexual back then, but only whispered. There's no way Manson's maidens hadn't heard the rumors, and the warnings, and seen a lot of shit with their own eyes. If 19-year-old girls can still see vaginas on the walls, swastikas everywhere, be personally acquainted with a 'bad girls room', and not realize this is not a boy you want to take home to mother, we're not doing a good enough job raising young women to not know misogyny until it's chasing you with an axe. In the HBO trailer for Phoenix Rising , someone comments that it customarily takes many victims 7-10 years to recognize they were abused, which in Manson's accusers' case means any alleged crimes are outside the statute of limitations. In 2016, Wood testified in front of government committees in support of bills to raise the statute of limitations. "Something needs to change" I applaud Wood's and the others' efforts and agree with them that something needs to change. In addition to making it easier for domestic violence victims to seek justice, what would help most is if they could offer insight into what permitted them to get into such a relationship at all. How did they not get blown into the next county by all the violently waving red flags? We're not learning anything new with each new tedious story. Abuse, brainwashing, gaslighting, yadda yadda yadda. Young women don't pay attention because they don't think it could happen to them. Where victims can add REAL value to the conversation and reduce the mistreatment of women is by helping young women understand how this can happen to them by addressing the common gaps in female psychology. Like: How easy it is to be impressed by a rich powerful man. How older men like younger women not just because they're young and pretty, but because they're so much easier to manipulate. Especially when they look to a man to define them, and especially a celebrity. How easy it can be to be dazzled by the classic manipulator's move, 'love bombing,' to suck you in so he can groom you to do what he wants and put up with his shit. How partner rape is a real thing. How you can have clear good examples of healthy, functional relationships (they must have seen some, at least) and not want the same for themselves - or wonder if perhaps love doesn't mean tolerating the vile abuse they're subjected to. Most importantly, can they PLEASE tell young girls and women to listen to older women who know more than they do? At least some of them will listen . I did. I thank my mother. What would be most valuable is better understanding how you can see swastikas, knives, an unused Zyklon B gas container from World War II, listen to the misogyny expressed at Manson's concerts, and hear a song you know was written about you, I Want To Kill You Like They Do In The Movies , and still think it's okay to be with this guy. I want to know about every Manson woman's first two weeks with the guy, before the serious brainwashing started, because I really want to know what some women are completely missing. Today, black people of all ages are hyper-aware of racial hostility and slights, but somehow women see rank misogyny hitting them in the face (literally) and blithely walk Manson's long hard staircase down to hell. The point is not to beat themselves up for cluelessness at 19 or 20 back then but to help young women understand today how they can avoid the mistakes of the past. Not looking within and asking one's self the hard questions without finger-pointing is what permits the cycle of abuse to perpetuate generationally. Feminism isn't ready to examine and analyze what psychological weaknesses we all have, as women, that allow men to exploit and abuse us. These time-dishonored techniques for controlling and grooming women have been utilized every day by countless men for thousands of years because they work. Manson won't likely be held legally accountable for any of this, but his victims can push this aging, pudgy, slightly less relevant rocker into has-been oblivion. All the hand-wringing and worry from celebrity men about #MeToo 'lies' come mostly from those who lie awake at night worrying about who from their own past might be the first woman to break the silence about their own behavior. Après moi, le déluge. Many won't mourn Manson's faded passing. But what about future targets who might listen if Manson's victims, and others after them, tell the truth about themselves about why they succumbed to his predations and what they'd tell their younger selves? While we're trying to fix the ones who were broken, what can we do to educate the young and naive, so they listen now, because they're hearing something new, so they can avoid the ugly web the Marilyn Mansons of the world, celebrity or not, draw some of them into? Not every teenage girl is so naive Indie rock musician Phoebe Bridgers recounts a story when she was a teenage girl and went to Manson's home with a few friends. He joked about a 'rape room' in his house which she chalked up to horrible 'frat boy' humor, but that day she 'stopped being a fan'. And that was the end of that. Knowing that is more valuable than anything Manson's victims have offered thus far. This article originally appeared on Vocal.media in March 2022. Did you like this post? Would you like to see more? I lean left of center, but not so far over my brains fall out. Subscribe to my Substack newsletter Grow Some Labia so you never miss a post!

Enjoy the abuse-free life I've always enjoyed I hope they're reading Dina McMillan's book. Photo by Oleg Magni from Pexels If there's one thing I'm really good at, it's avoiding partner abuse. It's foreign to me. It's why I've come to address the unmet feminist market niche: Patching and fortifying the female brain against acceptance of abuse, and from allowing toxic men into one's life. We've spent enough time dissecting and analyzing patriarchy, masculinity, the 'man box', and everything else about the abuser; now it's time to address the other half of the partner dynamic: The receiver of the abuse, more commonly known as the victim. Women are no longer powerless, even if some are less powerless than others. Not every woman recognizes her intrinsic power, and a regressive, self-infantilizing, fear-based, decades-long de-evolution in feminism seeks to preserve that powerlessness, because deep down victim feminists fear real empowerment. True empowerment requires you to make decisions that could blow up in your face or even put you in harm's way, but it also emboldens and strengthens you, especially when you stand up for yourself before harm is even in your neighborhood. And the more you stand up for yourself and nothing bad happens, the better you become at recognizing lower-risk assertiveness challenges. I've found five stellar resources to help women identify their psychological weaknesses and inoculate themselves against the sort of toxic man who manipulates and abuses, but also to better understand men and thereby become better partners themselves. After all, she may be no walk in the park either. Understanding how men think and feel from a compassionate point of view helps us guard against inner misandry and stop judging men by our own gender-based yardstick (which is what we've complained about them doing to us for many years!) You can't change another person, you can only change yourself. Here are my five favorite resources, beginning with the most important. 1. "But He Says He Loves Me!" - Dina McMillan My review of Dina McMillan's invaluable book But He Says He Loves Me: How to Avoid Being Trapped in a Manipulative Relationship appeared recently so I'll keep this synopsis brief. This is my review: "But He Says He Loves Me!" The Women's Abuse Prevention Manual McMillan drills down with a compassionate tone, based on her 2017 TED talk Unmasking the Abuser, into how the controlling, entitled, abusive male mind thinks, and describes with great clarity how they entice women to hand over their control and power in baby steps by understanding her psychology better than she does. A manipulative abuser will never gain power over you once you read and take notes from this superb manual. 2. Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men - Lundy Bancroft Lundy Bancroft is an author, workshop leader, and domestic violence counselor who focuses on, according to his website, "Training professionals on best practices for intervening with male perpetrators of violence against women, toward the goal of promoting accountability and requiring change." He's worked with both abusers and victims in domestic partnerships. His book details how the abusive male mind thinks, but not with the granularity of McMillan's book. His most valuable insight, which McMillan doesn't identify, is how deeply entrenched is the abuser's modus operandi. The roots of abuse, he says, are ownership , the trunk is entitlement and the branches are control. This is the core of who the abuser is, and it's near-impossible to dislodge it. It's formed from his early influences and role models, his values and beliefs, and his utter contempt for his partner, which he keeps carefully hidden from everyone else. These men are often far more conscious of what they're doing than they appear. Good luck uprooting that. Image by Gordon Johnson from Pixabay One of women's most damaging fallibilities is the belief she can change an abusive man, or that he himself might change. He absolutely can, but he probably won't. His entitlement has always worked to his advantage, and the world is full of plenty of partners willing to relinquish control to him, so if one wises up and leaves, he can always find another. The abusive man is self-centered, Bancroft notes, with deep roots in profound entitlement. He emphasizes just how deeply rooted these roots are. I found a great article summarizing Bancroft's 13 signs an abusive man is changing and how to make sure he is, which observes that in order to truly change, an abuser must follow certain steps in the right order. Many stop after the first few figuring 'they've done enough, now she needs to get her shit together and stop complaining'. He points out remaining abusive is much easier than changing, since the latter means becoming more self-aware and engaging in the uncomfortable self-analysis many people would choose to avoid. “At some point during the first few months that a man is in my program, I usually stumble upon the core of his privilege, like a rear bunker on his terrain. He may abandon a few of his forward positions, but this fortification is where he surrounds himself with sandbags and settles in for protracted war," Bancroft says, noting that only a very small single-digit percentage ever truly change. Tattoo this on your inner eyelids so you're reminded every night of the eleventh commandment: He ain't changin', girlfriend , so just cut your losses and go! 3. The Game: Penetrating The Secret Society Of Pickup Artists - Neil Strauss Strauss's controversial 2005 expose of pickup artist (PUA) culture is part investigative reporting and part gonzo journalism, since Strauss himself was a PUA, and he describes his personal experiences as a not terribly attractive or romantically skilled wannabe Casanova who found his tutor in Mystery, a Toronto-born PUA who took Strauss (dorky PUA name: Style) under his wing. Strauss was a former New York Times music critic and a contributing editor at Rolling Stone. He's written for other major publications such as Maxim, Esquire, and Entertainment Weekly. Strauss's book is, therefore, well-written and also somewhat sympathetic to the seduction community's 'targets'. I've written a full review of his book too. What Women Can Learn From Studying Pickup Artists Strauss drills down into both the PUAs' and targets' brains and describes how the former are schooled to learn everything they can about the latter's psychology utilizing neuro-linguistic programming, persuasion and influencing resources, Internet support groups and manipulative tricks like lowering her self-esteem through 'negging' , woo-woo 'psychology tests' and New Age nonsense so many young women adore, 'cat string theory', and 'social proof'. His less execrable advice is to ABL (Always Be Learning), which means researching and devouring information to perpetually refine and optimize your skills. I wrote a followup to my review on how his PUA advice manual is actually a blueprint for accomplishing whatever else you want, like building a startup, finding a long-term relationship, climbing the corporate ladder, or learning another language. How To Achieve Your Dreams With A Notorious Pickup Manual Understanding the tactics of male manipulation, once again, fortifies a woman's brain against falling for this B.S. 4. What Was He Thinking? The Woman's Guide to a Man's Mind - Dr. Mike Bechtle Let's not forget the other side of the abuse coin: The woman, who receives it, and who can be abusive herself, psychologically, emotionally, or physically. Or a combination. Even if she's not abusive, she brings her own dysfunctions from prior relationships, experiences, and perhaps an unhappy childhood. It's important to remember that one's perspective is only half of the equation. Men aren't always wrong or bad people because they perceive, interpret, judge, value, or respond differently. What Was He Thinking? is a straightforward explanation of how a man's brain works, especially in everyday situations like trying to find something in the fridge. He's scanning the terrain while calling, "Honey, where's the mayonnaise? Are we out?" when the new jar is sitting on the shelf right in front of him. Sex hormones influence our brain functioning, and as a result, women are better at object recognition while men are better at navigation and visual spatial rotation, which is why they grow equally frustrated with women who can't seem to read a road map. (Millennials: Whaddaya mean, what's a map? Don't you remember your childhood's family vacations? The fight that always started with your father accusing your mother of not knowing how to read a map when in fact it was so old it noted the Gadsden Purchase and referred to Upper and Lower Canada?) The most interesting insight I got from the book was the cheating male's understanding of infidelity invisible to plenty of cheating women. Bechtle notes that men involved with married women were less inclined to marry them than women for married men. Seems the boyfriend is often somewhat empathetic with her husband: He realizes that if she's cheating on the partner, she'll likely cheat on him too. Too often, she thinks the cheating husband will be different for her. I wish more women considered that before they got involved with Mr. Married Manwhore. 5. He's Just Not That Into You: The No-Excuses Truth To Understanding Guys - Greg Behrendt The bestselling book launched by a Sex In The City episode in which a male friend explains to Miranda "He's just not that into you," as to why the guy she had a seemingly mutual great time with ghosted her, is a pretty spot-on sum-up not just of why we fail to hear back from men. It's also why they as often fail to hear back from us. The book was written for women, but is every bit as relevant for men, since it mostly deals with the games people play, discourtesies and lack of consideration of which women are almost always equally guilty. Breadcrumbing; that's not a 'dude thing'; everyone's done it, including myself. It's not done out of malice but out of insecurity. Leading someone on? Same thing. If I'd had this book when I was eighteen it would have changed my life. I would have known not to waste time on guys who clearly 'weren't that into me'. In fact, I didn't read the actual book for several years; one night I thought I ordered it off Amazon but what arrived was sort of the 'Cliff Notes' version, It was every bit as useful as the actual book when I finally got to it. What it boils down to is this: If he genuinely likes you, he'll make an effort to be with you, see you, and won't do anything that will make you doubt him because he doesn't want some other guy to snap you up. If he's really interested in you he'll be attentive, respond to messages within a reasonable, perhaps even short period of time, lest you think he's lost interest. One of the best exercises I got out of this was to ask: Who's his favourite movie or pop star? If he'd gotten her number after she'd shown interest, what's the likelihood he'd be ghosting her/being noncommital about dates/letting days go by without contact? He'd be on her like white on rice. When someone truly special is in your life, you make sure they know it so you don't miss out. The book removes every dumbass excuse we make for him and why he's not in your life more: He's not 'busy with work' (guyspeak for I can't be arsed to see you ), and he doesn't have too much on his mind. Bottom line: If he likes you and genuinely wants to see you, he will. It's not something you said or did; for whatever reason you'll likely never know, he's just not that into you. Don't waste any more time on this and move along. There's someone out there who wants to be with you. While Behrendt writes about men who are unintentionally rude or hurtful, many of the behaviors he describes are what abusive, controlling men will use to keep women off balance and always wondering where the relationship is, impelling her to 'try harder' to please him. Behrendt writes with much empathy for women (probably because he himself has been subjected to so much of these same behaviors) and consistently emphasizes how important a woman is, how she's entitled to decent treatment, and how she should move on if the guy's just dicking around with her--unconsciously or not. Update 08/29/22: I removed Travis Bradberry's Emotional Intelligence 2.0 and replaced it with Greg Behrendt's He's Just Not That Into You . When I wrote the original article I couldn't for the life of me remember the name of one of the books I'd wanted to include, so I went with Emotional Intelligence 2.0. Now that I've remembered the stellar book I consider a must-read for avoiding abusive men and relationships, I've replaced it with Beherendt's book.) Did you like this post? Would you like to see more? I lean left of center, but not so far over my brains fall out. Subscribe to my Substack newsletter Grow Some Labia so you never miss a post!

Smith's WTF moment encapsulates how badly Americans need a time-out. Everyone go to your room and take ten years! CC0 Creative Commons image from PeakPX WTF happened at the Oscars? Right now I feel like an exasperated mother who wants to send Will Smith and Chris Rock to their rooms so they can both think about what they did. And the rest of us too, as this story unfolds. The exasperated American in me understands, if not condones, how Smith felt, because frankly, I'd love to bitch-slap some sense back into a country backpedaling to the maturity level of a sandbox brawl. Both of you! Go to your room! Image by rickey123 from Pixabay Smith demonstrated even the nicest Hollywood stars can lose their damn minds in the moment. I'm disappointed in him. I think we all expect better from one of Hollywood's most well-loved stars. Where did his out-of-the-blue moment come from? Not truly out of the blue. An unkinder, darker Hollywood I didn't understand why Chris Rock's 'G.I. Jane 2' joke was supposed to be funny until the camera cut to Pinkett-Smith rolling her eyes, clearly unamused. Okay, she was bald. A fashion statement, right? Lighten up, girlfriend! I bet Lupita Nyong'o would have laughed. I didn't understand Smith's anger until the backstory. I hadn't known Pinkett-Smith suffered from alopecia and that black women are especially at risk. Any woman can relate. Black women may have a very special relationship with their hair , but we all get the emotional devastation of alopecia. Hair is our 'crowning glory', as the Book of Corinthians, Oliver Swinburne, and others have noted. It's been deeply traumatic for Pinkett-Smith, and going bald illustrates a milestone in her journey of owning her condition, encouraged by her daughter. Rock says he didn't know about her alopecia. If so, he thought he was making a fair-game joke. Had her baldness been a fashion statement, I'd have expected her to suck it up. She's not, first and foremost someone's wife, she's an established actress in her own right, and Oscar fashion is fair game. At the time of this writing Rock hasn't apologized to Pinkett-Smith but he sure owes her a public apology. His unintentionally cruel joke ridiculed her in front of millions. Hopefully he'll be man enough to do so, and soon, because Smith has already apologized to Rock. Rock has known Will Smith from his Fresh Prince of Bel-Air days and there's existing friction. Several years ago Rock joked it wasn't fair about Jada Pinkett-Smith not getting invited to the Oscars, and that it also wasn't fair Will Smith got heavily paid for 1999's Wild Wild West , not exactly his greatest movie. Comedians make fun. It's the intrinsic nature of humor, pointing to egos and the hypocrisy of life. But humor has gotten a lot nastier in the last twenty years, particularly in Hollywood. Unkind digs received a rocket boost from Ricky Gervais, who slaughtered Hollywood celebrities at the 2020 Golden Globes. One watches, cheering him on for rooting out Hollywood's ugliest hypocrisies, like how Jeffrey Epstein was their 'friend' - touché! - and LOL when he eviscerates them with a verbal machete: "Well, you say you’re woke but the companies you work for in China — unbelievable. Apple, Amazon, Disney. If ISIS started a streaming service you’d call your agent, wouldn’t you? So if you do win an award tonight, don’t use it as a platform to make a political speech. You’re in no position to lecture the public about anything. You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg." Simultaneously, I cringe when he leverages nuclear-level cruelty, calling some actor I never heard of a 'fat p--sy' and 'jokes' about a venerable actress 'licking her own minge'. So, blame Ricky Gervais too. But why did Gervais think he could do that? On social media people freely utter much worse, often behind anonymous accounts, with little pushback from platforms who only grudgingly step in when enough politicians ponder aloud about 'potential legislation' and the public accuses them of altering the course of elections or prolonging a pandemic. So, blame Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. Let's turn our attention now to Kanye West ruining Taylor Swift's big moment at the 2009 Video Music Awards, except at least he didn't slap Swift for getting an award he thought should have gone to Beyoncé. Blame Ye, or whatever the hell he's calling himself now. And we can't forget Donald Trump, encouraging and further normalizing violence, laying the groundwork for a future riot when for four years he chronically vomited a constant twitstream of hate speech, slurs, violent musings, bald-faced lies and insults. No one was safe, not even a journalist with cerebral palsy or the family of a gold-star military veteran. I'm glad Rock and Smith didn't meet on the street, or they might have settled their differences the Wild Wild West way, with Rock bleeding out his life on the curb. Will Smith is 100% responsible for his lack of self-control. Guaranteed he wouldn't have smacked a female comedian. Maybe he would have yelled at her, even challenged her on stage, but I'll bet he wouldn't have hit her. Not in the #MeToo era. He. Was. In. Control. #WeAreAllWTF Smith's moment encapsulates how crazy America has gotten. An Insider writer who attended Vanity Fair's Oscars after-party describes encountering an unnamed famous comedian who mentioned how 'thin-skinned' celebrities have become and compared Los Angeles, currently experiencing a spiraling crime rate, to Gotham City. He may well have a point; stress levels have risen even for tony, celebrity neighborhoods experiencing brazen home invasions and stick-ups, and Angelenos calmly stand on line at the Rite-Aid while smash-'n'-grabbers take what they please. Smith exhibited the worst excesses of 'honor culture', where a man is 'compelled' to violently defend himself and his family from insult. In our Founding Fathers' time, (white) men settled these differences by dueling. Smith felt his wife was dishonored and his emotional hijacking dick-tated his behavior. Any of us would have gotten as angry. But no one, even celebrities, has the right to lash out. Unfortunately, a fair chunk of Americans disagree. When they have a 'bad day' they feel entitled to grab the nearest firearm and blow away as many innocent people as they can. Or they 'pop a cap in someone's ass' when they feel 'dissed'. Or they storm the Capitol because an election didn't go their way. I'm glad Rock isn't filing charges against Smith, and I'm gratified Academy board member Whoopi Goldberg says Smith won't lose the award he received 45 minutes after going all Sean Penn. I hope this will be a learning moment for Americans. I'm not real hopeful, but an ex-pat can dream. I hope Rock and Smith both lay low and think about what they did. Just because Smith reacted like a spoiled, entitled child doesn't mean Rock shouldn't think long and hard about the way he treated Pinkett-Smith, whose accidental humiliation he prefaced by saying he 'loves' her. We've all been overreacting to slights and insults for much longer than our emergence from what may or may not be a post-pandemic world. Our human connection skills have degraded for decades thanks to digital technology, near-psychopathic social media, coddled self-esteem-addled Gen Z-ers taught to believe any opinion they don't like is 'violence', growing income inequality, cruel reality TV shows, police violence, and a state capital resembling Israel and Pakistan more than Washington D.C. Only animal life and the environment have benefited from the pandemic; with humans off the streets the Himalayas re-emerged for Indians and the Bay of Pigs has been invaded again; this time by crabs. Mass shootings, rare occurrences beginning roughly forty years ago, are today a daily occurrence, often with multiple separate incidents in a single day. Blame also the descent of trust in the government, politicians, the justice system, the '1%', and journalism, from which arose the monstrous plethora of conspiracy theories, fake news, ungated bloggers and the demonization of those who don't think, act, look like, or share the same political opinions as you. Will Smith is all of us, yes, even us 'decent' folk who would 'never do that'. We just haven't each had our Chris Rock moment yet when we decide the hell with it, and chuck civilization aside to whack someone else who crossed us, like our cave ancestors with clubs. Maybe it's time for all of us to take a timeout in our rooms and think about what we've collectively done. Not ten minutes. Ten years. Did you like this post? Would you like to see more? I lean left of center, but not so far over my brains fall out. Subscribe to my Substack newsletter Grow Some Labia so you never miss a post!

Ayo starts by surgically removing your excuses for why you can't move your life forward I love the nerdy Bill Gates shirt. Photo from Ayo’s website Ayodeji Awosika gets it. He fucking nails it every single time. For a 32-year-old kid, and he’s a kid to this menopausal dumb blonde, he’s figured out the magic elixir in the not-strictly-American dream we all share: To live our lives with meaning and purpose, and maybe even make money doing it. Guess what: You don’t even need ‘privilege’ to pull it off. Which means the secret to his sauce is to toss your aggrieved entitlement, regardless of your tribe. I wish I’d been as smart as him when I was his age. Hell, I wish I was that smart now. It strikes me as unutterably bizarre that I look to a 30-year-old guy for life help, but Ayo gets it. I found him on Medium last year and his posts resonated like a Tibetan singing bowl. I got hooked by his first book, The Destiny Formula . I just finished his newest, Real Help: An Honest Guide to Self-Improvement and I encourage everyone who’s serious about wanting to change their lives to buy and read this book. Ayo knows what he’s talking about. His advice isn’t sexy. His version of self-help and self-improvement aren’t for those who don’t have time for more than listicles promising greater productivity before 7:00AM or who’d rather just cut to the chase and buy an expensive ‘kit’ to achieve world-renowned success. It’s for the folks who understand where self-help starts: With the wo/man in the mirror. Ayo’s blueprint resembles the unsolicited advice you got from those boring old farts in school who didn’t know anything about the real world and thought hard work and constant improvement were the way to succeed. Excuses end right here. In our ADHD-social-media-addled world we want everything now Now NOW!!! with instant likes and followers, viral success with our first video, a $100,000 job fresh out of university. No one with the attention span of a gnat wants to hear Ayo’s story of working for five years at a low-paying job and hustling his ass in his free time to take classes, learn how to blog, read fifty books a year and keep his ‘eyes on the prize’. That’s not sexy. That’s too much trouble. That takes too long. Plus the world is working against you and shit. But it’s the truth. It’s the truth. And many people can’t handle the truth, as some famous guy once ranted in a movie. Real Help removes all your excuses, and the lies you’ve been telling yourself. It shreds your sense of aggrieved entitlement. (Everyone’s.) Why do I like Ayo so much? Because he’s not a freaking victim. He takes responsibility for his past decisions, bad actions and now his future. He doesn’t whine and moan and spout a lot of silly academic theory (he’s college-educated, even though he never finished) as to how The Man keeps him down. It’s ridiculously refreshing in a world where whiners worship at the shrine of self-imposed victimhood and personal responsibility is the ugliest of faults to be exorcised from one’s soul forthwith. Its apotheosis is a tantrum-prone manchild who was placed into power by a nation overrun with adult babies who wonder why their lives keep getting worse rather than better. Real Help lays out some hard truths, based on numerous highly-respected books written by people smarter than Ayo on how the world works, sans the entitlement. I’ve already encountered some of what he lays out for why wages are going down and mental illness is going up. He doesn’t get sidetracked by emotional hand-wringing over economic inequality or systemic discrimination, even as he acknowledges they exist. His approach is as Stoic as his personal hero, former Roman Emperor and author of the nearly 2,000-year-old Meditations, Marcus Aurelius. The world is as it is, you can’t fix the system, so find new ways to work around it. Success is easily within your grasp, but it won’t happen overnight. Ayo traces the story of how he travelled from loser busted drug dealer to a writer and self-improvement coach with a six-figure income. “I’ve been through the racist justice system,” he says. “I know.” I think of this as others excuse themselves into ever-more-restricted pretzels to explain why it sucks to be them. You can’t do this and you can’t do that because of systemic discrimination and intersectional gender politics and society’s dictates to your special interest class and the patriarchy thing and your kids. When you have kids you have to put your dreams on hold! Sacrifice all for them! Everyone knows that! My own excuse pretzel straightened out just a tiny bit more this week as I came to realize it’s not ageism keeping me out of the workforce so much as a lot of crazy forces at work in our ever-evolving post-industrial economic landscape. Increasingly abusive employment practices and shrinking wages fueling inflated C-suite salaries will destroy jobs and whole organizations long before robots get a whack at it. Ayo recommends spending less time following the news and triggering yourself on social media, so you can focus on your work and not get sidetracked by society’s toxic messages that you need to earn money a certain way, live your life a certain way, and consume mindlessly ‘to impress people you don’t even like’. His message isn’t anti-consumerist, but intelligently consumerist. I know he’s right because as I trail him down that path to success, I’ve encountered some of the same feelings and problems he has, so I know to pay attention when he tells me what lies ahead. He’s made those mistakes for me. Here’s where your brain starts to tell you you can’t do it. Here’s where I see a lot of writers on the cusp of success back down and turn away. Here’s why you should work inside your wheelhouse and play to your strengths, rather than work on your weaknesses. The road to fulfilment and success looks a lot less rocky when you know what to expect. Photo by Helen Melissakis on Flickr After I finished Real Help I went through it again, skimming and taking notes. It’s now a twelve-page document of new advice and insights and tips I don’t want to forget. “Whenever you try to “succeed” or “follow your dreams,” you’re going to have to do so in a world that will indirectly and directly attempt to stop you. It’s a natural consequence of how things work, not a planned conspiracy. Keeping this in mind will increase your odds of success, because you can be less emotional about the process. It does no good to shout into the sky. The game is rigged. What are you going to do about it?” Losing the ‘conspiracy thinking’ is a giant load-off. Remove the emotion and your ego from the equation when you realize most people are miserable in their lives and jobs and you now have the spine and the blueprint to fix yours. You can’t do anything about the rest. I’m beginning to shed the blinders too, as I’ve watched us all become increasingly pigeon-holed by job descriptions that narrow the employer’s fantasy candidate to the point where eventually they’ll merely demand a departing employee leave some DNA behind so they can clone her replacement. “Once you accept other people for who they are, how they behave, and what they believe, you’ll feel less like you’re fighting this imaginary uphill battle against the masses. The masses will simply fade to the background while you get to work. As more and more people fade into the background, you’ll find you might be the only one left.” Once you abandon the anger and frustration and most of all, the stories and narratives that make you the victim and everyone else the oppressors, finding success suddenly appears more within reach than you ever knew. Ayo makes clear he doesn’t define success for anyone else. Just because he wants to ‘conquer the world’ and build a million-dollar empire doesn’t mean that’s the route for others. Success is whatever really and truly makes you happy. That might be boatloads of money and your own empire, or it might mean better relationships, leaving a job you hate, starting up your own business or, most importantly, living your life by your own standards rather than others’. Just know what you want to do and more importantly, why you want to do it. Real Help offers no quick-fix solutions. It encourages you to define and pursue your dreams and keep them within reason. Aspiring to be an actor is fine; aspiring to win an Oscar might be just a touch unrealistic. When Ayo reached out to ask for my help as an affiliate marketer promoting Real Help , I agreed, not to do him a favor, or even for the prizes he’s offering, but because I love his work and this book. This roadmap is the real deal. It doesn’t guarantee success but it acknowledges failure as a learning experience without fetishizing it a la Silicon Valley. It encourages you to help create new opportunities by getting out of your hidey-hole, meeting new people, and doing the world. I have a sticky note on my computer desk from a TEDx talk (not Ayo’s, but he’s done that too ). “The universe conspires with you; your self-doubt conspires against you.” Real Help really will help if you’re genuinely committed after your own pivotal moment when you say, as Ayo once did, “This shit has got to stop.” As skewed and unjust as the socioeconomic system has become for all except the 1% (and its money siphon is coming for the higher classes next), Ayo describes how you can forge your own path and make money online with little or no out-of-pocket expense. You need to learn what you don’t know, continuously improve, read a lot of books, take a lot of largely free or inexpensive classes, come up with your plan, and don’t do something stupid like quit your job before you’ve got a reliable monthly extra income and even more important, money in the bank. If you’re fed up with the grind and a life that makes you suicidally ideate, Real Help will show you how to eliminate it intelligently, what to expect, and how to overcome that super-asshole who’s always talking shit to you to keep you down. Not The Man. Not The Patriarchy. Not the politically demonized minority du jour . Not even your boss. Your ego. Your inner critic. Yourself. Just have a lot of patience. Ayo believes in you, even if you don’t. Yet.