I watched a little of Caitlyn Jenner’s acceptance speech for the Arthur Ashe Courage Award at Wednesday’s ESPYs. It’s hard not to feel oodles of sympathy when one watches the awkward gait and masculine stride and hears that still-booming voice of Bruce Jenner. Many transgender people I’ve seen on TV truly look their new gender part. Having “transitioned,” you can see they are indeed more comfortable in their new skin. But not poor Caitlyn. I hope for her sake that she knows what she’s doing. There is no going back. (And if only he/she did not feel the need for the plastic pout that made her diction so hissy. Why must “transitioning” be accompanied with that much silicone and plumping agents?) I do believe that Caitlyn will still love women. And that is a true achievement, given the women—Kardashians—who surround him.
Their enabler, Megyn Kelly, noticed not at all the Freudian slips tumbling from the mouths of these “parents” (and doesn’t the whiny mom give you the heebie-jeebies?):
‘The girls didn’t want their ‘record’ revealed. They wanted to tell their own story.” The girls don’t have a “record.” I was under the impression that the girls were victims of the son (and their fruitful, multiplying parents). And all that, “Over their clothes”; boy Josh Duggar only “touched his sisters over their clothes.”
Look, we libertarians like it when family, church and local authorities handle problems “in-house.” But this was not THAT!
As to Kelly! The woman was so eager to finesse the excesses and phoniness of these parents that she forgot, oops, to mention that Josh’s mentor was later charged with child pornography.
UPDATE (6/4): WANT SYMPATHY? STAY OFF THE GRID.
This is the first time I’ve heard of these people. But now that I have, let me say that I have as much sympathy for the Duggars for suffering a legal leak as I have for the Duggar parents for marketing their family, breeding for the cameras; as I have for celebrities who take images of their snatches, upload to some Cloud (cuckoo) and bitch about the theft of these pics. Who cares. Rule of law? What law! Stay private. Stay off the grid.
“Bruce Jenner And Chris Kyle: Is Either A Hero?” is the current column on hedonism vs. heroism. An excerpt:
“True bravery is shown by performing without witness what one might be capable of doing before all the world,” said a wise man named La Rochefoucauld, centuries ago. That man’s definition excludes most of America’s contemporary heroes.
La Rochefoucauld’s understanding of courage certainly rules out most black community leaders. In Baltimore, a city devastated by anti-police, race rioters, these “leaders” made sure they were seen calling for calm following the orgy of destruction. Away from the cameras, their lives have been given over to causing chaos by preaching racial grievance against white America.
The same imperative of privacy and consistency precludes Bruce Jenner. …
… The famous Olympian athlete turned TV personality has come out very publicly as a transsexual, who is in the process of transitioning to full womanhood; Jenner already has the psyche of a woman. For providing 17 million ABC viewers with a glimpse into his very real inner struggle with sexual identity, Jenner has been hailed as an American hero.
… This is not to diminish Jenner’s excruciatingly difficult journey. However, a stoic Olympian battling his demons in private would have more closely approximated the qualities of a hero.
.. Still, Jenner is more of an American hero than the late Navy SEAL Chris Kyle …
UPDATE (5/1): Heroes or Hos? The MailOnline pictorial, referred to in the column:
This is probably the only real Bruce Jenner we’ve ever seen; the rest has been celebrity and reality TV—Mr. Jenner has been embroiled in a vulgar reality show, in which he has been belittled and berated. Jenner’s gender identity is female; his pattern of sexual attraction is to women. The two—gender identity and sexual attraction—are different things. Bruce Jenner felt like a woman trapped in a man’s body. He has, however, always loved women and likely will continue to so do.
That too is a miracle, given the women who surround Mr. Jenner: shallow, plastic, empty, nasty (except the younger girls both of whom were beautiful, until Kylie Jenner, on the right, had plastic surgery. Now only Kendal, on the left, is gorgeous).
The newly deformed Kylie, after alterations, joining her sisters in the practice of self-examination (“selfie” posting):
You’d think that rape and false accusations of rape are a political cause and not crimes to investigate. Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz seldom comes up with obtuse, bad answers. But even this sharp civil libertarian ditched his initial forceful arguments from justice, when put on the spot about being falsely accused of sexual abuse. Two minutes and thirty eight seconds into this CNN interview, Erroll Barnett questions Dershowtiz as to what good it would do to jail the “troubled” women who had falsely alleged that Dershowitz and a host of other codgers sexually abused them. “What do you expect to get out of it,” asked Barnett facilely.
Instead of reiterating his initial, irate and forceful warning about the harm these habitual liars do to their victims’ reputations, standing in the community and finances; the need to punish such liars for their attempts to profit by siccing the law on their innocent victims—Dershowitz noodles on about the indirect harm a false accusation of rape does to real victims of rape.
UPDATE I: Dershowtiz did a good job until the end, of promising swift justice to this hussy. Then he waffled a bit. The crazy idea that these false accusers should not be punished was the CNN angle.
UPDATE II: Dershowitz is brilliant, hence his flawless delivery. He is also a lefty, hence his slight capitulation to the accuser.
A doff of the proverbial hat to the editor of “Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lesson For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa,” the illustrious Australian writer Rob Stove, who just sent me Fred Reed’s latest. It’s marvelous (except for the porn stuff; yuk). To the upstanding Rob, “Matrimony, Holy or Otherwise: A Movable Concentration Camp” sounded over-the-top wrong. Not to me. Guilty. Averaged out, old Fred is right.
Matrimony, Holy or Otherwise:
A Movable Concentration Camp
By Fred Reed
“If you are a young man, and contemplate matrimony with the love of your life, it is well to look at marriage from the standpoint of reason rather than sentiment. Men are, after all, male, and occasionally capable of reason. The first question to ask yourself is: Why marry? What would you gain? Would your troubles disappear? Would sex be better? Would food be more savory? Would you get tax breaks, enjoy more freedom? Do stock options come with marriage?
Is there any practical advantage at all?
For you, I mean. For her, the advantages are considerable, and the drawbacks few. Your salary will allow her an upscale house, something more important to her than to you, which on the odds she will get in the divorce. Marriage locks-in child support. Since men die younger, she will get to pick your bones. For her, it is a good deal.
For you, no. Marriage has one purpose only, which is to get her legal hooks into you. Do not forget that American women, under the evanescent ivory skin, are eternally adolescent spoiled brats, feminine as a wrestler’s jockstrap and primed, as soon as life’s inevitable shocks come, to blame men for their unhappinesses. That means you.
Do not dismiss the foregoing as clever cynicism. Nobody goes into marriage expecting divorce, but it comes very frequently, and she really does get the house and the children. In divorces, men lose. Your child support will be based on what the judge thinks you should earn—this is called ‘imputed income’—so that, if you are a stock broker, you cannot decide that you would rather work on a fishing boat in the Caribbean. If the judge thinks you may be a flight risk, she can confiscate your passport. Your wife’s lawyer may advise her to accuse you of sexually molesting the children. (So help me, this happens. In a divorce, the man wants to get out, the wife to get even.) You may be denied visitation.
In the eyes of the court, the children are her property, to be done with as she chooses. She may remarry with an Air Force colonel she met in a meat bar, and be stationed in Okinawa. So much for your kids.
She can ruin you at any moment. Can and, not unlikely, will. When the moment comes, you will be astonished at how much she knows about divorce law, how vicious she can be. In marriage, you are betting your future on the flip of a loaded coin.
The sensible conclusion is that you are better off single, building a career or whatever you want in life, and dating such flowers as drift by.
Should you marry, the pleasure will be fleeting. Remember that women work on the principle of bait, switch, and fade. From fifteen to, say, twenty-five, they are dreams afoot, cute, with perfect skin and aerodynamic lines. That is what you think you are marrying. Add five or ten years, ten or twenty pounds, and the lack of any reason to continue being charming—and you are going to spend the rest of your life with it. Too many men marry the package, and only discover the content when it is too late.
Matrimony is seldom a happy state in America. Given that something like half of marriages end in divorce, you can bet that a lot of others almost do. Of the remainder, probably more are contented than happy. Resignation is not pleasant, but often the best you can hope for.
Live with her if you must, but don’t marry her. A woman cohabiting has at least some incentive to be agreeable. A married woman does not. Worth pondering is that, in a time of declining economy, feckless government, and political instability, the fewer responsibilities you attach to yourself, the better.
The very idea of marriage is problematic. In many ways, men and women are incompatible. Exceptions and degrees, yes, but on average women are more domestic, materialistic, fearful, totalitarian, and comfortable with routine. This means that to the extent you have masculine interests, you will find her to be an anchor. This doesn’t mean only that she won’t like that awful motorcycle or that noisy Corvette thingy. She won’t want to live in a small condo in the funky part of town, go to the shooting range, or scuba dive.
It is said that marriage rests on compromises, but in fact it rests on concessions, and you will make all of them. You will find your social life gravitating fast to other married couples. She won’t want you to have single female friends (nor will you want her to have single male friends: Marriage is based on mistrust.). Worse, she won’t want you to have single male friends. She will want you where she can keep an eye on you. Forget going out with the guys. …”