It’s Not the Same Thing

Vox Day has a new shirt:

In case you weren’t sure if Vox wasn’t talking about your teenage daughter’s interactions with boys, note how he frames this shirt:

Never mind that every man with an attractive wife is well aware of the death stare she reserves for idiots who don’t respect her wedding ring or recognize her initial signal to back the fuck off.

Here are three questions to illustrate why I have no problem with this shirt but do have a problem with the other shirt:

1. What is the main difference between your unmarried, teenage daughter and your wife? Why would you be interested in signaling the unavailability of one but not the other?
2. What do you think the biggest difference is between men with the balls to approach a married woman and your teenage daughter’s BadBoy McBikerDrummer/Actual Good Guy Suitor?
3. What is the biggest difference between a teenage girl talking about her daddy and a grown woman talking about her husband?

Understand the answer to those three questions and you might get why the other shirt seems awkwardly cartoonish and this shirt seems kind of cool.

Because going by Vox’s commentary he either 1) Doesn’t understand the criticism at all, or 2) Is getting actual weirdos criticizing it.

I dunno. I’m just not on the same page here.

Advertisements

For the Record

With all due respect for Vox, I have to agree with Rollory here, at least in theory. Not sure he puts it very well though. Vox Day here:

Now, where do you suppose feral young women come from, families where men protect their daughters or families where men simply throw their daughters to the vagaries of sexual selection, to fend off the predators as best they can on their own? The symbolism of the t-shirt is less about winnowing the suitable young grooms, than it is about giving the daughter the strength and the permission to say “no” to the wrong ones in the full knowledge that her father will have her back.

But as it happens, the real target of the message is not men. The t-shirt is actually status-signaling on the part of the daughter, or the wife, when that version of the t-shirt is ready. It is less a warning to young men than it is bragging to other young women that she is valued, that she is loved, and that she is worthy of protection by a man who is strong enough to provide it for her.

The reference is to this shirt, and this earlier post.

It’s always something of a minefield to try and disagree with Vox, because his thinking tends to be so out of the box that any assumptions you’re making about what he’s trying to get at are probably wrong. You need to be more careful than with most not to put words in his mouth.

Anyway, now I’m going to disagree with Vox.

Vox first tries to frame it as “Daddy is watching his little girl go off to school”:

 It may help to keep in mind that this is the original context of the phrase.

1. Take a position on high ground somewhere in the middle with clean sight lines of the entire route.

2. Load a round into your .50 caliber rifle.

3. Take the lens covers off the scope.

4. Watch as your little girl walks off to school by herself.

Except that isn’t the context Vox is using. He himself explicitly recommends that you give it to your teenage daughter:

Perfect for any daughter, particularly of the teenage variety.

If it’s about Daddy watching his daughter go to school, why recommend it to a teenager at all? Isn’t it actually BETTER if it’s a little girl wearing the shirt in that case? Or at least just as important?

The context the shirt exists in is much more obviously in the vein of songs like “Daddy’s got a Shotgun”…which is exactly where we get into problems.

Because if the context is supposed to be “I’m keeping an eye on the people my daughter dates”, the shirt is bullshit.

Nobody buying that shirt is going to shoot a kid because he keeps his daughter out until midnight instead of 10:00. Actions have consequences, and we all know this. You don’t just get away with this because you live in the boonies.

Maybe you should! Seriously. But you don’t.

This was in fact Dalrock’s original point (he is quoting someone else, whose blog seems to have unfortunately disappeared):

First, you can’t be serious. Set aside all the stuff you tell yourself and probably your wife about “traditional values and gender roles” or whatever. You cannot, in todays world seriously plan on carrying out any of these threats. You are puffing out your chest to “scare” off the “bad” boys, who know you are full of crap. It feels good, because all the women around you pat you on the head and nod approvingly. You have earned your cookie.

Scott contrasts this “traditional” bluster with his own view as a father who will one day be looking for a husband for his daughter.

When the time comes for her to start looking for a husband, she already knows we are interested in helping her find one and this makes her very happy. And when a young man comes around, he will not be met with a silly cartoon shotgun dad, but a father who wants to help them both succeed at what they are trying to do. We are not setting up an automatic adversarial relationship with him before we meet. I am aware that many young men will be at a very tenuous starting point in their career, development and so forth and I will approach the situation with that kind of sobriety.

The different approaches to suitors reflects the corresponding differences in roles and objectives.  Scott will be looking to find a husband for his daughter, while large numbers of “traditional” men are instead hoping to delay their daughter’s marriage by acting as their daughter’s surrogate husband.

And notice too how Vox frames it later: the shirt empowers women. They get to use it to feel worthy.

Because that’s what modern women are lacking: The concept that they’re worthy of male attention.

The irony here being that the whole thing in the end accomplishes the exact opposite of what it’s intended to. As Cane Caldo puts it:

And if the date in question really is a bad boy this attitude is helpful to him for a couple reasons. First of all, any girl who is entertaining a bad boy is expressing to her father that his approval is meaningless. Attempts to warn off a bad boy heighten the stakes of the game she is playing. The most likely outcome is that she will do more with the bad boy, and sooner. Second, bad boys don’t want permission. They are planning to leave after they’ve had their fun any way. A father who falsely threatens is dancing to the same song as the bad boy.

And the shirt is of course completely useless against someone who is NOT a bad boy anyway, except insofar as it might scare some people off.

Vox is, of course, correct that the shirt will be a bestseller. But I don’t think that means what he seems to think it means.

The advice Dalrock quotes seems sound to me, though obviously I speak from no area of expertise: Make it clear to your daughter that you support her finding a husband, and then when she brings home a boy she likes try to understand the difficult position they’re in themselves.

This opinion and $2.50 gets you a small coffee at Dunkin Donuts.

Addendum: Dalrock addressed the whole thing himself. TL;DR: “Vox meant well, and maybe it’s a cultural thing, but I still think I was right.”

My Governmental Philosophy

First off, a happy Thanksgiving to you all. Second off, nothing prompted this specifically. Just happened to be on my mind.

I describe myself to people as a Tolkienite. Tolkien called himself an anarcho-monarchist; his idea was basically that the government’s job was to leave well enough alone until it absolutely had to, and the form of government that he saw had the least potential for meddling was monarchy. Think extreme subsidiarity.

I am not an anarcho-MONARCHIST, but I am a believer in extreme subsidiarity. My governmental philosophy can be described as “let the lowest level of authority handle things until a higher level of authority has to intervene”. Whether the monarchy is the absolute best form  of government for this philosophy I am too uninformed to say, but I can imagine most forms of government can be structured this way if properly constructed; were I British I’d probably be a monarchist.

So that’s that. It’s simplistic, but the details will all stem from that base.

So I Just Solved Death Note

Superversive SF and Castalia House are probably tired of me blathering on about Death Note, so I’ll throw out my theory here. This will make sense only to people who know the story, but whatever.

I know how L could have won. Even with Light’s plan to use Rem, I know how L still could have won the game.

It goes like this:

L suspects the 13 day rule is fake, right?

Instead of testing it in front of Light and the task force, L should come in and tell everyone – Light included – that he has picked out two death row inmates to test the 13 day rule on the Death Note using a torn out page. The first prisoner will kill the second prisoner, and when he dies they will know in 13 days whether the rule is fake or not.

Now Light’s plan is forcibly delayed 13 days. Killing L will no longer accomplish anything for Misa, so naturally Rem won’t do it, since it will result in her own death.

L shows the whole thing on a live feed. The first inmate kills the second inmate, who dies on the feed within forty seconds. Now the game has started.

Imagine you are Light. There are two possibilities here. First, the first inmate was using a real piece of the Death Note and the second inmate really dies. This means that if the first inmate survives longer than 13 days Misa is put under direct suspicion again and Light himself is almost certainly screwed eventually. So the obvious answer here is to kill the inmate on day 13, solving the problem.

…Except that’s not the only problem. Remember, Light is watching this through a video feed. That first Death Note page can easily be a fake, and the second inmate could easily have faked his death. It is a heart attack after all. How would you know?

If this is the case, if the first inmate dies after 13 days this basically conclusively proves Light is Kira, because no other suspect could possibly even know who the first inmate was. If the first inmate dies, Light convicts himself. He’s in trouble. Thus the brilliance of the plan: If Light does nothing, but he’s wrong, he’s screwed. If Light kills him, but he’s wrong, he’s screwed. This all essentially relies on Light guessing directly.

What do you do if you’re Light? The answer here is that you of course need to figure out if the second Death Note inmate is actually dead. The only way to prove that is to find the original ripped out fragment of the Death Note and confirm inmate 2’s name is on it. Let’s say L hid it, but you find it, and see the inmate’s name, and independently confirm that’s his real name. Thus you’re saved – inmate 2 is dead. How do you find it?

No clue. Light has 13 days, there’s room to work. And before you say “But that’s just stupid, why would L let it be found?” just wait…

Okay. It’s the 13th day. Light knows inmate 2 is actually dead, and thus the correct answer is to kill inmate 1. He does this. So that’s that, right? Rule proven true, now Light can go ahead with his plan to use Rem to kill L. All he has to do is frame L as Misa’s greatest threat. Simple enough.

…Except L reveals a surprise: Light is wrong. Inmate 1 DID have a fake Death Note…and thus his death reveals Light as Kira. L wins!

But how?

The answer is simple: There is a third inmate.

Let’s use three terms here: The Bait, The Dummy, and Kira. The Bait is used to force Light to make a decision; he uses a fake Death Note, and on a live feed. The Dummy is misdirection. He is dead whatever happens; the important point here is that Light believes the dummy is the key to the whole thing, when in fact his death is irrelevant to Light’s response either way.

Kira is inmate number 3. At the same time as The Bait uses his fake piece of the Death Note Kira uses a real piece of the Death Note to kill the dummy, and the poor Dummy is dead either way.

Since Kira is a complete secret, there is no way for Light to stop the 13 day rule from being tested regardless. L is at worst going to put Misa and indirectly Light back under serious suspicion, and he may well have enough to arrest Misa again. But that’s not why the plan is brilliant.

What if L lets Light figure out that The Dummy really was killed? How? I dunno exactly. I mean it’s 13 days of time, give me a chance to work out a plan. But it sounds plausible.

This is why The Bait works – learning that the death of The Dummy is for real convinces Light that his only play is to kill The Bait.

And that signs his death warrant, because that means that the only person who can possibly be Kira is Light. And now L has proof. Light is toast…and incidentally L survives.

Ta da.

A Quick Remembrance of Roy Halladay

Some of you may know, and some may not, that I am a huuuuuuuuuge baseball fan. I’m not a live and breathe it guy, and most years I don’t see a game in person, but I follow inning by inning via MLB Gameday if I can’t see the game and watch it if I can, and I hang out on the baseball blogs. My team? Yankees. I made sure to get off of work to watch game 7 of the ALCS this year (best Yankees blog, by the way, is River Ave Blues, by a country mile).

I’ve only been watching since 2007 – for ten years. And for three of those years – 2007 to 2009 – I got to see Roy “Doc” Halladay pitching for the Toronto Blue Jays, in the same division as the Yankees. And man did I hate playing him.

Don’t misunderstand me. Halladay never gave off a bad vibe; he seemed like a nice guy. Never in the news for saying stupid crap for anything like that. He was a great story, too, coming back from a historically awful rookie season to have a Hall of Fame career.

But to play against him? Awful.

As I haven’t been watching that long, relatively, I can say with complete confidence that Roy Halladay is, bar none, the best, most dominating pitcher I’ve ever seen. Oh, there were pitchers with better stuff, more wicked sliders, faster fastballs, and lots of sexy strikeouts. Justin Verlander comes to mind immediately.

But Halladay? He’d make it look EASY. When the Yankees faced him it was like they might as well not have bothered showing up. It felt like he threw a two hit shutout Every. Single. Time. And with no hard contact! Dribbling grounders, infield pop-ups, broken bats…

And the at-bats wouldn’t even be competitive! Next thing you know you’re in the ninth inning, Halladay is at 88 pitches and you’re wondering why the hell you’re still watching. Sure it might only be a two run lead, but come on…it’s Roy Halladay.

Is it any surprise that Halladay happened to pitch a perfect game? Nah. He’d be the guy to do it. He’d also be the guy to pitch a no-hitter in the playoffs, the only guy to do it since Don Larsen pitched a perfect game in the World Series.

Truthfully, I have no specific, defining image of Roy Halladay burned into my brain, because all of his starts blended together for me. It was just one long string of constant domination; the individual game hardly mattered.

Like I said – easily the most dominant pitcher I’ve ever seen, and if you asked me I wouldn’t even have to think.

What a loss.

RIP Roy Halladay.

Twitch…Twitch…

John C. Wright:

Voting is not burning a pinch of incense to Caesar. We Christians are required by the word of the Word of God himself to render up to Caesar what is due Caesar. In a republic, voting, like jury duty, is an obligation no less binding than paying taxes.

Don’tsayanything Don’tsayanything Don’tsayanything…

ARRRRRRRRRGH

Something That Bugs Me

So I was discussing things with a friend and remembered reading an article about how romantic attraction was a choice. I couldn’t remember where I first read it, but after a quick Google I found it here. And against my better judgment – and it was my better judgment, believe me – I got sucked into some of the articles.

I sound harsh. The blog actually isn’t that bad at all. There’s some good stuff there – like the article I previously linked. But articles like this piss me off – basically an article trying to be an advertisement for online dating.

Instead, my options could very likely be “marry a man who is right for me and lives far away vs. not get married at all.”

And that was when I rethought my willingness to move.

I will grant that there are some people who cannot relocate for a relationship. Yes, I’m looking at you, Mr. or Ms. Children At Home Part Time. I have yet to encounter a situation that I believe would justify moving away from a minor child. Others may have similar responsibilities that they legitimately can’t leave. But beyond that, I’m not sure there are a whole lot of ironclad reasons to insist on staying put.

My family, friends, and job are all here.

You say,  “But my family is here.  My friends are here!  My job is here!  I love my gym! I don’t want to give all of that up.” Of course you don’t. Neither do I. I live in God’s country. I have built a very successful business here. I live near my brothers and sisters, whom I love. But would I give all of that up for a happy marriage to the right man? I’m pretty sure I would.

See, I find this insulting. It implies that the reason I won’t search the country and move 300 miles away to marry the woman of my dreams is because I don’t value marriage enough. But there is a much, much simpler reason:

I can’t.

Let’s go through the hypotheticals here.

Let’s say, using this site, I find a wonderful woman who lives, oh, forty hours away by car. We get to know each other, through skype and online. We get along well!

Now the time has come to meet her in person. I could either:

A) Take a plane. Hundreds of dollars at least

Or,

B) Take a car. That’s money lost I could be making at work, money lost in gas, and a hell of a lot of time lost, including money spent at a motel. We’re talking hundreds of dollars again probably.

And what am I going to do? Say hi, grab a cup of coffee, and leave?

Spend a weekend together?

All right. What if we don’t click?

This isn’t entirely hypothetical. I actually know flesh and blood people who have talked to folks online, chatted, skyped, had seemingly great chemistry…then went on a single date and decided it was not to be. And it wasn’t a bad deal for them, because they were within driving distance of each other, and I mean a day trip where you’re back home in time to watch the ballgame.

Articles like this are telling me to take this sort of chance on a person I have never met in person because maybe, one day, I’ll be so in love with them I’d be willing to uproot my entire life and move next to them.

And what if the one date goes well? That date wasn’t cheap, right? How rich exactly does Catholicmatch think people are? When will the next date be, another three months? Six? How is this courtship process supposed to work?

I guess they’re trying to find people rich enough to fill their coffers.

Blech. Just annoying.