|
The factory of liberal society keeps churning out its quota of dead young white women
(Note, 2/28: there have been many comments posted in this entry.)
Eric E. writes:
This is from San Diego. 17 year old girl jogging by herself in a park in the early evening disappears. More evidence of a liberal society being a very dangerous place for young, or actually any, women.
LA replies:
Young women are regularly raped and murdered in our society, including the hugely disproportionate rape and murder of white women by black and Hispanic men. But these phenomena are never mentioned. Each individual rape/murder is reported separately in local media, with nothing ever said about the overall pattern of which those separate crimes are a part. The message that there are dangerous predators lurking everywhere waiting to strike, and therefore that women cannot simply go wherever they want, and in particular that they cannot go unescorted to isolated places such as woods and parks, especially woods and parks in urban areas with black and brown populations (remember Chandra Levy?), is not given to young women, because (1) to speak of the danger would necessarily involve referencing the fact that certain elements of our population are more dangerous than others, which would violate the principle of non-discrimination; and (2) it would mean that girls and women are not free to do whatever they want, which would violate the principle of the absolute sovereignty of the female sex. Liberal society would rather let girls and women go on regularly being raped and murdered, than state the simple truths that would protect them.
These two photos of the missing girl, Chelsea King, illustrate two factors that, in conjunction, have brought on the violent deaths of so many young women since the 1960s.
Young women are cute and desirable,
an enormous temptation to predators
Young women are proud and sovereign.
Don’t you dare tell them what they can and cannot do.
Thus, in modern society, young women attract danger, even as (backed by society’s feminist orthodoxy) they arrogantly or thoughtlessly reject any sensible restraints on their behavior that would protect them from the danger.
- end of initial entry -
Donn D. writes:
Though I am a frequent reader of your blog (and have linked to it several times), your latest post seems bizarre that I may delete the bookmark.
You use two photos of a missing girl to illustrate why some young women may have been killed, yet there is nothing in the photos that supports your contention. For example, you write:
“Young women are cute and desirable, an enormous temptation to predators.”
So, what’s the alternative, become ugly and not desirable? To me, you’re bordering on Islamic radicals who blame women for the acts that men do. This is pure nonsense.
Then, you show the woman seemingly running a marathon, and you write:
“Young women are proud and sovereign. Don’t you dare tell them what they can and cannot do.”
What the hell does running a marathon have to do with a woman being proud and sovereign? Good grief, these two analogies border on the hysterical and the unhinged.
LA repliles:
You entirely misunderstand. I am obviously not saying that females should not be cute. I am obviously not saying that females should not run in races.. I am using those photos to symbolize two aspects of reality: (1) the desirability of young females, which means they need be protected, especially in an “open society” like ours filled with freelance predators; and (2) the contemporary female self-regard, fostered by feminism, which precludes any such protections. Again, I’m using the second photo to symbolize a prevailing psychological attitude of today’s women, not to say anything against running.
Shrewsbury writes:
Regarding the pictures and captions you included in your above-referenced post, Shrewsbury understood your point immediately, considered the photos and captions most apposite, and was puzzled and alarmed by Donn D.’s frankly rather grout-headed response.
Tony writes:
Thanks Mr. Auster your blog is held in high esteem by a lot of conservatives. I noticed you just put something up about San Diego which just happens to be my birthplace though I am now a refugee from California having relocated, I left San Diego in ‘96 as I did not even recognize it any more after 27 years, and I wasn’t the only one as almost everybody I knew and grew up with moved out of the state too, the crime and lawlessness due to increasing liberalism was destroying a formerly nice place to live, though when I was growing up there in the ’70s and ’80s it was pretty conservative.
A. Zarkov writes:
The Poway High School Principle told the students, “Stay together. Stay strong, “Keep in mind we are a family here. This is a tough time … when we need each other.” The victim’s friends made the usual statements about how wonderful she is. All that’s fine, but something important is missing. Outrage. One would think that the young girl was struck by lightening, or some another impersonal force of nature. I want to hear something like, “We must find the predators, and make an example of them by a most severe punishment.” Instead we keep hearing statements that sound like Michael Dukakis after he was asked him if he would favor capital punishment if his wife were raped and murdered. I think that answer lost him the election.
When my daughter was young I taught her the visual signs of a dangerous neighborhood: (1) broken glass on the street, (2) barbed wire, (3) windows with bars, (4) graffiti. Extra credit if the barbed wire is the high security spiral razor type. She learned that certain places and people are dangerous for women, especially sweet looking young white women. I made her understand that black and Latino neighborhoods are dangerous places for white girls.
As for Donn D, he seems particularly dense. Girls raised on a steady diet of feminism, who think of themselves as strong and autonomous sometimes find out the hard way that the predators don’t respect these liberal notions of reality. Unless society is willing to deal with these monsters with an iron fist, women are simply going to have to avoid dangerous situations and learn some race realism. They also need strong men to protect them.
Laura Wood writes:
This is very sad. Once again, a whole community turns out with posters and ribbons and candles to hold vigils for a missing girl. The lesson is never really absorbed and for every 17-year-old who meets serious harm there are many more who are casually degraded. It’s not the fault of young women, but of adults who don’t want to spend the time, energy or money adequately to supervise them. When my mother was in college, she had to have her prom dresses approved by the college president. Adults actually took the time to do that kind of thing. They cared about the safety and innocence of the young.
Now girls go off into the wilderness in running shorts and tank tops. No one stops them. Young girls will always be foolish. They cannot handle modern freedoms. The alternative is not totalitarianism, just plain and simple common sense that most societies have honored.
Why are women allowed these freedoms? Is it truly for their own benefit? Or is it so they won’t prize their own sexuality more than the money to be gained from their independence? I think young women are simply sold, encouraged to be proud and sovereign so they will be profitable.
Christopher C. writes:
Donn D. makes a funny, and most probably false, assumption when he describes the running photo as “seemingly running a marathon.” Even a cursory review of your entry and the original story show the young lady to have been a member of her local school’s running team. The jersey she’s wearing in the photo bears the local name. Marathons are overwhelmingly large commercial events, with conspicuous numbers. I could go on with the circumstantial evidence based on experience as a high school and college cross-country runner, but in my opinion, that’s a photo of her competing in a high school cross-country meet; probably a Saturday multi-school ‘invitational’ event; 5,000 meters or about 3 miles.
What makes it funny to me is how Donn D. guessed this 17-year-old female would be doing such a significantly strenuous event. And how I’ve go visions from the Olympics in my head—namely the Canadian ice-hockey women on the ice drinking and smoking in their armor—er, equipment, as compared with the figure skaters, including their French Canadian compatriot, Miss Rochette. 100 years or so ago, a marathon was considered near suicidal for men, never mind women. Women were banned from all sorts of events, all sorts of athletic endeavors on the theory that they were too frail, too weak; that the sport would do them damage. Now it’s pretty much accepted that they can do it. But what if the damage the tradition was talking about wasn’t just physical? But time, and focus, and role, and, I don’t know, some sort of morality or morale of role?
And you buy into the new view too. “Not to say anything against running.” Why not say anything against running? Why not say anything against some or all sports for girls or women? Aren’t men and women different? [LA replies: You make a good point. I somewhat misspoke when I said that. Personally I think running doesn’t make sense for most women because of their body shape, and, while I am not against female athletics as such, which was all I was trying to say to Donn, I think that there is far too much emphasis on female sports today, and I agree with you that it is one of the factors in the puffed-up female ego which has been so harmful to women and to society as a whole.] Wouldn’t they, therefore, get, or put into, or risk, and lose and gain, different things from sport? What’s the phrase about Waterloo? England won Waterloo on the playing fields of Eton? What’s that philosophers quip about exercise? A waste of time? A marathon takes about 2.5 hours for world class women to complete; 3-5,6 for the hobbyists—and the training usually takes months of commitment. What’s the point? Why be in that kind of shape? What about work? What about getting married and raising a family?
“What the hell does running a marathon have to do with a woman being proud and sovereign?” Donn D asks.
A lot, I’d say.
[Note: I’ve edited out parts of the following comment because it got too personally abusive and insulting, but have left in most of it, followed by my reply.]
Michael H. writes:
If you had a daughter, you would not be so callous and classless as to post to photos of missing girls and young woman to score some ideological points. Even before the body of the girl who went missing during the Metallica concert was found, you plastered your National Enquirer picks criticizing her and her family for dressing like a slut and essentially asking for it. Now you follow suit with this poor Chelsea King girl. Have you no moral imagination? Are you really this dense? I see you are so here’s a clue: you are committing an act of voyeuristic, vampiric emotional violence on the families of these young women and defecating on their name and character to boot. Instead of devoting a few lines to the complexities of the issues facing families with pretty and accomplished girls, you exploit them and their image to further make your case about the degradation of society. You too, Mr. Auster, are degrading society; your blog becomes a sewer on their screens.
Apparently it takes a father to understand the extreme vulgarity and cheapness of what you do? Your manly traditionalism has the contours of an Arianna Huffington post.
And you wonder why other conservatives run from you at parties and you remain a peripheral figure, obscure and ignored? Perhaps you should write a book or get a job and stop this necromantic obsession with female modesty and virtue before it drives you into the arms of the enemy you so claim to loathe. Don’t make me explain the basic psychology involved in this; it’s obvious and would embarrass you further.
No philosophic crumbs that pepper your blog can save it from the dustbin of history. I’m done reading your blog.
LA replies:
By your standards, these basic points that I make about why young women get killed—that they walk around alone and unprotected in a dangerous world, and the society never tells them not to do this, because the established belief is that young women can do whatever they like and go wherever they like and dress however they like—could never be made. According to you, when would have been the “correct” time to have discussed Morgan Harrington, the girl who went missing during the Metallica concert? The fact is that when she went missing last October, it was already certain she was dead. Her body was apparently found in January. But your argument is not that I should have waited until her body was found before I wrote about the case. Your argument is that my argument is so disgusting that it should never be made, and that if I do make that argument, then I am sick and disgusting and should shunned.
Thus, because I simply pointed out the plain facts of Morgan Harrington’s Eloi behavior—that, dressed provocatively (with the advice of her mother) she went walking around unescorted at night near a concert arena looking for a ride, and was picked up by some predator and was killed—I am a sick individual acting from perverted motives. Because I showed how Morgan Harrington’s own behavior put her in a situation where she got killed, because I talk frankly about the sexually liberated mores that have led to the murder of Morgan and so many other young women, you accuse me of being a perverted voyeur. I’d say that you’re the sick person to write to me the way you have done.
Not only that, but you are using against me the classic technique, used by liberals ever since the Sixties, to silence conservative criticism of sexual liberation. The liberals accuse the critic of being sexually hung up, of having sexual problems. It’s a very intimidating and effective device, as no one want to be accused of having sexual problems. So congratulations for doing such a fine job as PC thought cop. But it’s not going to work with me.
LA continues: I should also have said this to Michael H.: since he says one must be the father of a daugther to understand how disgusting and vampiric my post was, what does he, as the father of a daughter, tell his daughter? Does he tell her it’s fine to go running alone in an isolated park? Or is it too voyeuristic and vampiric of me to ask that question?
LA writes to Michael H.:
I decided to post an edited version of your comment with my revised reply. The irony is, your purpose was to condemn me as a low person, to serve as the voice of decency taking me to task for my indecency. But by using such low level personal vituperation against me, you lowered yourself to the level of a typical Internet ranter, and thus defeated your whole purpose.
February 28
Charles T. writes:
Michael H. wrote:
If you had a daughter, you would not be so callous and classless as to post photos of missing girls and young woman to score some ideological points.
I do have children and I do show them the photos of missing children in order to score points that demonstrate the harsh reality of life; i.e., there are evil people in the world and their victims are frequently children and teenagers.
A. Zarkov wrote:
All that’s fine, but something important is missing. Outrage. One would think that the young girl was struck by lightening, or some another impersonal force of nature. I want to hear something like, “We must find the predators, and make an example of them by a most severe punishment.
Yep. Outrage is selectively permitted these days by our rulers. I agree with Mr. Zarkov completely.
Michael H. should be outraged that a young woman is missing. Yet the venom is directed at the one who (1) points out that a young woman is missing and (2) points out that our leftist, feminist philosophy is contributing to the demise of many of our young people. At first, I was surprised that Michael H. could be so, well, obtuse; however, it is to our/my benefit that he posted this drivel so we can be reminded, upfront, that real people actually think this way.
Michael H. is either a useful idiot or a true believer. However, there is no doubt to me that he is a leftist—whether he realizes it or not.
Mr. Auster, I am glad that you continue to hammer away at the truth on matters like these. In the end you will win out because you speak truth on this; our children are vulnerable and need our protection and supervision.
Rick Darby (of Reflecting Light) writes:
If you left out the most abusive of Michael H.’s comment, the original must have really been a lulu.
Right from the kick-off, he is illogical: “If you had a daughter…. ” As though anyone who is not raising a daughter has no standing to criticize the rules of liberal society that place so many others’ daughters undefended against predators. Impersonal, principle-based arguments are usually superior to those based on being a member of a certain class (in this case, parents of young women).
“Instead of devoting a few lines to the complexities of the issues facing families with pretty and accomplished girls … ” Presumably “complexities” is his point (why “accomplished”? Are only accomplished girls worth protecting? Juilliard students? All-A high schoolers?). Everything in life is complex if you want to gather statistics, quotations, arguments and counterarguments, but that is what books and academic papers are for, not blog postings. You made your case reasonably and there is no “exploitation” in it: how can you discuss the vulnerability of women without including at least one example of it?
Do other conservatives really run from you at parties?
LA replies:
Obviously a lot of conservatives dislike me, but I’m not aware of anyone running from me at a social gathering.
Oh, yes, Robert Spencer announced that he would leave any room in which I was present.
Shrewsbury writes:
Michael H.’s rant is disturbing. I just can’t understand why your writing excites such madder-than-a-wet-hen responses in so many people. The only explanation I come up with is that the fearless, slashing intelligence of VFR exposes people to ideas and perceptions they have not been exposed to before, which causes a lot of anxiety and cognitive dissonance, and so the instinctive response is to lash out with this kind of personal abuse, which apparently restores some sort of psychological balance. E.g., certain conservative pundits, for whatever personal or professional reasons, cannot bear to be shown that their position on Muslim immigration is incoherent, so they beat you severely about the head and shoulders and are returned to baseline status. Thus such responses should be seen as psychological events rather than as arguments.
Regarding the post about the poor girl in San Diego … oh—I see you’ve already made the points that I was going to make:
“What you’re really saying is that … the simple point that our society tells young women to go about careless in a dangerous world, and that this repeatedly gets young women killed, cannot be made.”—yes. “The fact is, I’m criticizing the belief system and the behaviors that get young women killed. “—yes. [LA notes: Shrewsbury is quoting my comment as originally posted, I subsequently revised it, so the wording is somewhat different.]
And Shrewsbury does have a daughter, and cannot fathom why anyone other than a diseased liberal would object to making these dangers known, and he is very glad to see them publicized, because he wants her and other young ladies to be keenly aware of them. It’s important to stress the dangers as often as possible, and the pictures emphasize the ghastly point.
They also help illustrate what an utterly pathological society we live in, when such matters cannot even be mentioned to such vulnerable young maidens. The tales collected by the Brothers Grimm showed a more enlightened awareness.
Regards,
Shrews.
P.S.: “Necromantic obsession?” Huh … ? Wha … ?
LA replies:
Well, a part of the reaction in this case is similar to what happens when one criticizes any aspect of contemporary women’s behavior, dress, college living arrangements, and so on. First, many people are themselves deeply invested in those behaviors, having daughters who are living the contemporary liberal life style. So one is suggesting that they are bad parents. And they strike back, hard.
Second, as I said above, a principal way that liberal society enforces its liberal rules regarding sexual behavior or women’s behavior is by attacking any critic as a sexually disturbed individual. If you notice women’s skimpy dress, for example, you have a sexual problem. Real men don’t notice half naked women. Real men don’t notice female newscasters with necklines plunging to their bellies. They have no critical thoughts about ANYTHING that contemporary liberated females do. And the fact of the matter is, 99 percent of men would rather go to prison and break rocks in the sun than be exposed to any aspersions on their sexual normality. So the liberal/feminist method of control is extremely effective. You can only challenge liberal/feminist mores if you’re willing to take a certain amount of very unpleasant personal abuse, and not run from it, and are prepared to respond to it.
Lydia S. writes:
I’ve heard the lame defenses of those who promote women’s unnecessary exposure to the public without protection. They are always saying that to caution a woman to dress modestly and stay with her father or brother is somehow sending them backwards into the dark ages when women supposedly had no freedom. Freedom is held up as something more important than safety. Its all a distraction ploy to keep us from seeing the real reason people defend these women’s right to put themselves in harms way: some people really hate women and don’t want them preserved or protected. That is what is really going on. To run in a skimpy track suit alone, or to even be alone anywhere without some authoritative protection, is not wise, but to defend the woman’s right to put themselves in harm’s way is insane. I wrote about this subject of protecting young women, in a post on my blog, called “Protecting Our daughters by Protecting Them.” In that post, I explained that no one in his right mind would keep his car unlocked on the street, unprotected, or lay his cell phone or other valuable possession outside where someone could get it. People seem to understand that, but don’t seem to understand the same concept when it comes to our young women. Actually I do think they understand it. They just don’t value women as much as they do their cars or watches.
A. Zarkov writes:
I think you should publish Michael H’s email in un-redacted form. People need to see just how vile the opposition is. I have a daughter, and I don’t see how any sane person could take offense at your post. Americans need to hear this, because some of them are failing their children if they don’t inform them about the predators out there. How else can we explain a young white girl bicycling through a neighborhood that I wouldn’t even drive through? White liberals don’t seem to understand that they are a race under siege. A siege helped along by RINOs like Arlen Specter, John McCain, and the Bushitos. Far too many white people lack a comprehension of what’s happening to them. They have not learned to think in terms of self defense.
I’m from New York City, and in the 1970s I got the message from my city government: “Defend yourself but don’t do it too aggressively especially if your attacker is black. If you do, we will punish you severely to placate the black community. We need their votes to stay in power.” Later, twelve years after I left the city in disgust, my suspicious were confirmed. In 1984 Bernard Goetz, in an act of self defense, shot a black thug on the subway and the liberal establishment came down on him with full force. Read about it here and here. Note that Arlen Specter decided to inject himself into the case by calling for a special prosecutor. One might ask why a U.S. senator from Pennsylvania needs to concern himself with a New York matter? Note also that a grand jury refused to indict one Austin Weeks, a black man who killed one of two white youths who accosted him on the subway. Goetz only wounded (seriously) his attacker, yet he was charged with attempted murder. This is the kind of world white people face and they had better come to grips with reality. If they don’t they are going to continue to lose their daughters.
Christopher C. writes:
Thank you for your reply. A hypothetical for you and your readers:
You are a 30-ish, unmarried man living in a large city. You are invited to a party. You agree to attend, do so alone, and enjoy the company. As the party draws to an end, you take begin to take your leave. As you do so, it comes to your attention that a young woman 20-30-ish, who you spoke to and had a pleasant time with is also leaving, alone. There are several transport variables, but it turns out her apartment lies on the path home for you. You have found in the past that if you insist on the chivalrous response you were taught by your mom and aunts,—in short, escorting her all the way home, including waiting outside to make sure she’s safely inside her apartment building—that gets taken generally along the following range: women not interested in you romantically will decline the offer and in fact often get offended; women interested in you romantically will accept the offer and in fact take it as an acceptable pretext to continue the interaction. What rules do you live by, if any?
LA replies:
I would say that if you are not interested in her romantically and your motive is solely to be chivalrous and to protect her, then you shouldn’t make the offer, given that your offer is going to be misunderstood by both classes of woman that you’ve mentioned, and that only one of the two classes of woman will accept the offer, and for the wrong reason.
Dean E. writes:
Stylistically, I think Michael H.’s indignant comment would be more effective if re-written:
Dear Mr. Auster:
You Fiend. You voyeuristic vampire of vulgar violence. You clueless, classless, callous, conservative critic. You dense, defecating degrader of dustbins. You obscure cheap sewer of philosophic crumbs and peripheral necromantic obsessions. You ignorant slut. You could have just written a few lines of pablum about the complexities of the issues facing families with pretty and accomplished girls, like I would have done. Doing so would get you invitations to prestigious dinner parties and would have advanced your career. But did you do that? NoOoOoOOOOO! You had to go and make some substantial point that I dislike. You’re just so awful. So there. I’m done with you.
Get a job.
Yrs,
Michael H.
PS: Don’t expect any invitations to my parties.
PPS: Don’t make me explain the basic psychology involved in this, it would only embarrass you further.
PPPS: You have no moral imagination.
Laura Wood writes:
If I were a parent of Morgan Harrington, Chandra Levy, or any of the young women who have been murdered after venturing off on their own in skimpy or tight clothing, I would do exactly what Mr. Auster has done. I would sound the alarm. I would try to prove to other parents how foolish our standards are. Truthfully, I think I would do nothing else with my life. I would try to prevent other parents from experiencing the same nightmare.
It would be nice if Mr. Auster could discuss these incidents months or years after they occur. It would be less disturbing and unpleasant if he didn’t post pictures of the victims and if he adopted a general air of detachment. If he did, no one would listen.
Regardless of how Mr. Auster treats these cases, the country is thinking about this subject right now. Millions have already viewed Chelsea King’s pictures, which have been “defecated,” as Michael H. put it, on screens and newspapers across the country. Millions of viewers have been flooded with the message that here is a great tragedy. They are being told to weep, pray for the family and fear for the safety of their own children. One can’t help but think they are being deliberately suspended in a state of mindless fear.
Michael H. says journalists should talk about “the complexities of the issues facing families with pretty and accomplished girls.” Actually, the main issue is astoundingly simple. From early childhood, girls should be inculcated with the message that they cannot go off on their own, especially not in athletic clothing or tight, skimpy dresses. Not only should they be continually fed this message by their parents, their schools and the media, they should actually be prevented from going off on their own. The only way to prevent them is to chaperone them. That’s the unpleasant reality. Young women need chaperones. Instead, they are given keys to the car, encouraged to dress in glorified underwear and fed the lie that men are basically the same. Morgan, Chandra and possibly Chelsea would be alive today if this weren’t so. They are victims of evil predators, but also of a dangerous and false ideology.
These very simple standards were adhered to for most of history in all civilized societies. There is a pervasive conspiracy of silence in our world. That’s because the solution is going to cost parents big time. They will have to reassert their authority over their daughters. They will have to devote time and energy and money to keeping them safe.
I am grateful that Mr. Auster has the courage to speak up and to devote his considerable talent and energy to this important issue. I disagree with Mr. Auster’s description of young women as “proud and sovereign.” Some are, I guess, but many more experience terrible bouts of secret fear despite all their apparent independence. Typically, they are weak and vulnerable. They judge the safety of any given situation according to two standards. One, if it is something they are actually permitted to do, they conclude it must be safe. Two, if it is something they have seen other women do, it must be okay. They are not proud and sovereign at all, but foolish and dependent on the standards of the world around them.
LA replies:
I’m a little confused. Haven’t you often said that women today are too (I’m sorry if these are my words instead of yours) puffed up, self-regarding, and full of themselves?
Laura replies:
Yes, they are. But I think in the case of young girls like Chelsea King (she’s only 17), they are much more innocent and less that way.
LA continues:
I do understand your point that females, being primarily social and other-directed, take their cues from their environment. Their environment is constantly telling them that they are the queens of the world, and how dare, how dare, anyone suggest otherwise. So, being good girls, they conform to society’s expectations of them and play soccer and become super athletes and develop career and financial independence and play the field sexually and dominate the mushy young men around them.
But notice how, in the above paragraph, one description has turned into another. In the act of conforming to their society’s expectations of female independence and empowerment, do these young women not actually become independent and powerful?
Also, have you actually said before this that it is not the case that women today are excessively egotistical?
Laura replies:
Yes, women actually do become egotistical, aggressive and selfish as they try to conform to feminism’s models.
But when they are under 21, they are still childlike in many ways. From the description of Morgan Harrington, she was a very sweet girl, eager to please others. She was wearing the clothes she wore to be attractive in what she considered a socially acceptable way.
LA continues: However, another item that could be added to my above list of “independent, powerful” behavior is going jogging by themselves wearing skimpy outfits in woodsy parks in cities with large minority populations. That’s not independent and powerful; that Eloi-ish and suicidal. So this is a complicated picture and needs to be thought about more.
Laura replies:
One thing that strikes me about Chelsea King is that she had the car to herself (I don’t know whether it was actually her car.) So this is all new to her. She has probably had a license for a very short time and now perhaps for one of the first times in her life, she is heading off on her own. It is very novel and adventurous, just as going to the Metallica concert was probably exciting and adventurous for Morgan Harrington. Suddenly she is tasting the freedom of an adult. Teenagers at that age are living their own fantasies of adult life. They are play-acting and they are dramatically different from those who are just a few years older.
James P. writes:
Michael H. writes:
“Instead of devoting a few lines to the complexities of the issues facing families with pretty and accomplished girls”
But the issues are not complex. Every type of girl, whether a pretty success or a plain failure, must learn exactly the same, simple thing—to recognize and avoid dangerous people, places, and situations. The only time this creates “complexities” is when the elementary rules of personal safety and common sense come in conflict with liberal dogma about minority behavior and about women’s absolute “right” to go anywhere and do anything they like. Sadly, liberal thinking on this score is quite prevalent; even supposedly conservative women insist that girls have no obligation to avoid dangerous situations and behavior.
John P. writes:
I’d like to second the other commenters who defended your decision to publish the story of Chelsea King.
A couple of other points: I happen to think that 100m and 5000m races, and track and field for women are actually a good idea, they strengthen the cardio-vascular system for child birth and are defensive as well. While men can outrun women on average many predators are physically decadent and it may be possible to escape from them. Marathons are probably less advantageous and may even be deleterious to health. Running also helps for escaping from disasters.
In reply to Christopher C’s hypothetical I would advise making the offer. If she doesn’t like it, water off a duck’s back, at least you did the right thing. If she is romantically interested, well that’s an opportunity, nothing says you have to hop into bed on a first date.
Scott H. writes:
Just an interesting tidbit from North San Diego county,
I live near Poway where Chelsea King disappeared and Escondido where one year earlier Amber Dubios disappeared while walking to school. Escondido and Poway are right next to each other on I-15.
Demographically speaking Escondido is heavily Mestizo, quite a few gangs with the associated violence. Poway is a bit more upscale, though less so the last several years. So far there is no proof that the cases are related or of who was involved.
Ferg writes:
I lived in Del Mar California for six and a half years and am very familiar with that area. Not the park so much as the surrounding undeveloped rough land between Del Mar and the I-15. It is a rabbit warren of small valleys, canyons, and dry washes that is (or was before I left in 1992) a veritable hobo jungle of refrigerator box squatters camps of illegal aliens. They would laugh and wave when we flew over them in a hot air balloon, or drove into “their” area in the truck pursuing the balloon. They numbered in the hundreds or perhaps thousands, the vast majority young men. This proves nothing of course, but it is the first thing I thought of when I saw the location on the map that accompanied the story. An area I would not have traveled in alone even as a large grown man. Not good odds. Still, the park is not right in that area, but it does abut it.
LA replies:
Is Del Mar close to the area of San Diego in this story?
Ferg replies:
Yes sir, very close. It is on the ocean just north of LaJolla. It is only about five miles long north to south, and two and a half miles at its widest point. Lake Hodges is the resevoir that supplies water to Del Mar and other cities along the coast. The dam spillway is on a river that empties into the ocean at Del Mar, which is way Del Mar lifeguards were scouring the beach I presume. If you look at the map Del Mar is between I-5 and the ocean. The kind of badlands area I referenced runs from just east of I-5 to I-15, and north of San Diego proper. I worked as a ground handler and chase crew for a balloon company based in Del Mar and we launched from an area just east of the town and flew with the onshore winds into the area I referenced. From the balloon these squatters camps I mentioned were very obvious and numerous. The park, which I don’t remember and may have been added since I left, borders this area on the west and north. A rough guess the park is about ten miles inland from Del Mar, but there are no direct roads, the country is too rough. If I were local law enforcement I would be looking in this badlands area and searching the squatters camps.
Ferg continues:
It occurs to me that you might not think ten miles is very close. It is when you think in California terms. Because of the balloon work I was in that area a lot, and took the road up past Lake Hodges when I was going to go north on I-15. I also now remember that sometimes the balloon would land in a park area and it may have been that one.
James B. writes:
I, myself, well remember the “Take Back the Night” candlelight vigils held at my University in the early 90s. Even back then, before I had much consciousness about the gnostic denial of reality of the feminists, I remember thinking, “Take back? When have you ever, in the history of the world, had it?”
LA replies:
Excellent. :-)
Christopher C. replies to LA’s reply to his hypothetical:
And if something happened to her on the way home? Doesn’t chivalry, perhaps a form of hospitality, extend also to the stupid and ungrateful? Can you imagine the hosts inviting you back after they sent the both of you off essentially together? Recall, you are leaving at the same time; there’s a natural tendency to assume departing guests will look after each other even after the door closes.
LA replies:
Everything in a situation like this depends on particulars that cannot be generalized and must all be balanced against each other. What is the “feel” of the situation? Is there an awareness that this neighborhood could be dangerous? How well do you feel you know the young woman?
In my earlier comment I was basically responding to your point that your considerate offer would be misunderstood and perhaps resented. You can’t intrude yourself into the affairs of someone you don’t know and who doesn’t want you to intrude.
Mike P. writes:
Reported by ABC News, one of Chelsea King’s favorite quotations: “They can because they think they can.”
Sheer triumph of the will. Sayings to live (and to die) by.
I’ll bet her parents stopped setting limits long ago, fearing to break her spirit.
From the ABC story:
The parents of a student who has been missing for four days since she went out for a run Thursday in a San Diego park said they are drawing strength from one of their daughter’s mottoes.
The quote from the Roman poet Virgil reads: “They can because they think they can.”
Chelsea King, 17, posted numerous quotes she tried to live by on the wall of her bathroom, her parents said.
Karen B. writes:
But young women COULD still be out alone if we still had segregation and if we policed ourselves adequately.
I am confused by the assertion that a girl can’t go out for a walk or a run at 6 pm. That seems pretty purdah-like. One of the marks of a civilized society is that women are safe in public. Some of the cases you have published have involved young women doing catastrophically foolish things, but being out by yourself at 6 pm is normal. What is sick is a society that, as you say, acts as though racially motivated violence is like the weather.
James P. writes:
A few more thoughts on the missing girl in San Diego. I know that area very well, since I used to work in Rancho Bernardo. That particular park always struck me as pretty creepy, since it is on a side road right off the interstate. If someone forced her into a vehicle, the vehicle could be hundreds of miles away on the I-15 very quickly. Also, it is right next to “Lake” Hodges, which is often dry or very low, and when it is, thick vegetation springs up on the lake bed, providing easy concealment for potential criminals.
As Ferg states, the canyons around there are infested with illegal immigrant camps, but you don’t have to go all the way to Del Mar to find them. There are plenty of them in Rancho Bernardo itself and in Rancho Penasquitos just to the south. Back during the 2007 fire in Rancho Bernardo, the NYT wrote about the plight of the migrants who were burned in the fire. Whenever the eeeeevil “anti-immigration” forces try to get rid of them, the usual suspects (religious leaders, labor unions, the ACLU, and community activists) mobilize in opposition.
One shouldn’t read too much into it, but a 17-year old girl named Chelsea was born in 1993. Was she named after Chelsea Clinton by exuberant liberal parents, who raised her to believe she had no limits and could go anywhere and do anything?
Also worthy of note is the quote at the end of the story:
“Anytime a child goes missing, it is a serious issue,” said Linda Farmer, a Poway school employee who planned to hand out fliers.
Is she a proud and autonomous young woman, or a “child”? If she is a “child,” why was she in a dangerous park all by herself?
Kidist Paulos Asrat writes:
I think Laura made a really good point when she talks about young teenage girls. There is usually an innocence and trust that a girl that age has, which is harder to discern in the modern twenty-something year-old. Her point, that “many more experience terrible bouts of secret fears despite all their apparent independence,” may be best explained by a recent study on happiness.
A long and complex 2009 study of women’s happiness shows that women lose ground to men (are unhappier than men), and older women are less happy than younger women. And “[twelfth grade] girls have lost ground [in happiness] both absolutely and relative to boys.”
Twelfth grade girls, given a list of items and asked, “How important is each of the following to your life?”, report a large number of these items with increasing importance, compared to boys. The list includes things like: “Having a good marriage and family life,” and “Discovering new ways to experience things.” It could well include “Running in marathons.”
Twelfth grade girls in this study are overwhelmed with the expectations they adopt, and are more anxious and insecure (i.e. unhappy) in general than boys.
Although they seem happier than their mothers or grandmothers, their decline in happiness is predictable, if taken by their mothers’ responses.
This study’s results, coupled with the trust and innocence of teenage girls (not discussed/measured in the study), makes their “proud and sovereign” appearance not what it seems to be. And women’s apparent pride and sovereignty in general. Although one would think by this study that teenaged girls are more confident and happier (proud and sovereign) than their older relatives. Another one of those instances where facts debunk wishful thinking.
Here is the full pdf file of the study: The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness. By Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers.
James P. writes:
Karen B. writes,
I am confused by the assertion that a girl can’t go out for a walk or a run at 6 pm. That seems pretty purdah-like. One of the marks of a civilized society is that women are safe in public. Some of the cases you have published have involved young women doing catastrophically foolish things, but being out by yourself at 6 pm is normal. What is sick is a society that, as you say, acts as though racially motivated violence is like the weather.
We don’t live in a civilized society. That aside, there are parks and then there are parks. As I said, a lot of these San Diego area “parks” are seething with illegal immigrants. When you go for a run in such a park, you could be running right past a homeless shanty town. I stopped walking in the Los Peñasquitos Canyon Preserve near where I used to live as soon as I realized how many migrants lived there, and I am not a 115 lb girl by any means. To say that a girl shouldn’t run past a migrant encampment is not to say she should be in purdah, it is simple common sense.
LA replies:
As an example of how I edit comments to eliminate insulting language unsuited for discussion, here is the original last sentence of Donn D.’s comment, which was the first comment in this thread
What the hell does running a marathon have to do with a woman being proud and sovereign? Good grief, these two analogies border on the hysterical, and reflect the thinking of a man slightly unhinged.
To make the language acceptable, without eliminating the substantive criticism, I changed it to:
What the hell does running a marathon have to do with a woman being proud and sovereign? Good grief, these two analogies border on the hysterical and the unhinged.
March 1
Expatriot writes:
In response to Karen B.’s comment, “One of the marks of a civilized society is that women are safe in public,” James P. noted, “We don’t live in a civilized society.” This is the point that needs to be emphasized. The main difference between modern America and other times and places is not that women are allowed to go out alone, but that there are far more vicious predators waiting to prey on them. Almost exactly one hundred years ago, my grandmother and her friend, both in their late teens at the time, took a week-long walk on country roads in North Dakota. They slept out in farmers’ barns and were the recipients of sundry kindnesses. No one thought there was anything strange about what they were doing; no one warned them against it. Of course, they were not dressed provocatively, but my grandmother was known as a great beauty in her youth. Likewise, in Japan, where I now live, it is not unusual to see young women, some of them quite provocatively dressed, walking home around midnight from the train or subway station. You see little schoolgirls, some as young as seven or eight, traveling alone on public transportation.
Any man who had harmed my grandmother a century ago would have been torn limb from limb or put down like a rabid dog. America has become a much more dangerous place for the innocent as it has become a much safer place for predators.
Markus writes from Canada:
Let me join the ranks of your readers who do have daughters and who, unlike Michael H., are actually thrilled that you’re beating the drum on these topics.
Michael, if you’re still reading this, WAKE UP!!!
Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 27, 2010 08:16 PM | Send
|