Wednesday, July 25, 2018

The Handmaid's Tall Tales

Somehow, this article, made its way into my news feed. Which is how I learned that the references to "The Handmaid's Tale" I occasionally come across aren't actually to Chaucer, but rather to a 1985 novel:

The Handmaid's Tale is set in the Republic of Gilead, a theonomic military dictatorship formed within the borders of what was formerly the United States of America.

Beginning with a staged attack that kills the President and most of Congress, a fundamentalist Christian Reconstructionist movement calling itself the "Sons of Jacob" launches a revolution and suspends the United States Constitution under the pretext of restoring order.

So, Christian Reconstructionism is a thing, or was. It's thought leaders include Rousas Rushdoony and "paleolibertarian" Gary North, about whom more in a minute. (Cornelius Van Til is often counted as an inspiration, although he himself evidently disavowed it.)

Full disclosure: it's roots lie in Reformed (i.e. Calvinist) thinkers and theologians, a background I share. That said, the only mention of Reconstructionism from the pulpits of the Reformed (i.e. Presbyterian) churches I have attended have been to reject it, as far as I can recall.

[Rushdoony] nevertheless repeatedly expressed his opposition to any sort of violent revolution and advocated instead the gradual reformation (often termed "regeneration" in his writings) of society from the bottom up, beginning with the individual and the family and from there gradually reforming other spheres of authority, including the church and the state.

So, already the novel has departed from what real-life Reconstructionists have said.

From "The Handmaid's Tale":

In this society, human rights are severely limited and women's rights are strictly curtailed. For example, women are forbidden to read . . . . [W]omen are forcibly assigned to produce children for the ruling class and are known as "handmaids", based on the biblical story of Rachel and her handmaid Bilhah.

. . . Finally, [Republic of Gilead Commander Fred Waterford] gives [the handmaid] lingerie and takes her to a government-run brothel called Jezebel's. This brothel is meant to add variety to men's sex lives which, as claimed by the Commander, is necessary.

Wow. I don't know about brothels, but that first bit looks to me like life under the Taliban; meanwhile, the Wikipedia article is pretty short on citations to anything a real-life Reconstructionist ever said. And considering that Reconstructionists want to restore the rules and punishments of Leviticus 20, I would be surprised to find any of them sanctioning brothels.

Also, in the news:

Joseph Fiennes, who stars as the brutal Commander Fred Waterford on "The Handmaid's Tale," [a Hulu television series based on the novel] is opening up about how the Hulu series mirrors the news headlines. The actor talked about parallels between the show and real life during a new interview with Tanya Rivero on CBSN.

For example, one recent storyline focused on family separations even as protests erupted over immigrant families being separated at the U.S. border. "Our writers are clairvoyant," Fiennes said. "I think our writers, like Margaret Atwood and Bruce Miller, our showrunner, have really tapped into something extraordinary, creatively, and tapping into the energy and psyche of society the way they do has sort of brought about a parallel between our show and what's happening."

I'm not sure how much seriousness this deserves. On the one hand, Fiennes is obviously an idiot, but to play along for a moment, let's point out the irony. Proponents of immigration are quite specifically attempting to mandate a fundamentalist interpretation of Leviticus 19:33-34. Granted, most of this is in bad faith, but Gary North is apparently also against immigration control, so the Reconstructionists are consistent. Otherwise, I will show you a thousand people who will quote from Leviticus 19 to support immigration for every one that quotes Leviticus 20 in support of stoning homosexuals.

But this is over-thinking it. The TV series exists only as a vehicle for the left to project their fantasies onto the rest of us, and it uses whatever their obsession du jour happens to be.

Thursday, July 19, 2018

Safety vs. Status: a Thought Experiment

Scott Alexander has a couple of outstanding posts on one of his favorite themes: the application of the fact-value distinction to matters of public controversy. Scott's general thesis is that many people assert with insufficient warrant that what separates the adversaries in these matters is a difference in fundamental values beyond the reach of reason rather than a difference in their knowledge of various facts. They further assert that since reason can't persuade anyone away from fundamental values, debate is pointless if not counter-productive, and that the only proper course of action is to apply as much force as possible against their opponents: restrict, harass, and shame them by legal and/or extra-legal means at every opportunity. It is this chain of reasoning that gives us the Social Justice Warrior.

Scott illustrates this with a Socratic dialogue between Sophisticus, who argues for fundamental value differences, and Simplicio, who argues that discerning the difference is actually pretty hard in practice, and in any case doesn't always yield meaningful policy differences. (Please read the entire article. Scott's mind operates at a higher level than mine usually does, so my summary of the discussion may be inadequate.) Sophisticus and Simplicio illustrate their differences with two examples: the moral vs information bearing use of the word "lazy", and the appropriate approach to the use of punishment in reducing crime.

My post is somewhat orthogonal to Scott's point in that I want to challenge a point on which Sophisticus and Simplicio appear to agree. Excerpting is hard (again, read the whole thing), but this exchange seems to capture their agreement:

Sophisticus: Oh, I know what you’re going to say. You’re going to say this is just a factual difference between me and the pro-punishment faction. They believe, as a matter of fact, that bad conditions discourage crime extra effectively, since some criminals who would be willing to take the risk of a nice Scandinavian-style prison would be scared off by a dark overheated cage. And I agree this is a possible axis on which people can differ, and that if you proved to me that this was true I could be persuaded to reconsider my views. But I have talked to people who have literally said the words “I don’t care how much it discourages crime or not, I want criminals to suffer.”

Simplicio: Okay. I agree that’s good evidence for your view.

Sophisticus: You…do? Really? I won one of these? REALLY?!

Simplicio: I guess.

Sophisticus: So you admit sometimes there are fundamental value differences?

Simplicio: Sometimes, yeah, I guess. But I want to be really careful with this. Humans are adaptation-executors, not fitness-maximizers. Only one person in a thousand could give the principled consequentialist defense of criminal justice that you’re giving here. The game theory necessary to understand the defense is only a few decades or centuries old, depending on how exactly you define it – but even chimpanzees need to discourage defectors. Since evolution couldn’t cram the whole principled consequentialist defense into a chimpanzee brain, it just gave us the urge to punish.


Basically, Sophisticus is arguing that while it is appropriate that punishments should be carefully calibrated to deter crime, it is not appropriate to use them to satisfy our base instinct for revenge. Simplicio counters that the base instinct may in fact deliver better calibration than an explicit calculation, and even when it doesn't, it's easier to remember. But he appear to stipulate that, yes, the rational point is to reduce crime.

Let me propose a thought experiment.

Suppose I give you a choice between two societies in which you may live. In Society One, you have, in any given year, a 1% chance of being a victim of a crime. (For those of you good at math, you can calculate from this that you have only about a 50-50 chance of experiencing crime in your lifetime.) For the purposes of our thought experiment, let's limit the class of crime to the non-crippling: e.g., you could be assaulted but not murdered or paralyzed; you could be raped but not mutilated or impregnated; your house could be burglarized but not burnt, and in any case you have insurance that caps your out-of-pocket loss to the deductible.

However, let's assume that in Society One, when and if you DID become a victim of a crime, you knew: that law enforcement would make no effective effort to protect you or punish those who had injured you; that you yourself were forbidden from using any violence to either prevent the crime or punish your attackers; that you would subsequently see the criminals walking around the neighborhood with impugnity, suffering no legal, physical or social punishment; that when you spoke of being a crime victim, everyone who's opinion mattered would shrug, or tell you to "get over it", or recommend that you "lie back and enjoy it".

Now let's consider Society Two. Here your annual personal risk of crime is double what it is in Society One: 2%. (Those of you good at math will quickly calculate that you will probably experience crime at some point in your life.) In contrast to Society One, however, when and if you become a victim, you know: that law enforcement will do everything it can to catch the criminals; that personanges of recognized high status -- clergy, politicians, etc. -- will visit you, shake your hand, offer their deepest sympathy and pledge their assistance; and that if you personally use violence to resist or punish your assailant, that use will be celebrated.

In which society would you choose to live?

You might observe that I'm basically describing a low social status person and high social status person in each society, and reply that status is a reliable predictor of having access to nice things: food, love, sex, and yes, physical safety. And this is certainly true in the real world. I'm offering you a hypothetical where you are asked to explicity trade status (specifically as a crime victim) for increased physical safety. Or vice-versa.

You might still reply as a fitness-maximizer: that in a world where community support, reliable law enforcement, and rights to self-defense did NOT reduce crime and our individual risk to it, then those things would be irrational and should be traded away for lower crime. Or you might say that in such a world, the value we place on those things would be de-selected for, evolutionarily speaking. But again, that's not exactly what I asked. I'm asking you, personally, given full knowledge of the scenario above but also given your own personal impulses, to make a trade-off.

This thought experiment is somewhat analogous to sex. Everyone (that I know of) agrees that the reason (if "reason" be the right word) that humans enjoy sex is that sex is the way the race got propagated. Exactly zero of us (that I know of) foreswear non-reproductive sex for that reason. Likewise, I may know that the sense of satisfaction I get from having my status reaffirmed by my community specifically by seeing them seek punishment (or "revenge", or "justice") against those who have unlawfully injured me is an evolved response that reduces my overall risk of victimization, thereby increasing my "adaptive fitness" or whatever, but I don't really care, and neither do you, probably. Even if you think you do, you probably don't have much personal experience with crime.

That said, I will allow that different people will make the trade-off at different points. In my experiment, I minimized both the severity and frequency of crime, while dramatizing the loss of status. We could change these ratios such that far fewer of us would pay the price in victimization that the affirmation cost us.

So let me offer a real-world example, one that involves some controversy. I will assert the following fact:

At no point in history, from our earliest settlements to the present, did the material circumstances of American blacks not exceed those of their counterparts in sub-Saharan Africa by any objective measure.


I concede this is a bold statement. Even a right-wing, racial-realist like me knows that the black American experience involved some pretty tough times: slavery obviously, but also lynching, poverty, crime, you-name-it. My argument is that this must be measured against the black African experience, which in my estimate is a non-stop story of pestilence, disease, famine, starvation, tribal massacres, and getting stomped into yogurt by elephants. Now, an economic historian might be able to compare some particular moment of African flourishing, say 19th century Ethiopia, with the condition of Mississippi slaves and sharecroppers during that time and find the latter wanting. Maybe this is true. But I will stand by the generality that the actual physical circumstances of American blacks on average has been much better than that of sub-Saharan African blacks. (I exempt from this consideration the Atlantic passage itself, which by all accounts was uniquely horrible.)

And yet . . . very few American blacks, and very very few blacks whose thoughts on the matter get broadcast on teevee, are especially appreciative of this fact. Some of this is a function of incentives: there is no money, power, or status derived from being appreciative of anything, not in our present society, not for minorities. Part of it is that we none of us compare ourselves to distant peoples, we only compare ourselves to those around us: no African peasant thinks much about Americans in our SUVs, he only knows that he has one goat and his neighbor has two and that isn't fair.

But part of this lack of appreciation is that material circumstances, beyond a certain threshold, are not the total of our sense of well-being. There is something especially galling about the low status of slavery and Jim Crow, independent of its material effects. So it matters little that you ate better on a Virginia plantation than in the African bush; in the bush, you could hunt as you willed, while in Virginia you did as your taskmaster told. It matters little that, say, slave-rape was a minority taste; you knew that it might happen, and if it did, you could not resist, and no one would resist on your behalf. It matters little that far more blacks were murdered by fellow blacks in New York City during the Dinkins administration than during the entire history of lynching; what matters is that if a white person made an accusation against you, there would be no appeals to law or process.

If any of this sounds familiar, it's because I specifically modeled my description of Society One, above, on an account I read of life in the South before the Civil Rights era. Which brings my point full-circle. Few of us, and exactly zero calling themselves "progressives", expect comparisons to life in Africa to inspire much in the way of gratitude from the descendants of slaves. So we shouldn't really expect appeals to "fitness maximization" to substitute for punishment for its own sake, not to the satisfaction of the vast majority of people, including me.

Friday, June 15, 2018

Now on Netflix: "Eye-baby Redux"

The article about Pensacola Christian College, "A College That's Strictly Different", is now behind The Chronicle of Higher Education's paywall, but we can still find excerpts:

Even couples who are not talking or touching can be reprimanded. Sabrina Poirier, a student at Pensacola who withdrew in 1997, was disciplined for what is known on the campus as "optical intercourse" — staring too intently into the eyes of a member of the opposite sex. This is also referred to as "making eye babies." While the rule does not appear in written form, most students interviewed for this article were familiar with the concept.


But that was back in the heady days of 2006! Oh, how the worm hath turned:

Netflix film crews 'banned from looking at each other for longer than five seconds' in #metoo crackdown


In reference to PCC's antagonists, I wrote back in 2011:

[They] are not motivated by a concern for due process, for which they evince no particular attachment. It is the rules themselves that they object to . . .

That now looks a trifle naive. I don't think they care for either due process or the specific content of the rules nearly as much as who is making them and by what authority. If that authority is Christianity, then the rules are ipso facto odious. But if the authority is feminism, then they must be met with approbation, and of course blind obedience.

Parenthetically, I discovered that the government's web filter has categorized Academy Watch as "hate-and-racism", which makes properly citing my own work a little difficult. Post subject to revision . . .



Sunday, February 04, 2018

A Golden Age of Serial Killers

I re-watched the excellent 2007 movie Zodiac last night, and wondered: what ever happened to serial killers? From my childhood (Wayne Williams) to my young adulthood (Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer), serial killers loomed large in my imagination. But with few exceptions (John Allen Mohammed), the serial murderers since then haven't made much of an impression on my consciousness, and some that did (Eileen Wourmos) only did so because they got movies. Was it my imagination, or did serial killing take a dive in popularity after, I dunno, the Columbine Massacre or 9/11?

Short answer: not really.

I turned to the Wikipedia page on Serial Killers and copy/pasted the table into Excel. I divided the "Proven Victims" column by years active to get a murders/year for each murderer or gang (this involved deleting duplicate entries in the table for each know member of the gang; each gang should only be counted once, though of course I could have missed some duplicates). I then summed up the murders / year for each year and produced the following graph:

With the exception of a spike in the 1930s almost exclusively the work of the Philadelphia Poison Ring, the serial killer phenomenon looks to be, basically, a product of the 1960s - 1980s crime wave, and the decline since seems to track the overall decline in violent crime since the mid-1990s. There doesn't seem to have been any noticeable impact of a single event as I had expected.

But that still leaves unexplained why even the extent serial killers don't really make much of an impression on me. Maybe I just stopped watching the news, or perhaps popular culture has moved on, or perhaps its just a numbers game: fewer serial killers make for fewer stars in the business. Thoughts?

Sunday, January 07, 2018

I Hate the Cable Company.

I'm writing to complain about Time Warner Cable, a.k.a Spectrum.

Here is a graph of my payments to Time Warner Cable over the last 10 years:


A few words of explanation:

  • The momentary dip around October 2008 was an outage in the wake of a severe storm, in compensation of which TWC didn't charge us for a week.
  • The precipitous drop in September 2011 was when, while I was between jobs, I called the cable company and told them that I could no longer afford their services. I don't remember if I had to visit the TWC office with DVR in hand, but they came through with the reduction shown.

  • The drop in November 2015 was when, in the wake of the Donald Sterling controversy, I permanently cancelled the television portion of my cable service, retaining only my internet service and digital phone line.

The rest of the fluctuations mostly represent TWC's policy of steadily ratcheting up the prices over time -- or, in their telling, the expiration of various "promotional" pricing. It's an application of the "frog in a frying pan" metaphor to price discrimination: Raise rates slowly, and most customers won't complain. But when a customer does complain, reset to the discounted price.

But sometimes the complaint has to be firm. It was not enough a year ago to merely call TWC about the $15/month increase: they stood firm over the phone, and I was that frog. But when I got around to opening this month's bill to discover another $16 increase, I drove 20 minutes in the snow, stood in line for an additional 20 minutes, dropped my modem on the TWC desk and said: "Cancel it." Why, underpaid customer service rep asked. "Because you raised my rates," I replied with admirable self-control. Can I see if there is anything I can do for you? "Make me an offer."

So staring yesterday I'll be paying what I paid in 2016. I have a brand new modem and substantially faster upload speeds.

But this is an ethically dubious business model. I suppose there are people paying exorbitant cable rates because they are rich enough that the bill falls below the noise level of their expenditures. I might even be close to that level of wealth myself, had I not come from a background where there is no such thing as a "noise level" with respect to spending money. But mainly, I believe TWC is basically taking advantage of people who are too old, working too long hours, too confrontation-averse, and/or too trusting in large institutions to give them a fair deal at a fair price.

In my case, it wasn't the money that chafed; AT&T wasn't going to charge me substantially less than TWC, and there would be some service trade-offs. What made me angry enough to stand in that line was the perceived disrespect: We'll charge you more because we can, and because we're betting you're an idiot. I guess I'm still enough of a Southerner for my personal honor to find itself at stake in those situations.

I'm just not sure that's a personality trait that should be rewarded at the expense of social trust and confrontation aversion.

Thursday, December 28, 2017

Guest Post: "The Seeds of Social Justice"

The following is a guest post by Γ1, based on her observations of public high school status hierarchies.

Over the years of my educational career, I’ve seen a lot of stuff. Cloistered, as I am, in the lovely town of [Lilly-white Φ-ville], my experience is admittedly limited in certain regards but I’ve been treated to the general picture, albeit gentrified. Seeing as I myself am somewhat of an observer of trends, these years have allowed me to analyze how upper middle class children grow up. I’ve watched as the minds of my peers were carefully cultivated into political correctness and I’ve watched as the dissidents attempted (poorly I might add) to break free of it. Looking back on what I’ve been through so far, it’s amusing to see how things have panned out.

Of course the most obvious and perhaps the most depressing thing to watch is how true the things my father told me turned out to be. As a homeschooler, I couldn’t believe that people could spend so much time on diversity, an entity held up as an idol for many of these people. Yet, as I sat through one English class after another on how evil white people were, I began to accept my fate. Every single one of my classmates ate it up without issue and any and all attempts at questioning this narrative were largely silenced. Whether that was through my own inability to articulate my points or my teacher’s loyalty to the agenda, I’ll never know.

Throughout the next four years, I continued to be treated a wonderful selection of anti-white propaganda wherever it could be squeezed in. Whether it was English where almost every book was another attempt to browbeat us into submission, or it was History, where we must have learned about slavery a dozen times as well as a smattering of other instances of white’s oppressing one group or another, there was plenty of progressive narrative to go around. I spoke out where I could, against mass immigration, against diversity, and against whatever new thing we were expected to swallow. For the most part however, I kept my head down.

I was quite interested in not ending up as an unmentionable, after all.

Instead of railing against the status quo, I observed. Due to the type of school I attend, politics is a very real thing that people care about. We are, after all, the one percent. Thanks to the accomplishments of our parents, we can spend less time avoiding being murdered in gang warfare and more time talking about the failures of the latest political figure. Seeing as my ideas weren’t truly formed yet as well as not exactly being PC, I didn’t try to engage with many of my peers. I did however listen to them. The split within my grade was almost comical in its clarity.

The jocks were the stupid republicans who had no idea what they were on about. This was okay, naturally, because they were the jocks and people tolerated them, much like one tolerates a stupid, yet adorable pet. The kind that runs into walls and is slightly cross-eyed.

The popular, yet more artistically minded people were without fail the cool liberals who were obviously more reasonable than those jocks. They weren’t too annoying, until election time rolled around and they felt like everyone needed to hear their opinion of the world. Generally though, they were able to expel much of their teenage angst through expressive paintings and the drama club.

As you strayed from the sphere of popularity, you found the more normal, middling sort of children. As the majority, these were the people who knew enough to not talk politics because why would anyone listen? You could never be quite sure about those people and they’d often abstain from discussions to maintain that image. It was a survival tactic in and of itself and if one got too far out of line, they tended to be excommunicated swiftly and silently. Cruel, but I respect the skill. Of course, there were tells, but in the end they were a pretty even split, with friend groups being mixed crowds of moderates that weren’t into politics enough to care yet or were at least determined to appear that way.

Then there were the very bottom crowd. The dregs if you will. Those who were either not cool enough to make it into a better spot on the social ladder or those that, in an attempt to be hipster, abstained from a spot on the ladder altogether. This, unfortunately, was where I was.

Of course I can’t complain, I chose to be there intentionally. I was almost recruited by several groups when I first got to school, including both sides of the popular crowd. At the time however, I didn’t understand the opportunities being offered to me so I stayed away. I didn’t want the social responsibilities that came with popularity and ended up compromising on political hegemony. But these are, as they say, the breaks.

For the most part, the people who I called my friends didn’t care about politics. They were too busy trying to kill themselves to care who was the current party in power. Uncharitable, yes, but accurate nonetheless. Up until eighth grade, I never heard word one about politics from any of them. The massive coalition of people that formed what I considered a decent group to be around. The nerds who would eventually split off, the losers, who somehow managed to stick around, and the hipsters, who made up the central tenant of people, all of these people were what I called friends.

And then eighth grade rolled around and boy, did I not see it coming.

Suddenly people started caring about politics. The gamers and the nerds mostly spilt off at this point, probably uninterested in anything but their video games and honors math classes. Those who were left over, the hipsters and the losers, who eventually became one and the same (there’s probably a lesson to be had there…), were almost entirely liberal. But they weren’t just liberal, no, they were Socialist or Communist or even, and there were only a few of these, Anarchists. They never bothered to argue topics of the day, no, all these bourgeois children cared to discuss was the plight of the working class, a section of society they had only ever seen through the tinted windows of their mother’s newest Volvo.

This was something I endured, mostly because it was amusing. I never imagined that all these ridiculous ideologies that never worked anyway, would actually continue to hold sway over people that I had up until then believed to be logical and cynical. Naturally, I had underestimated the power of wealthy idiocy.

Because as everyone knows, it’s always the rich people who are the craziest. They can afford to be.

But I didn’t have to deal with much of it because I left and thus was removed from the heart of this insanity. As I continue to keep in contact with these people however, while at the same time becoming increasingly more aware of the state of our society, particularly the Social Justice movement, I notice a terrifying trend.

Those kids that I had left had now become, without exception, Social Justice Warriors. The indoctrination started young and it started slow but it started under my nose nonetheless. Like the creep of parasitic vines along a healthy tree, the roots of regressive leftism slowly worked their way into those kids I once called my friends.

At the bottom, they had, or at least believed they had, nothing to make them different or special. It was in the fabled eighth grade that it started. One of my friends came out as gay. No one saw it coming, but it heralded a greater movement. Little by little the rot started creeping in. That’s when the socialists and the commies showed up but at the same time, many of the girls started identifying as feminists. Then a large figure of the coalition of losers came out as polyamorous and pansexual before starting to date a girl. Others suddenly realized they were Trans and by the time I was leaving to be homeschooled again, they had just welcomed in the only fat black girl of our school into their fold.

It took me a year to realize what they had become, but then I was seeing it. A group of people who used to be the losers, were suddenly known as the people who, given the opportunity, would rant on about the oppression inherent in the system till your ears fell off. It was horrifying and a miracle that I survived at all.

As I look over it, it occurs to me that I bore witness to something that is often overlooked. While fingers can be pointed at the school system for brainwashing the children, that isn’t exactly the whole story. It starts with the kids who don’t know how to stand out in a socially acceptable way. As they attempt to fit that weirdness into something a little more acceptable, they find things like the LGBTQ+ spectrum and Feminism, things that allow them to be different. Suddenly, celebrated by the popular liberals who want to say the right things so they can continue to be the in crowd, these former losers discover how far you can get just by believing in a certain thing. This leads them to turn these identities into personalities. The fact that the stupid dumb I can’t believe they even manage to be popular jocks make fun of them only strengthens their belief that they’re doing the right thing. By the end, they’ve learned to turn oppression into currency and acceptance into a weapon.

Now I don’t pretend to know how to stop this. Heck, I probably don’t even fully understand how it happens. In Lilywhitevill where nothing bad ever happens, I can only see my school. But for what I can see, I can guarantee that this is how it happens. How the losers find somewhere to belong in the Cult of Social Justice.

I’m honestly just glad I survived.

Wednesday, December 06, 2017

Random Thoughts on Weinsteingate

I must confess that, while reading SSC's post on Overgendering Harassment, to having a what-was-he-wearing reaction to the problem of female-on-male sexual harassment along the lines I have written about here, for instance. This isn't to say that I think specific cases are funny or sexy; on the contrary, the account of one of Scott's commenters is genuinely harrowing. But it's rather like listening to someone complain how awful the jetlag is on their annual vacation to Maui: dude, you have an annual vacation to Maui? I managed to provoke almost zero interest, even from unattractive girls, until age 27, and even today, my median social experience with women-not-my-wife is passing them in the hallway as they decline to make so much as eye contact. Now I will admit that I should be more comfortable than I tend to be with my mix of trade-offs; after all, my romantic life eventually turned out well, with a happy marriage to a loving and faithful woman. But let me turn the question around: which of these male victims would trade places with me: no sexual harassment, and also no dating, let alone sex, for ten years after high school, during which you will have no assurance that things will ever get better?

For that matter, I suppose I could ask female victims of harassment the same question. And I understand that there are good reasons why the psychic toll of sexual harassment is greater on the median woman than it is on the median man. But, what if her ratio of wanted and unwanted sexual interest were fixed, and she could only control the overall frequency. Would she really pick zero of both?

It is satisfying to see high-profile Democrats (suddenly) held to the same standards that the rest of us have been living under for 25 years. That doesn't change the fact that those standards are mostly stupid. They were stupid at Tailhook and the Clarence Thomas hearings, and they are stupid today.

The conduct at issue the last couple of months is all over the severity map. On the one extreme we have Weinstein and Conyers, who (it is alleged) backed up their appetites with an elaborate system of rewards and punishments, blackmail and payoff. In the middle we have Spacey and the Frankengroper, who, at a minimum, assumed far more than was warranted about their own attractiveness; and, at maximum, committed assault. But by the time we get to, say, Garrison Keillor, I don't actually have a problem with imposing the burden on women (or men) to say, "please don't do that". But unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view), Weinsten's Caligula-level depravity anchored the issue in the public mind. So now all of them are having their statues pulled down, their parks and schools renamed.

We might have hoped for a new consensus: "zero-tolerance for sexual assault" is to apply a dumb-as-rocks policy to a weaselly category. But that doesn't look very likely at present.