Ultimate Trust

     Yes, America has a trust problem. That’s hardly news. But the extent of the thing needs to be probed more deeply than it has been by typical social commentators.

     This morning on X / Twitter, the estimable Black Dumpling asks a question whose quiet horror can never be exceeded:

The Lindsay Clancy saga has opened up a new question within me... one I've never really wanted to ask myself but now I am forced to.

Can women be trusted with children?

I know you think I'm just taking the piss here, but I'm not asking for the shock value. I'm doing the math… pic.twitter.com/El4ArxSa3R

— BLACK DUMPLING™ (@BlackDumpling) August 13, 2026

     You know why she’s asked that. You’ve read about the motherly massacres of minor kids. There’ve been a fair number of them, these past few years. The Lindsay Clancy case is only the most recent.

     Is it possible that in today’s hyper-stressful milieu, we can’t trust women with the care and protection of their own children? The pressures on American women today do exceed those of previous eras. Has the dominant pattern of this era, which combines motherhood with wage labor, brought us too close to the edge of what women can bear? Granted that the Lindsay Clancys and the Susan Smiths are nowhere near being representative of American mothers, are such cases telling us something we need to know?

     There’s a rush to judgment in such cases. It splits along a definite if invisible line: exculpative sympathy for the woman on one side; demonization on the other. But little thought goes to the forces that loom behind the decision to bear children in our time.

     Say what you please about women’s liberation, the have-it-all messaging, and whatnot: women are still expected to become mothers. It’s always been that way. Yet we know that some women are unsuited to motherhood, just as some men are unsuited to fatherhood. Women already occupied with wage labor, when pressed to bear and nurture children, face a large burden that not every woman can bear. And that is the prevalent pattern in America today.

     If you’re concerned with plummeting First World fertility rates, the first place to look for the causes is that burden.

     I could go on at length about this. It touches many other aspects of contemporary American life. Hans G. Schantz delineated a few of them:

     “Now couples need to have two careers to support a typical modern lifestyle. We can’t tax the labor in a home-cooked meal. We can tax the labor in takeout food, or the higher cost of a microwave dinner. The economic potential of both halves of the adult population now largely flows into the government where it can serve noble ends instead of petty private interests....

     “The Earth can’t accommodate many more people at a reasonable standard of living. We’re running out of resources. We have to manage and control our population. That’s the real motive behind the women’s movement. Once a women’s studies program convinces a gal she’s a victim of patriarchal oppression, how likely is it she’s going to overcome her indoctrination to be able to bond long enough with a guy to have a big family? If she does get careless with a guy, she’ll probably just have an abortion....

     “All those Career-Oriented Gals are too busy seeking social approval and status at the office to be out starting families and raising kids. They’re encouraged to have fun, be free spirits., and experiment with any man who catches their fancy....And by the time all those COGs are in their thirties and ready to try to settle down and have kids, they’re past their prime. Their fertility peaks in their twenties. It’s all downhill from there....

     “In another generation, we’ll have implemented our own version of China’s One-Child-Per-Couple policy without the nasty forced abortions and other hard repressive policies which people hate. What’s more, there’ll be fewer couples because so many young people will just be hedonistically screwing each other instead of settling down and making families. Makes me wish I were young again, like you, to take full advantage of it. The net effect is we’ll enter the great contraction and begin shrinking our population to more controllable levels....

     Yes: the above is couched in conspiratorial / social engineering terms. That was Hans’s intent in writing his series. And I’m not going to pooh-pooh it. The evidence is consistent with that thesis. But whether or not there is / was conscious intent behind the socioeconomic changes that brought us here, the gravity of the situation cannot be denied.

     It would be salutary for a real pro-woman-as-woman movement to arise. One which:

• Promotes the critical importance of motherhood;
• Recognizes that motherhood is a function that women alone can fulfill;
• Discourages women from accepting duties that conflict with motherhood;
• Discourages husbands from expecting their wives to accept any such duties;
• Reasserts the primacy of the family as the foundation of a stable and healthy society.

     For motherhood is what women are designed for. If there are exceptions, they must be treated as such. They must not be promoted as ideals for women to strive toward.

     We didn’t ask questions like Black Dumpling’s before women entered the workplace. It’s terrifying that it deserves sober consideration today.

In Praise Of Ordinary Life

     Recently, I read the following from a supposedly sane and well-balanced young woman:

     “I want to marry the man who gets more excited about my birthday than I do.”
     “I want a man who plans little surprises to make my eyes light up.”
     “I want a man who never treats my joy as an inconvenience.”
     “I want a man who asks how my day is and actually waits for the answer.”
     “I want a man who celebrates my wins louder than anyone else.”
     “I want a man who is proud of me on the days I’m not proud of myself.”
     “I want a man who knows I like my coffee sweet.”
     “I want a man who warms up the car while I tie my shoes.”
     “I want a man who hears me talk about my dreams and then turns them into plans.”
     “I want a man who chooses ‘us’ even when life gets loud.”
     “I want a man who makes ordinary moments feel like magic.”

     That wish list drew a lot of negative commentary. Of course, wish lists are often impractical, but the impractical ones are usually materially oriented. This one demands a fantasy creature for a mate. But, as my favorite late-night TV philosopher has said, wait: there’s more.

     The fantasy mate is expected to deliver a fantasy existence as well.

     I can only speak for myself, but I’m unaware of anyone who enjoys a magical life. Even the very rich have fairly ordinary lives. Granted that they may do less housework than the rest of us. Even so they rise in the morning, spend their days dealing with the necessities of their lives, retire to bed in the evening, sleep through the night, and – if they’re really fortunate – rise the next day to do it again.

     And what on Earth is wrong with that?

---

     Many may dream of a life filled with adventure, excitement, and reward:

     I didn't want to go back to school, win, lose, or draw. I no longer gave a damn about three-car garages and swimming pools, nor any other status symbol or "security." There was no security in this world and only damn fools and mice thought there could be.
     Somewhere back in the jungle I had shucked off all ambition of that sort. I had been shot at too many times and had lost interest in supermarkets and exurban subdivisions and tonight is the PTA supper don't forget dear you promised.
     Oh, I wasn't about to hole up in a monastery. I still wanted—
     What did I want?
     I wanted a Roc's egg. I wanted a harem loaded with lovely odalisques less than the dust beneath my chariot wheels, the rust that never stained my sword. I wanted raw red gold in nuggets the size of your fist and feed that lousy claim jumper to the huskies! I wanted to get up feeling brisk and go out and break some lances, Then pick a likely wench for my droit du seigneur—I wanted to stand up to the Baron and dare him to touch my wench! I wanted to hear the purple water chuckling against the skin of the Nancy Lee in the cool of the morning watch and not another sound, nor any movement save the slow tilling of the wings of the albatross that had been pacing us the last thousand miles.
     I wanted the hurtling moons of Barsoom. I wanted Storisende and Poictesme, and Holmes shaking me awake to tell me, "The game's afoot!" I wanted to float down the Mississippi on a raft and elude a mob in company with the Duke of Bilgewater and the Lost Dauphin.
     I wanted Prester John, and Excalibur held by a moon-white arm out of a silent lake. I wanted to sail with Ulysses and with Tros of Samothrace and eat the lotus in a land that seemed always afternoon. I wanted the feeling of romance and the sense of wonder I had known as a kid. I wanted the world to be what they had promised me it was going to be—instead of the tawdry, lousy, fouled-up mess it is.

     ...but such are dreams. Such are the inventions of professional fantasists. Were it otherwise, there’d be no market for fantasy.

     Nobody promises anyone such an existence. A good thing, too. It would be next to impossible to deliver on such a promise.

     Some soldiers sometimes have excitement-filled lives. For a few years, anyway. Ask them what it costs. Don’t forget to factor in those who paid the ultimate price.

     Ordinary American life, with all its compromises, frustrations, and vicissitudes, is the best bargain going.

---

     The dreams of young women are often extravagant. The young – both sexes – are like that. But there’s a shortage of unmarried handsome princes just now. (Please don’t demand a government program to address the shortfall!) And even the handsomest princes usually come unequipped with magical powers.

     Time was, women – even young women – understood that. They aspired not to adventure, excitement, and the life of a fantasy princess, but to love, comfort, and security. They knew from the start that what they sought would demand work, prioritization of desires, and prudence in their choices. They thrilled to the “demon lovers” they found between the covers of gaudily decorated paperbacks, just as do contemporary American women – but they knew that between those covers was where they must remain.

     It appears that something has gone wrong with the upbringings of young American women. I haven’t raised any myself, so rather than discourse further on it, or prescribe a method for its remediation, I believe I’ll stop here.

The Feminization Of The West

     I’ve had this article in my Future Columns folder for a week, and have just returned to it. I originally saved it both from admiration for its frankness and from a desire to think over what I might say to amplify its thesis. After a week’s contemplation, I’ve reached a conclusion: not much. It’s that good.

     The core of the thing is the general displacement of reason – decisions based on logic and evidence – by emotion. The author delineates a number of developments that brought about that displacement. It’s connected to the efforts to “diversify” various occupations, especially journalism, entertainment, education, and law. That gave rise to cadres of women in those occupations that would habitually make decisions and render judgments based on the consensus about how the matters under judgment made them feel.

     Emotion is a poor substitute for rational analysis, especially when it’s elevated above the facts. Thus, this feminization of critical specialties and institutions has resulted in many injustices. Author Helen Andrews is candid about this devolution. She does a good job at connecting feminization to the “wokeness” plague. However, she fumbles at the conclusion:

     Thankfully, I don’t think solving the feminization problem requires us to shut any doors in women’s faces. We simply have to restore fair rules.

     But wait just a second: The sexes differ on what’s meant by fair. Now that the feminization of so many important institutions is an accomplished fact, who will decide what fair really means? Will it be the logic-and-evidence, performance-oriented men, or the emotion-oriented, make-sure-everyone-feels-good women? And even should men prevail in the argument, is it likely that women will go along with it in practice? We can’t just flush them out of the power positions they’ve attained. Imagine the howls that would arise should the men start overruling the women repeatedly, even regularly!

     Men often give in to women simply for a little peace. It’s as commonplace in the boardroom as in the home. Women know that and use it. So the restoration of reason supreme over emotion will require men to “cowboy up:” to learn once again to stand firm despite the punishments women can inflict on men, and so endure them. It’s possible that the feminization of our society has progressed too far for that to happen without first suffering a rash of convulsive institutional failures.

     Please read the whole column and form your own conclusions.

Probabilities And Prerequisites

     In my morning ramble around the Web, I’ve encountered several disbelieving voices, all of them wondering “out loud” why any of the Senators who voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court would call the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford “credible,” or would feel sympathy for her. In all probability Ford, who has been shown to have lied on several counts, made her story up. She might have believed it – a pathological liar can convince himself of anything – but the likelihood that Brett Kavanaugh was involved in an assault on her (or any other woman) is effectively zero. So why all the comments to the contrary, especially from those who chose to believe and support Kavanaugh?

     Simply stated, it’s become a prerequisite of contemporary politics that if a woman claims to have been abused by a man, you must never, ever call her a liar, even if she’s in the very act of telling you that the Sun shines black. Moreover, no matter how convinced you are that she’s lying consciously and with malice aforethought, you must express sympathy for her “pain.” That much perversion of our political culture, the feminists have already achieved.

     The ironies run deep here, but that’s a subject for another day.

     Women were granted the franchise in 1920. Since then, American political tendencies have trended ever more toward the absolute prioritization of women’s emotions: acknowledging them, sympathizing with them, and assuaging them, regardless of the truth or falsity of the underlying claims. This has been the rule even in some cases where a national interest of great importance was at stake – and that interest had to be demoted to second place to pander to the feelings of women.

     There are more women than men registered to vote in these United States. No politician can afford to forget that, even for an instant.

---

     This very morning the great Chris Muir has allowed one of his premier characters – a man, of course – to express the logical conclusion that arises from the above observations:

     This is becoming a widely shared sentiment. That has nothing to do with the love or hatred for women. It’s a statement about the correlation noted in the above segment.

     The Left, being interested in power and nothing else, has made it a guiding principle of its strategy to cultivate and enlist:

1. Women’s groups;
2. Groups dominated by women.

     Special interests that display either of the above characteristics have been fodder for the Left’s political machines. Few such groups concern themselves with some issue fundamental to the health of a Constitutional republic. Nearly all are emotion-dominated. They’ve done considerable harm, most of it through their support for left-liberal political agendas.

     Politicians on the Left are quick to promise you what you seek. They’re not always as quick to deliver. While the Progressives of the early Twentieth Century did make good on their guarantee to the Suffragettes that women would be granted the franchise, that was probably the best they’ve performed on such a promise. Consider the failure of the “Equal Rights” Amendment campaign for contrast.

     Public education is a good case for study. For some time women, being naturally more involved with the nurturance and upbringing of children, have displayed a greater interest than men in the improvement of primary and secondary education. They’re legitimately concerned with the travesty that’s called a “public school,” and have repeatedly backed politicians who’ve claimed to have that as their highest priority. But the connection is plainly an emotional one rather than a rational one, for what have politicians done to improve public education? They’ve increased the funding for public schools. Yet there has been no improvement in such systems. Indeed, the flood of dollars has been a contributing factor in their ongoing deterioration as interest groups squabble over the take, diverting attention and effort from the only legitimate purpose of juvenile education.

     Have women withdrawn their support of the aforementioned politicians? They have not. Quite the contrary: as the problems of public education have ramified and intensified, women’s support for left-wing politicians who promise to prioritize them has only increased. That should tell us something.

---

     There are no panaceas, and we should not imagine otherwise. Removing the franchise from women would not solve many, if any, of America’s persistent political problems. Many of those problems have embedded themselves in our national subconscious, in this fashion: “But we can’t!” That is to say: we can’t even entertain the possibility that this or that “compassionate” government initiative might have worsened the problem it purported to address. It would make us feel bad. Especially the women among us.

     No, today I’m here merely to note the correlations and to murmur “My, my! How strong they are!” About as strong as the correlation between socialism and impoverishment, or Islam and terrorism, or Democrats and the abuse of women. But those, too, are subjects for another day.

Preemptively Protecting Our Men

     The scurrilous barrage of vicious and implausible accusations the Left has mounted against Judge Brett Kavanaugh has achieved more than one remarkable result. The first and most conspicuous, of course, was the rise of Senator Lindsey Graham to alpha status. A second one, which really should have occurred well before this, was the surge of interest in just exactly how men might safeguard ourselves against similar assaults by vindictive women. That, of course, has been accompanied by a predictable renewal of interest in the wisdom of the late Billy Graham, which has most famously been adopted by Vice President Mike Pence.

     I expected the above. But one I didn’t expect appears at PJMedia, under Megan Fox’s byline.

     Fox’s article provides excellent advice to the parents of daughters, aimed at keeping them out of situations in which they might be abused or might succumb to an unwise impulse. It’s worth reading in its entirety, but its recommendations are neatly summarized in its four subheads:

1. Take her to church.
2. Teach her to be sober, wise, and chaste.
3. Get her self-defense training and teach her to shoot.
4. Fight like hell, get evidence, come forward, and LOCK THE BASTARD UP.

     I fully expect America’s shrieking feminists to assail Miss Fox brutally for her wisdom, especially for the following bit:

     Since everyone is fascinated by yearbooks, I recently took out one of mine and found this inscription by one of my friends: "If you mean no, don't dress like you mean yes!"

     After I chuckled, I thought about how far we've come from that very sound advice. It doesn't mean you deserve to get raped if you wear a mini-skirt. It doesn't mean that you have to be Amish either. What it does mean is that if you want to be respected then dress like it.

     Once upon a time this was broadly understood, by both men and women. The boundaries one wants others to note and respect are expressed in several ways. One of them is dress. There’s a contextual element to this, of course. No one but a Muslim expects a woman not to wear a swimsuit at the poolside. But going to a party that will serve alcohol and be populated by young persons of both sexes in a bikini is, to put it mildly, unwise. At the very least there’ll be “talk.”

     All that having been said, I must note the insight of Esteemed Co-Conspirator Linda Fox:

     My thinking on the Kavanaugh accusations by Ford are colored by my knowledge of women. With many (not all, but greater than 25%), it's more important that their victims SUFFER, than they receive full restitution.

     Let's put it this way:

     If a woman has a grudge against a man, and sees an opportunity to get him charged with a crime, she is more interested in finding a way for him to suffer, than to see him convicted.

     Gentle Reader, you won’t get such candor from many women, at least not in our time. It implies something very unpleasant for men, but impossible to refute:

Unless you’ve video-recorded your entire life,
You will always be vulnerable to a woman’s spite.

     That’s a fact, in this era of “#MeToo” and a man being deemed guilty of sexual misconduct upon a mere accusation. Remember the Scottsboro Boys? Remember what happened to Steven Pagones? Remember the “Duke Lacrosse” case and the young men whose reputations were despoiled by Crystal Gail Mangum, now in prison for second-degree murder?

     Men fight with physical weapons. Women fight with emotional weapons – and there’s nothing in their arsenal more potent than sexual slander. Ask any high school girls’ clique. Just now, the Left is heavily “feminized.” That has implications that men, especially prominent and wealthy men, must beware.

     No man is absolutely safe in a society that has weaponized the vicious edge of a woman’s tongue. That too is a fact: one men must resolve to endure until the current sexual-assault hysteria has damped down to pre-Weinstein levels.