Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Ladies Only--or--Why Women Are Not Running the World

Gentlemen, Pretty Lady is afraid she is going to have to ask all of you to look the other way today. Go look at pictures of sports cars, or fighter planes, or Anna Nicole Smith or something. Today she is only addressing the ladies. Thank you ever so much! Ta-ta!

All right, girls. Pretty Lady must have a very, very Serious Talk with you.

She sees, here and there, a certain amount of Carping about how Men are Keeping Us Down; how institutionalized sexism is the reason for low female wage rates, glass ceilings, and male-dominated industries and professions. She endures Sad Stories of hate speech on the Internet; she contemplates the ever-present threat of rape and sexual harassment. Confidentially, she is also aware that the boys have a bit of a head start on us, when it comes to World Domination, due to their superior upper-body strength, engineering skills, and low rates of maternity leave.

Let us take this as read; let Pretty Lady inform each and every one of you that Men are not our biggest problem. Women are.

Sit down and shut up. Pretty Lady is not Pandering. She sent the gentlemen out of the room, remember? She is merely telling it like it is. Women are going to have to learn some cold hard Facts about Power Politics, or we as a gender are Toast. She is sorry to be so harsh with you, but there it is.

The fact is, men know a few things besides incorporation, and how to fix a carburator. They know that to Maintain Power, other habits are necessary. Habits such as loyalty, competence, healthy competition, and the realistic nurturance of these things in the younger generations. They may shout, they may punch each other, but they take care of it in the alley and go out for a beer afterward.

Women, on the other hand, are never really satisfied until an inconvenient rival is divorced, bankrupt, unemployed, universally ostracized, and living on the streets with a bad haircut. Look into your souls, ladies. You know it's true.

Pretty Lady, in her own professional life, has noted over time that it has proven nearly impossible to find a Female Mentor. That is not because there are no older women in her profession, or that Pretty Lady lacks the competence to attract the attention of such; it merely means that when she does, she has had to Watch Her Back in a very big way. Without boring you with too many horror stories, let her break down her experience into a few basic categories of Poisonous Women to Watch Out For.

1) The Poisonous Professional.

This woman is one of the few women to have succeeded in a male-dominated profession, in the Early Days of Feminism, and by God, she's going to make sure it stays that way. Her demeanor is tough, competent, and reasonable, with an undercurrent of vicious rage. She surrounds herself with flamboyantly attractive younger men, and actively promotes their careers, in a motherly sort of way. Should any talented, hard-working young women take her class, work as her assistant, ask her to supervise their thesis, or request a recommendation, these young women will be treated with competent, reasonable, vicious dismissal.

2) The Poisonous Administrator.

This woman, thwarted by social pressures, timidity, and possibly an early encounter with the P.P. above, has ended up in the Development Department of the profession that she would never admit to wanting a starring role in. She is pretty, well-dressed, and charming; she is socially well-connected and consoles herself with the fact that she, at least, earns a steady paycheck. She is proud of the fact that she knows and supports so many talented young fellows, and is the center of attention when she goes with them to parties. When she meets a woman around her age who is still pursuing the Main Profession, she is charmed by that girl's sweet little hobby, and makes sure the grant goes to one of the boys.

3) The Callous Opportunist.

This woman will be your Best Friend. She works four jobs, never takes a vacation, maximizes her credit, and founds organizations in the same field as she stars in. She is a Phenomenon, and everybody says so. She will take and take and take, collapse in your living room, cry on your shoulder, then ditch you and stab you in the back.

4) The Smarmy Communist.

We're all sisters! We love each other! We support each other! We swap skills! We are all Equal! Her skills are valued at full retail markup, of course, while those of her sisters are calculated at discount wholesale, or better yet, free.

5) The Cool Girl.

She doesn't seem to have many female friends, somehow, she doesn't really know why. What was your name again?


Now. This is not to say that there are not splendid women out there; women who balance Support with Healthy Competition, who understand the delicate art of networking, who will listen understandingly when you are in crisis, applaud your successes, purchase your commodities, talk you up to important people, and write a feature article about you. They will edit your grant application, show up at your door with a pitcher of sangria, take you out to dinner when you are broke, and get you a massage for your birthday. These are the Flower of Womanhood, living proof that all is not lost; that women, with nurturance and training, will one day be capable of just about anything.

But first we have to kill those bitches.

37 comments:

Bobert said...

Totally off subject but:

"If he is elected President, Pretty Lady is changing her name, crossing the border and never coming back.

Which border?

Chris Rywalt said...

I didn't leave the room, I'm afraid, and heard every word. It's because I consider myself neuter in most contexts.

I can often be heard to riff on the idea of letting women be front-line soldiers. I'm against it, not because women are too delicate or because the male soldier will get distracted or jealous or anything dumb like that. I'm against it because women are simply too vicious and evil to let loose. Men will fight, and shoot each other, blow shit up, and all that crap, and then shake hands and go home. Women, I am convinced, would not stop until their enemies have been wiped from the Earth, their homes burned, the ashes plowed under, the ground salted, and the whole shebang irradiated.

I think women know this.

Crom said...

I could care less about fighter planes once I leave work, and I drive a truck home. There are only two types of sports car guys, the first being men who truly understand the performance specifications of the various automobiles and make judgments based on experience and study, and the other type are middle-aged losers who think they will pull teenage chicks at 43 with a porn 'stache, Members Only jacket, Porsche sunglasses (or worse, Oakleys) and a cherry 2007 'Vette. Topping all of that off, Anna Nicole Smith is dead, and I am the only man in Texas who never did bother to sleep with her. That hoowah was the epitome of "conquered ground."

Anyway, I read your girls-only screed and came away from it Winston Smith-esque. Winston told us in 1984 that he understood how, but he did not understand *why*.

You are telling the females to stop blaming the (nonexistent) patriarchy, and to stop clawing each other to death. Again, I ask - why do females do this, what is their motivation?

The first step was identifying the five problem areas. Done. The second step is performing a root cause analysis, and then the third step is corrective action.

I am undisturbed since I am relatively certain your Final Solution was metaphorical - but as you have pointed out, literalism is my raison d'etre. Killing them, as you suggest is wasteful, inconvenient and their decomposition gases will invariably lead to more global warming and of course we certainly cannot have that.

prettylady said...

Bobert: The southern border. There's more space down there, it's warmer, and the prices are much, much lower.

Chris: Yup. Pretty much.

why do females do this, what is their motivation?

Part of the reason, Pretty Lady believes, is something she has oft noted before--that women are territorial, not hierarchical. They all need to be Queen of their Domain, whether this domain be a home, a husband, or a profession.

This creates two problems: first, that they are very bad at teamwork, if there are other females on the team. They either need to Merge, and Act As One, or throw the bitch out; there seems to be no middle ground for delegation and compromise.

Second, and even more insidiously, they are wholly unwilling to acknowledge a genuine superiority of talent, discipline or skill in another, if that other happens to be working in their field. They will either pretend that We Are All Equal, effectively dismissing the capablilites that another woman has labored to attain, or they will openly sabotage a lady of superior abilities, publically excoriate her, and act as though she does not exist thereafter.

The other part of the reason does have to do, tangentially, with the legacy of generations of Patriarchy; it is that women still have the sense that they are primarily dependent upon men for support and access to certain types of power. We have a sense that there are a limited number of Prime Positions to go round, and the lady who can wrap the most fellows around her little finger wins one of them.

Thus, the undercurrent of jealous maneuvering never really goes away. Women have a great deal of trouble perceiving one another as potential allies; this problem is, as you can see, self-perpetuating. Nobody wants to be the first to break ranks and get royally screwed, as Pretty Lady can attest, from grim personal experience.

Chris Rywalt said...

PL sez:
women are territorial, not hierarchical

This is a really interesting observation. I've never looked at it quite that way. Of course I am, as usual, suspicious of any generalizations; but they're useful sometimes. I like this formulation.

In a way, it sounds like women are cats and men are dogs. A metaphor which goes back a long time, I imagine.

Anonymous said...

I'm definitely a cat. I love to laze around in the sun, eat and sleep. When I'm bored I like to be entertained or petted and pleasured. I disdain those who are slavishly eager to please (dogs).

catwoman

prettylady said...

Hear, hear, catwoman!

Desert Cat said...

I am distrustful of the dog mentality that is common to most men and identify much more strongly with the cat mentality (surprise surprise). But as a generalization it is probably much more true than not.

Chris Rywalt said...

I wouldn't extend this metaphor too far, though, since cats are pretty much peabrains. While women are almost as smart as men.

Judge Well Ye Wolves said...

[snurf]
Chris- the dude! Very brave, sir. I salute you!
[snort, chortle, snort]

Desert Cat said...

*ahem*

Of course I beg to differ.

Dogs love to demonstrate their supposed intelligence by "pleasing massah". Cats will have no truck with such obsequious asslickery. And they are quite unconcerned about the opinions of those humans who cannot naturally perceive their obvious superiority to those filthy canine imbeciles.

However a well-loved cat is a far cry from the "stupid", aloof creature most dog people presume them to be. They will never ever know the true depth of loyalty and affection that a cat will bestow upon the one whom she has chosen to trust.

Dogs, on the other hand, will hump any leg that presents itself.

So if cats are to women as dogs are to men, we should feel damn lucky they put up with us in the first place.

prettylady said...

Indeed, Desert Cat, sir. My own Alpha Cat has intellect, discrimination and intuition far beyond that of a human with an average IQ. In fact, he is the inspirational paradigm for an invitational essay on the Enlightened Alpha which shall, I hope, shortly be appearing as a Guest Column on a Liberal Blog...

Chris Rywalt said...

I am not a dog person or a cat person. I like both when they live with other people. I'm more of a toad person. Amphibians are cool.

Dogs are far more intelligent than cats. Dogs have shown that they can have a vocabulary of up to a hundred words. Meanwhile even naming a cat is usually a pointless endeavor since they'll never learn it.

Cats appear more intelligent than dogs because cats are very narrowly programmed by evolution. Cats only do the things they do well and otherwise they sleep. They appear aloof and discriminating, but actually, they're just not set up to even notice anything outside of a slim spectrum of inputs. Cats are excellent hunters, and that's pretty much all they do, aside from make more cats.

Dogs, on the other hand, are intelligent enough to try things which make them look stupid. Dogs will try to open doorknobs with their jaws. Dogs will try to run on linoleum. Dogs will chase cars.

Crom said...

I hate to tell you all this, but your beloved cat would not hesitate to eat you were it to suddenly gain 50 lbs. of muscle. People do not normally keep bobcats or mountain lions as pets, on average.

People have dogs ranging in size from under a pound to over 150 depending on breed. This is because a cat weighing in at 60 lbs. would simply claw you once, and watch you bleed out, licking it's chops at the meal to come. While I admire the innate viciousness of cats and their singleminded dedication to mercilessness as hunters, I certainly do not want one as a trusted pet.

The other thing is, I can rely on my German Shepherds to pin you, disarm you or rip out your throat depending on the commands I give them. They guard my home, alert me to strangers and provide selfless companionship no matter what I want to do. They are valued pets and my friends keep asking me if I will train their dogs to be as obedient as mine. My dogs are trained to be unobtrusive, I had them in a down/stay in the kitchen during a party, and they did not get up once, despite people petting them and fawning on them. I cannot rely on a cat do anything I command it, whereas my two dogs will either happily romp with you or quickly kill you if I ordered them to do so.

So, the utilitarian aspects of dogs combined with the utter devotion that they demonstrate places me firmly in the dog camp.

If aloof, independent companionship is all you require from a pet, then a cat is definitely for you.

prettylady said...

I cannot rely on a cat do anything I command it

Exactly. Your dogs seem to me to be very, very boring companions. Might as well just sit around all day jerking off.

Chris Rywalt said...

Crom sez:
I hate to tell you all this, but your beloved cat would not hesitate to eat you were it to suddenly gain 50 lbs. of muscle.

Exactly. Cats are nice to you if you have food. If you are food, they're less discriminating. Like I wrote, cats work in a very narrow range. They hunt, they kill, they eat, they have sex, they sleep. Anything else they happen to do is usually a variation on one of those things (like playing with yarn, which is just hunting behavior).

Cats are not pack animals. They're territorial, like PL wrote earlier. They don't have a hierarchy for you to be the top of.

Dogs can be boring, if you want them to be, or you can let them do what they want. Well-trained doesn't mean you always have to tell them what to do, just that if you tell them what to do, they'll do it. When you're not telling them, they're doing their own thing. Often licking themselves.

But the important thing is: Pretty Lady said "jerking off"!

Desert Cat said...

Meanwhile even naming a cat is usually a pointless endeavor since they'll never learn it.

Nonsense. Each of my cats that I've had for any length of time knows its own name and distinguishes it from the others. As to vocabulary, you've clearly never listened to cats much.

Dogs, on the other hand, are intelligent enough to try things which make them look stupid.

Like my cat (Max) who learned how to open the refrigerator, and did so repeatedly just for fun until I was forced to install a latch to foil him? Like my cat (Roscoe) whose ability to problem-solve just about anything he puts himself to, is legenedary in this household?

I don't question whether dogs are useful. They're capable of being trained for numerous specialized tasks. As long as they believe that you are Alpha. The minute they don't--the minute they have a pack behind them and are hungry enough, they'll tear you apart with as much viciousness as any lion or tiger. And you don't have to hypothesize about them magically gaining 50 lbs either.

Yes, dogs are great if you want underlings. If you want a creature who will obey you promptly when you bark a command, who are ever so eager for your approval that they would do just about anything to earn it, if you want to feel king and unquestioned sovereign of your domain, then by all means get dogs for subjects.

They're much better that way than children or wives.

Chris Rywalt said...

DC sez:
Each of my cats that I've had for any length of time knows its own name and distinguishes it from the others. ... Like my cat (Max) who learned how to open the refrigerator, and did so repeatedly just for fun until I was forced to install a latch to foil him? Like my cat (Roscoe) whose ability to problem-solve just about anything he puts himself to, is legenedary in this household?

I am not a cat person or a dog person particularly, but I am certainly an anti-cat-owner person. Largely because cat owners are delusional.

Crom said...

They certainly do tend to lick themselves quite a lot, however cats do the same thing. After all, those hairballs don't just create themselves, do they?

As for boring companions, I would disagree. They certainly are more fun than sitting around (jerking off perhaps?) and watching your cat ignore you.

There are some people who are content to allow their pets to scorn and disdain them, and provide affection only on their selfish feline terms. If cool approbation and barely concealed tolerance warm the cockles of your heart (or the heartles of your cock, since you brought masturbation into it) then again I would agree that cats would be the ideal pet.

DC has a point regarding the alpha process among dogs, and it never has been a problem for me to control any dog, mine or others. Since everyone wants to anthromorphosize and bring in psychosexual references regarding the two types of owners, I will offer the following:

Dog owners tend to be more alpha-ish, and trend more towards dominant personalities and could even have sadistic tendencies.

Cat owners are the opposite, they are content to play the submissive to a creature that weighs a tenth of their body weight. Since cats are known for rejecting affection, I would postulate that their fans would be more masochistic and enjoy the subjected position.

The truth is, there will never be an equal playing field in a relationship between animal and man, we are clearly the smarter species. All will agree that our pets would go feral if we failed to feed them.

The point I was making regarding the 60 lb. cat is that they are not trustworthy pets once they reach a certain size. The pack aspect of dogs does allow for interaction with larger species without an overabundance of owner deaths. Yes, people are killed by their dogs all the time - but I would guess that they either didn't understand their pet or tormented it into an attack. DC's examples of his cat who could open the fridge and problem-solve are interesting, but underscores my point, that you cannot train a cat to do, or in this case - not do - anything. DC, you had to put a latch on your fridge to keep out your resourceful pet, instead of training it to leave your food alone.

"They're much better that way than children or wives."

I don't treat people the same way I treat dogs, the dynamics are entirely different. I know owners of both species who do not understand that their precious doggie or kitty is not a little human, nevermind how they carry it around in a purse or buy little outfits for it. The comparison is humorous, but not entirely applicable.

Desert Cat said...

Largely because cat owners are delusional.

Right. You're just goading now.

I put up with this ignorant crap about cats all the time from people who don't like them. Unlike with dogs, one will never discover the best of a cat while actively disdaining it, and so the ignorance is self-perpetuating.

They are most certainly not aloof and averse to affection when they understand that affection and not danger is what one offers them. Would that they were so sometimes! I have half a dozen clamoring for my affection when I'm home, and no, it is *not* a food issue. They have a bowl that is always kept full. They rarely get treats from our hands, and then only under certain specific circumstances.

It is affection they're after.

The relationship between dog and owner is the relationship between underling and pack leader. The relationship between cat and owner is the relationship between kitten and mother cat. Cats revert to kittenhood behavior and patterns in response to love and attention.

With more than two or three together in one place, they begin to form a society. And their interaction with each other and with me is often about who gets access to me. Jasmine, my little siamese female is a notorious cat herder. She spends at least as much time trying to keep the other cats in line as she does cuddling with me, grooming my beard and licking my head. "He's *mine*, dammit, and you other cats just need to wait your turn!"

Even my latest charge, half-feral as he is, has discovered the warm return of kittenhood at my hand, and is willing to fight and overcome his fear just to get a few cuddles and chin scratches.

No, I'm sorry but scorn and disdain is most certainly not what I get from my cats.

As for the alpha and sadistic tendencies of dog owners, you probably have that right, (although I wonder if playing alpha to the dogs is a form of compensation for being a "bottom" in the human world--hey, nothing wrong with "pet therapy"). But you're way off the mark in regards to cat owners.

Independent and nurturing, and I want nothing to do with your hierarchy in any position. However when/if forced into a hierarchial structure, I would work my way into position as the power behind the throne--the mastermind feeding strategy to the figurehead. And I would keep my claws sheathed but sharp.


The point I was making regarding the 60 lb. cat is that they are not trustworthy pets once they reach a certain size.


Based on what, exactly?

Dogs kill their owners all the time, as you noted. But I've never ever heard of a large housecat successfully taking down a human of any size. Small rabbits are usually the upper limit. Felis sylvestris doesn't *get* to be 60 lbs, and bobcats and tigers don't count, because then we'd need to drag in wolves and coyotes to the comparison.

And unlike cats, who would simply become mostly useless when TEOTWAWKI hits, dogs would become a postive liability, a major hazard to human life as they pack up to take down "game", including humans, once the Kenn-L-Ration runs out.

Bobert said...

If your cat ignores you, it's you...not the cat.

Bobert said...

" show up at your door with a pitcher of sangria...

In my case, it wasn't Sangria, it was a six-pack of Coors... and a sack of Taco Bell green chile and bean burritos.

Absolute truth.

crom said...

"And unlike cats, who would simply become mostly useless when TEOTWAWKI hits, dogs would become a postive liability, a major hazard to human life as they pack up to take down "game", including humans, once the Kenn-L-Ration runs out.

DC, I do see your name pop up occasionally over at Rawles's place if that is indeed you. You might be surprised how long I have been a member of that community, or perhaps not. I have indeed factored the dog rations into my preparations and completely agree that wild dogs will be a serious problem if TEOTWAWKI drops in. That said, they also will be useful in that scenario as they see and hear much better than I and are the ADT of the post-electric light world. I am far more concerned with the starving humans with opposable thumbs than the packs of wild dogs, should the SHTF.

"Independent and nurturing" is not how I would describe any cat owners that I have ever met. It is interesting to note that there are almost no references in pop culture to "crazy dog men" whereas the "crazy cat ladies" are an American archetype. This is because the mentally ill often prefer cats, I don't really understand why. I did like your "pet therapy" comment, it was a refreshingly good riposte to me insinuating that cat owners are sexual submissives at heart. I guess you see value added by your cats, as you seem quite fond of them despite their apparent uselessness. As you stated, dogs can be trained to do a number of specialized tasks, I guess it really depends on what you expect in return from a pet. I am not terribly sentimental, perhaps that is why I don't understand the allure of felines.

"However when/if forced into a hierarchial structure, I would work my way into position as the power behind the throne--the mastermind feeding strategy to the figurehead."

Interesting. Would you be the Grima Wormtongue sort of adviser, or the Gandalf sort? I do not have any illusions about my role, if forced into a hierarchal structure that I cannot dominate I would probably be killed in the power struggle, if nothing else.

prettylady said...

Independent and nurturing, and I want nothing to do with your hierarchy in any position. However when/if forced into a hierarchial structure, I would work my way into position as the power behind the throne--the mastermind feeding strategy to the figurehead. And I would keep my claws sheathed but sharp.

DC, you and I have so much in common, it's scary.

Crom, you are walking a very...thin...line. Unless you would like a very sharp claw to come like a blinding flash of lightning and put an end to your career, I advise you to keep a civil tongue in your head regarding Cat People in general.

Desert Cat said...

Gandalf, definitely. That was my online moniker for a good two decades before my recent one.

Desert Cat said...

I have indeed factored the dog rations into my preparations and completely agree that wild dogs will be a serious problem if TEOTWAWKI drops in. That said, they also will be useful in that scenario as they see and hear much better than I and are the ADT of the post-electric light world. I am far more concerned with the starving humans with opposable thumbs than the packs of wild dogs, should the SHTF.

Agreed. If you've prepared for them as well as you, they'd be a tremendous asset in dealing with the zombie hordes.

DC, I do see your name pop up occasionally over at Rawles's place if that is indeed you. You might be surprised how long I have been a member of that community, or perhaps not.

I don't recognize the name Rawles. Survivalblog? If so, while I read it frequently, I don't recall commenting there. There are unfortunately several others out there who use my monkier, much to my dismay.

Chris Rywalt said...

Now we see what dog people and cat people have in common: An excess of batshit crazy.

BoysMom said...

I am cracking up . . . sorry, guys, but just how small is the internet, anyway? Are there really more than ten people on it?
Y'see, I read survivalblog, too.
Now why do all three of us like both Pretty Lady's site and a preparedness site? Is there a gene for this?
Perhaps Chris is right, we are all crazy.

Desert Cat said...

Women, I am convinced, would not stop until their enemies have been wiped from the Earth, their homes burned, the ashes plowed under, the ground salted, and the whole shebang irradiated.

Even you acknowledge the possibility. And with the Lizard Queen in line for the Cherry Blossom Throne, well, that scenario may be closer than you think.

Don't bother worrying about it though. You'd be dead within days of radiation sickness or anthrax or plague, being as you are near ground zero of one of the prime targets. Plus there's way too many of you in NYC to be able to flee an attack. Not that the authorities would allow you to in any case.

The logistics of being in NYC in a major terrorist incident make me shudder to contemplate... New Orleans was not an abberation.

If considering the possibilities and making contingency plans to help me and my family survive and prosper makes me batshit crazy, then I'll wear that label proudly.

Crom said...

"If considering the possibilities and making contingency plans to help me and my family survive and prosper makes me batshit crazy, then I'll wear that label proudly.

Absolutely right. Boysmom and DC, I am indeed talking about survivalblog.com - I too find that fascinating that at least three of the regular commenters here are readers of that site as well.

Chris may in fact have a point.

Chris Rywalt said...

Crom sez:
Chris may in fact have a point.

But if I comb my hair right, you can hardly see it.

Chris Rywalt said...

DC sez:
New Orleans was not an abberation.

You know, like less than a thousand people died in Hurricane Katrina. And we should mourn for every one and Bush and Brownie and all the other bureaucrats below them should burn in Hell for what they did. But it's a pretty low death toll, all things considered. If that's the Apocalypse, bring it on, baby.

The logistics of being in NYC in a major terrorist incident make me shudder to contemplate...

You know, I'm pretty sure I was in New York City during a major terrorist incident. I watched it on TV. The worst thing that happened to me was two years of waking up in the middle of the night convinced there'd be a shockwave coming in my bedroom window any minute.

Not really all that bad, actually.

Desert Cat said...

9/11 was minor in comparison to biological/nuclear terrorism. If, instead of a couple of buildings collapsing, a tactical nuclear device were to be detonated in New York harbor, rendering all of Manhattan and depending upon wind direction, all of Long Island instantly uninhabitable for a period of up to 30-60 days and hazardous for decades afterward? If instead of a single city, this was multiplied by tactical nukes going off in multiple coastal cities, and add in an EMP burst, launched from a container ship in the Gulf which takes out most of the electric grid and all communications systems?

Life would get real different, real fast. And this is not at all a far fetched scenario, no more far fetched than the idea that Islamists might hijack airliners and fly them into major landmarks. Since that actually happened, despite no one even conceiving of such an abomination prior to 9/11, it is not unreasonable to consider what one might do if the country suffered a sudden and severe setback that is well within the current means of these same terrorists.

By New Orleans not being an aberration, what I mean is how quickly order broke down and pandemonium ensued with merely a weather related disruption. And it was not measured in deaths only, but in permanent disruption to lives. Multiply that chaos by several major cities being hit simultaneously with something more deadly than hurricane-driven floodwater, and you've got a recipe for a complete nationwide meltdown.

You think "Brownie" looked incompetent in NOLA? Don't expect a dad-gummed thing from the Feds in such a catastrophe. They will be about one thing only--maintaining their command structure, civilians be damned. And to the degree that they deal with us, when they get around to it, it will be in a very authoritarian and ham-handed manner.

I am planning to be able to take care of myself and my family for not the minimal 3 days, nor the more realistic 15 days, but for a much greater length of time than that. The last thing Federal or State emergency response teams need is one more set of mouths to feed. I intend to be well out of their way and taking care of myself long before they show up after such a disaster.

But if I were a denizen of NYC, I too might conclude that my best course of action for the sake of my sanity (if not my survival prospects) is to simply pretend it will never happen.

Chris Rywalt said...

Hasn't Pretty Lady already told you you get what you wish for?

Desert Cat said...

As for the part that I have any control over, what I get is a lovely place in the country to retreat to on weekends away from the stressful city.

I'm not wishing for the worst, if that's what you mean. But my mother lived through the end of WWII as a refugee. She's living witness to how things can go south rapidly, whatever one's wishes may be.

Chris Rywalt said...

This just in from Cosmic Coincidence Central:

On my way out the store last night I startled a cat in our driveway. I did what I always do when I see a cat outside, which is call the cat. The cat did what cats invariably do when they see me, which is bolt. I don't know why I have this effect on cats, I just do. The cat didn't run too far. And then I saw it: The mouse. The cat had been chasing a mouse in my driveway.

I've never seen rodents where I live, no matter where I've lived. When I lived with my parents the lady across the street kept a healthy and large family of quasi-feral cats and they kept the vermin level low. And here, well, I know there are mice around -- across the street they've had mice -- but I never saw one.

And here was a cat chasing a mouse right next to my house, right after we were having our conversation about cats and dogs. I had interrupted a local Circle of Life drama.

I backed up a bit and watched to see what would happen. The cat moved in for the kill and then sat down. It watched the mouse carefully. After a bit the mouse decided to run towards me so I moved my foot and it froze, its eyes liquid in the light from the motion sensor fixture. The cat started to move and then stopped when it saw me again.

I backed off even farther, waiting to see if the cat would catch the mouse. I have nothing against mouses but I don't want them in my houses. I was rooting for the cat to do what it's designed for. The mouse, given some space, hopped up onto the small bit of yard between my driveway and my front steps and got lost in the shadows of some shovels still waiting there from the winter.

The cat crouched in the driveway for a minute or so, then apparently completely forgot why it was there. It was briefly distracted by a waving cobweb in my basement window before trotting off.

Stupid cat.

I went up to where the mouse was hiding and moved the shovels around. It cowered there. I wondered if I could catch a mouse now that the vermin killing machine had wandered off. I wondered if it was a good idea to try to catch a wild mouse with your bare hands. In the end, I just chased the mouse back into the bushes across the driveway.

Desert Cat said...

Probably not a good idea, but I've done so. My dearly departed cat Moonbeam had one cornered once. I picked it up by its tail to examine it, and the poor thing promptly froze with fear and expired.

The Big Kitty was a bit too much, apparently.