Natural authority

A bit of this, a bit of that, swaying first one way, then the other.   Everything relative, no hard truths, no right and wrong.

That’s our society today, things turned on their head, tails wagging dogs, people not knowing whether they’re Arthur or Martha, the prostitute the new heroine [Semiramis], the strutting, ignorant peacock the new hero [Nimrod].   No wonder the PTB had to make Christianity anathema to the majority because there is a fixed notion of right or wrong and of natural authority there, which enables a society to operate healthily until it is infiltrated and/or hijacked by the same corrupt Them as always and made to look dire.

Downunder there’s a young footballer who said, in an interview, that the reason he was able to do as he did [star] was that he was surrounded by hardened champs who were encouraging him to cut loose and they’d watch his back.   He was delighted and showed off his natural skill, which he was adamant he couldn’t have done in a less healthy club culture, devoid of mentoring.  The opposition were indeed on the back foot and the oldtimers on the field were also delighted that they could get a few moments breather instead of having to do it all the entire game.

That’s how things should work, with the young appreciated by the old and the old looked up to for their experience and worldliness by the young.   Men playing to their strengths and women playing to theirs – it’s the same principle, not this situation where the gear lever wants to be the drive train because that’s where the power is or the brakes want to be the accelerator because that’s where the excitement is.

Again downunder, there’s a scandal engulfing the football world with one club apparently “tanking” for three years, i.e. they deliberately tried to lose games in order to get a better selection at the national draft.   And how did they manage to lose games without attracting great attention?

By playing players out of position.   My own club had a megawin [I have it on file and sometimes watch it] against this corrupt club and I now recall commenters noting that this once great but now down-and-out club were playing one of their star backs up forward, ostensibly in an effort to get him into the game.   Well, that’s the only non-corrupt conclusion you could have come to for the strange move.

How were the commentators to know it was a deliberate ploy to lose?

And lose they did.  Our club ran rings around them – if you watch that one minute clip, the red and navy are the corrupt and just look at them … and the navy and white are us, quite puzzled as to why this was all so easy.   Now, a year and a half later, we know.  The commentators called it “a training drill”.   No one dreamed it was institutionalized corruption.

Why is that club corrupt?   Because of its sick culture, a culture wanting glory without having to do what it takes, without putting the right people in the right places, without clearing out the dead wood, with a corrupt board who fed down to the coaches that the club needed to lose and that came down to the players – not so much trickle down theory as a directive from above – EU anybody?

And think what that policy did to the entire club culture – a previously very proud club, by the way.   Wrong people in the wrong places, other people getting above themselves, imagining they’re something they’re not, the talented not valued for fear they’d see things as they were.   No hard and fast plan, clearly explained to and embraced by all.  Just as in the UK today.

And who latched onto this scandal, by the way, which had already been spoken of and was about to blow wide open anyway?   A muckraking female journalist whom the paper is calling [see small print in light grey]:

Chief Football Writer!   Chief?!!   WTF is going on at that paper?    That paper is still one of the two major dailies and it had a Chief Football Writer already,  a man who’s been in the game donkey’s years, whom all in the business knew and accepted the authority of, a man named Ron Carter who was so even in my time in the country.   What happened to him?   Where is he?

Who exactly had the brain fever to appoint her to the top job?

And let’s be frank [Frank's a very nice name], dear Caroline is a just a hack journo who makes sweeping statements without checking her facts.   In this clip, she does a Chloe Smith.   Now I understand you’re not interested in that local issue or in her or in any downunder football [and I do issue an accent warning - it's pretty broad Aussie brogue] but the point is that she is caught out, her bluff is called.   She says A and the producer then shows a clip of the person she’s accusing saying B.   She’s then confronted with it and as one commenter on youtube notes:

Caroline was spewing bullshit that entire video; not only did she base her entire argument on something Brayshaw did not say, she did not have the decency to apologize and admit she was wrong.

I think it is that natural inability of a woman to apologize and the lengths they go to not to take any blame whatever onboard which is one of the main reasons women lose face and respect in men’s eyes.  And another:

Useless as a panel member, useless as a journalist. There are bottom-feeders at the Herald Sun who would make better chief football writers at The Age, and Cameron Smith from the Storm could offer better debate and feedback on Footy Classified than this backflipping, lying, sniping, prime example of tokenism.

One more?

She changes her story every time she’s found out, why can’t she write one story about an actual game of footy and not rumours about players’ personal lives or the backroom political BS of footy clubs. Most undeserving football journalist ever!

None of those words were mine – they came from thousands of miles away from people who have never heard my views.  I have no issue with her writing the tat as a junior journo – it sells papers – but never as Chief Football Writer.   You actually have to know the game for that.

This one’s more evenhanded:

Typical Wilson rubbish. I have no problem with women in football but she always prints or says rubbish that has no fact whatsoever. Then when she gets caught she whines and cries that people don’t respect her coz she’s a woman. No it’s because you don’t check your facts or keep saying things like “my sources tell me”.

You do see the sentiments and the resentment and there were plenty of comments far worse.

So why this intense reaction to her when there is nothing like that with the girl in this clip?   [I do issue another warning that the accent is pretty broad for English ears.   The French love that accent, by the way.]

OK, now that girl was accepted – you could see it in the footballer’s eyes and manner – she was even welcome up there on that panel – so why?   Why her and not the other?

That girl’s attitude was chalk and cheese to the woman’s.   She gave respect.   She realized she was not in the same league and asked football specific questions which were intelligent.   She adored those footballers and was thrilled to be accepted and as a male, I can tell you I have no issues with her whatever on the strength of that performance.   Quite the opposite.

So check the list:

1.  pretty and alluring;

2.  knowing her place in the football world, a place she would subsequently improve on as she improved and learnt – willing to take it step by step;

3.  not self-entitled, not a victimhood poker player.

Hell, what man wouldn’t want her up there beside him?  As for the other cow er, sorry … respected female journo … w-e-e-e-l-l-l …

This has zero to do with attitudes to women in general – that’s such an overplayed old chestnut.   That’s not what this was about.   If it were so, I’d have had the same attitude to all women in all sports.   But I don’t.

Take the Olympic volleyball 2012.   That was completely the other way.  This is not the Beeb commentary team in this clip but in the original Beeb version, there were two commentators – one, the male, transferred over from motorsport and he knew SFA about the game but he was a good journo.  He’d done his homework on it and knew the facts and figures in order to be accepted.

Then there was the girl from the GB team, one of the players [recently retired] and every time she spoke, I listened but anything he said, I let it go through, realizing he was no expert.   I learned so much about the sport and the state of it in the UK from her during that series.

You see, we’re speaking here of “natural authority”.   We’re speaking of people accepting you as an authority, as a Chief Football Writer, as an integral member of a team but you really must understand your true value, your current market value.

You have to EARN your place.

That’s what this is all about.

When that girl spoke on volleyball, I shut up and listened.   She knew.   She was an expert.   When my boss tells me things about how to run the shop, I listen and learn.  When Rossa speaks on cuisine, I wouldn’t ever dream of gainsaying her – I’d grab the chance to learn something.

I have no problem whatever with women authority figures per se, in their natural field.

I have an enormous problem with parachutees and people who get above themselves, who go beyond their natural authority level and demand to be taken as equals or even to lord it over us.

No dear, you have to come up through the ranks the same way we’ve all had to and after you’ve done that and when all your awards are real and not just genuflecting at the faux PC altar and after maybe 20 years in the game, then perhaps you’ll be accepted.

But get this straight – if you try to muscle your way in as an equal with an arrogant air of “I’m backed by management, I’m backed by the state,”  then you’re going to get short shrift and if your skill level does not match your temerity and arrogance, if your pedigree does not exist, if you misinterpret the opened doors for you as acceptance of your authority and if the PTB insist on pushing you onto us, you are going to be highly resented and quietly resisted.  People who might have been naturally welcoming towards you and helpful are going to now become sullen and start casually dropping spanners in your works in the subtlest of ways and guess what – you’re going to fall back on the old victimhood again, that old stand-by, are you not?

People whom you’ve made not like you are going to come out with statements like:

She’s a parasite. fullstop

… and:

This is what happens when you elevate clueless females into sports commentating positions. F*** tokenism.

Going back to the other girl – no one had any trouble with her, did they?  In fact she was welcome.   Those same words pop up every time – abundant in the woman, absent from the girl:

1.  self-entitlement;

2.  sense of victimhood when she doesn’t get her way.

And when the Harmans and the like get up and DEMAND we accept them and make laws to FORCE us, when French PMs DEMAND that everyone accepts Cecile Duflot’s haranguing and you’ll be sent to sexism school for lessons on how to treat women if you don’t do what we say, our way …then there is going to be deep resentment.

Ordinarily even-tempered people, ordinarily accepting people, happy people, with full, productive lives behind them, are going to be very seriously p***ed off and are going to turn ugly [well, uglier than normal].

There was an incident some time back when Welshcakes came in to comment on that military girl I often quote about feminazism.   Welshcakes’ beef was that this young girl was lecturing her on life.   So for WC, it was an age issue, for me it was the gender issue the girl herself was going on about.

And Welshcakes is a seasoned campaigner who knows languages back to front.   If you challenge her on language, you’d better know your stuff – she’s my superior in this area.   On political thinking though, she’s perhaps less august sometimes.

Why?   Well it’s not her field, is it, she doesn’t interest herself in it, she’s not an adept at it.   She obviously knows life but not about these narrower issues of Them, Common Purpose and so on.   Therefore she tends not to comment on those sorts of matters.

That’s why Duflot was catcalled.  It was that she was standing up there lecturing deputies of many years standing, haranguing them with her PC theories, having already disrespected the parliament with her jeans and sloppy outfit.  It was that lack of respect and thinking it was all quite quite OK because wherever she’d been to that point, doors had opened for her and she was oh so pretty, wasn’t she?

Now there were older women there too, not doing that – they have their own way of going about it, they understand the game and how to get their way.   If one of them stood up, we might listen, as such a woman would at least pay lip service to what we’ve achieved in life.  It’s playing the game.   It’s like tomorrow when I embrace my well-fed boss as if she were a slip of a girl – it helps, it makes people feel good about themselves.   We’re more willing to listen.

But this jumped-up Duflot did it in a truly stupid, greenhorn way and she was put down in a sexist way, to make a point.

I don’t agree with how that was done but I can understand it.

And when those men come back from anti-sexism training school, run by women by the way – when they emerge from those days of female haranguing and utter c**p – are they going to be chastened?   Or are they going to be twice as bad and where they catcalled before, now they’ll boo and cause trouble or worse still, they’ll be pointedly silent and that’s the beginning of the end for her?

Robert A. Heinlein, via Bob G:

“The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.”

There’s a new girl at work and naturally it was my job to train her.   She took over the bookshop sector and was forever asking me how this should be, how that should be.   I gave her the basics, in terms of what the firm wanted and then told her to do the rest as she saw fit, she was more than capable, she was the literature expert and when she’d arranged it all, to come over and tell me how she’d like it done from then on.   She had her field, I had mine.   We are the best of friends.  She feels valued and so do I.

Christianity pushes the idea hard that we all have our roles to play in the body politic.   We are all experts at something – even a child has a child’s eye view and what was that about “out of the mouths of babes”?    I don’t put a child down for being a child – I just don’t accept that he can converse with me on Piaget, Delphi technique and linguistics.   I can’t ever argue with him on his child logic on issues.

I’m sure you see where this whole thing is going – natural authority, that’s what it’s all about.   And we need natural authorities in charge now, each in his or her own area.   And the young can accept that and at the same time, bring their own skills to the table.   That’s what we need, with mutual respect.   And then society can prosper again and the anger and angst can ebb away.

They’re never going to ebb away while people try to FORCE others to accept something they’re not qualified to enforce, without either the expertise, background or aptitude.

6 Responses to “Natural authority”

  1. Amfortas November 2, 2012 at 13:53 Permalink

    I am pleased that you do not ignore this huge continent down under James, but you seem not to realise that the ‘Age’ is the antpodean Gruniad. Incontinent in every respect.

    Of course the Chief Footy writer is a woman. What else could it possibly be in the Age? You want her to write truthful things? Things she knows something about? What, and stick out like a sore thumb? Do you want her ostrasisledified by her totally token journalistic mates, not one of whom could pass a lie detector test when the only questions asked are about the time, and cannot spell even with the new improved Aussie dickshunry?

  2. Welshcakes Limoncello November 2, 2012 at 15:00 Permalink

    I’m sorry but what do you mean – the natural inability of a woman to apologise”?!

  3. James Higham November 2, 2012 at 15:15 Permalink

    It’s well known among men, Welshcakes. Nothing to worry about. I thought you might have zeroed in on the compliment rather than that. ;-)

    An example:

    http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1155285

    Now no doubt you and Cherie and a couple of other women are the rarities, the exceptions and no doubt you know so many men who can’t admit they’re wrong but that doesn’t alter the basic premise. I’ve even tested it out on this blog and had women claim it was just a difference of opinion and that both were valid. That was as close as we ever got.

    That’s not the part which annoys – that’s quite amusing actually. What annoys is anyone, male or female, who is in a parachuted position and takes advantage of it to lord it over others more qualified. There was one in RL today and it will be a post some time soon. It will be verbatim and it is not that much different to the one in this post.

    Most certainly a syndrome.

    http://www.chacha.com/question/why-can%27t-women-ever-admit-that-they%27re-wrong

    http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111102234812AAJyhNQ

  4. BobG November 2, 2012 at 18:35 Permalink

    Again, RAH has the goods on that.

    “If in an argument with your wife you discover that you are in the right, apologize immediately.”
    – Robert A. Heinlein

  5. James Higham November 2, 2012 at 19:35 Permalink

    Yes, don’t know how I’m still alive actually.

  6. Rossa November 3, 2012 at 09:16 Permalink

    I don’t have a problem apologising when I’m wrong. Just doesn’t happen very often, that’s all ;-)

Leave a Reply

Please copy the string 1gDSAX to the field below: