The most divisive election ever?

Those who claim this election is the most divisive in history just don't know their history. The election of 1860 was so divisive that eleven states seceded from the union, and fought the most deadly war in US history to sustain their secession. A war that dragged on for five years, and killed more Americans than all other wars in US history combined. ONE THIRD of the United States were so unhappy that they preferred WAR to life under that tyrannical president-elect, Abraham Lincoln. Now THAT'S a divisive election!

The South LOST. THE. WAR. It took over a century to recover financially, and some say they never have fully recovered socially. 

Those who are governed by their brains instead of their emotions can learn something from this. Rioting to show your displeasure with the results of the election is not smart. Those of us who protested against the Vietnam war learned this lesson the hard way-- when the National Guard was called in and started gunning us down.  Want to see where your riots will end up?  Look at Aleppo.  The government has a virtually limitless supply of bullets, tanks, bombers, and missiles, but they DO NOT HAVE AN INFINITE SUPPLY OF PATIENCE.  Especially not Donald Trump.

Nearly every government on earth has been forced, one time or another, to declare war on its own citizens. The U.S. government has done so more than once, and has won, every time. There is no reason to suspect that it will not do so again, if necessary, to quell riots. 

That's the choice, America, and it's a stark one: stop the rioting, or expect an army to do it for you. 

Cleaning House

Yeah, I took down some postings. I figured they were no longer relevant, and were not my personal favorites. If they were YOUR favorites, comment on this post and tell me, and I'll restore the ones you are missing.

You Can’t Fight Biology

In medieval China, females were expected to wear pants, while men wore robes. During the same era in medieval Europe, Joan of Arc was executed for wearing pants. Today, in most of the world, both women and men are allowed to wear pants. The defining characteristic of gender expectations, as opposed to physiological sex, is that gender expectations can change.

Throughout history, many have been unhappy with the gender expectations of their culture. Some cultures provide ways for individuals to change their gender. For example, in many Native American tribes, there are biological males who are assigned to the female gender. Such groups can also be found in India and in Africa. Modern Euro-American cultures are beginning to recognize the need for such transexual norms. In the last generation, it has begun to be okay for males to adopt the role of child-rearing and home-making, while females provide financial support, for example.

Along with changes in gender-specific roles, there is now a movement to recognize individuals of one sex as actually belonging to the opposite sex. We are not talking about gender, but about re-defining an individual’s actual, biological sex, by fiat. Some declare that a person can change their mind, and sex, repeatedly. This absurdity depends on the idea that a person’s sex has no foundation in biology or physiology, but is assigned them at birth by the attending physician.

While this may be comforting to those who find their culture’s gender norms unattractive, it has no basis in fact. A person’s sex (not gender) is not assigned by anyone-- it’s an innate characteristic of the individual, from the moment of conception, and is present in every cell of their body. The idea that a person’s “true” sex is determined by their feelings of the moment goes beyond absurdity. We must not discriminate against individuals who believe this. But do not require those who believe in physical reality to accept their wishes as facts.

Cultures have gender norms because they need them. In Japan, mixed nudity is normal, but women are protected from molestation by Japan’s strict taboos against public displays of sexuality and other emotions. In the United States, public display of affection is normal, but mixed nudity is taboo. The norms are opposite, but the function of protecting females is the same.

Gender-specific restrooms have protected women from molestation in America. If they become unisex, some other way must, and will, be found to protect the females using them. It may be harsher than gender-specific bathrooms. Maybe females will carry weapons, and shoot any males they find annoying. This would be a solution far worse than gender-specific bathrooms, but society will protect its females, or will soon be replaced by one that does. You can’t fight biology.