Buckle to Drive

76
2555
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

If you want to know what’s coming, all you need to do is consider what’s already been accepted. Accede to the legitimacy of stopping drivers for no other reason than that they happen to be driving and – before you know it – people who just happen to be flying will be groped.

Similarly – because what we’re dealing with here is the way one thing leads to another when the first thing has been allowed to pass unchallenged – you can expect your next new car to not move until you’ve “buckled up” – because you’ve already accepted being pestered by your car to “buckle up.”

In fact, because you’ve already accepted being forced to buy a car with seat belts.

Well, because enough other people have accepted it. Have agreed it’s a proper thing for the government – which has become a kind of authoritarian parent – to force everyone who buys a new car to buy seat belts. The government-parent then requiring everyone to wear them, too.

Having gone that far, is it surprising to discover that your next new car may not allow you to drive it until you’ve “buckled up”?

It will do just that if it’s the new (2024) Buick Envista, which comes standard with Buckle to Drive “technology.” This “Helps remind the driver to buckle their seat belt before driving by preventing the vehicle from being shifted out of PARK temporarily when the driver’s seat is not buckled.”

Italics added – in the interests of etymological honest.

This is not a “reminder” anymore than you are a “client” or a “customer” when you are forced to go to the DMV to hand over money for “services” you do not wish to purchase.

It is a cudgel.

That is to say, it is a kind of weapon used by the car to get you to obey. It won’t let you shift out of Park – “temporarily,” for now – until you do what the car says. Or rather, what the government says you must. It is no longer enough to merely pester the driver who chooses to drive “unbuckled” using annoying chimes that make it difficult to focus on driving.

He must be actually kept from driving.

This “temporary” business will, of course, shortly become permanent – because one thing follows another. If it is right to “remind” the driver to “buckle up” then it is right to force him to “buckle up.”

And so here we are. With more to come, if this is acceded to. Firstly, because it won’t be just Buick – or Chevy. Or GM, generally – that embeds this “technology” in its cars. It will be every company that sells cars, once the “technology” has been mandated by the government – which it inexorably will on the basis of one-thing-follows-another-thing. Readers of this column already know about the pending federal mandate that future new cars be equipped with the forward-looking version of the back-up cameras that all current new cars must have.

Soon, they will have to have cameras – and more – on account of “frontovers.”

One thing following another.

Just the same as air bags – first just one – followed seat belts. Acceptance of the latter – acceptance of the principle that’s it’s ok to force everyone to buy the latter – amounting to acceptance-in-principle of the former. If the government can force you to buy seat belts, why shouldn’t it be able to force you to buy an air bag?

Then two.

Now you have to buy at least six, typically.

And if the government can force you to buy a car with seat belts, then it has already been accepted it can force you to wear them. This it has already done in many states, where it is against the law to not “buckle up.” A driver whose driving cannot be faulted, who has not in any way threatened the “safety” of other drivers, can nonetheless be “pulled over” (i.e., forced to stop by an armed agent of the government) and arrested – if he refuses to “buckle up.”

So why not use “technology” – very “advanced” – to prevent him from driving altogether, if he is seat-belt recalcitrant?

Why not for other demonstrations of recalcitrance?

No surprise – or rather, people ought not to be surprised – that is exactly what’s coming, on account of what’s already here (and already been kow-towed to). Beginning with the 2026 model year – which is only two calendar years away at this point – all new vehicles will come standard with what is being marketed to the rubes as “technology” that will prevent “impaired” driving, which most rubes, in their rubishness, take to mean people who are impaired by booze or drugs.

What it will be, in fact, is “technology” that is programmed to regard any kind of driving that falls outside the parameters of “safe” – as defined by rigid obedience to each and every traffic law and by much more than just that – as justification for more . . . parenting, by the government. Via the car industry.

A driver who accelerates – or brakes or maneuvers – “aggressively” will be presumed impaired and the car will correct him. It may pull itself over and park – to await the law.

And it all follows from accepting this business of the government forcing people to buy seat belts in new cars, which set everything that has followed in motion.

. . .

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

If you like items like the Keeeeeeeeev! t shirt pictured below, you can find that and more at the EPautos store!

 

 

 

 

 

76 COMMENTS

  1. The police in Texas freak out at the 4-point harness in my Miata. The stock seatbelt is still there but not being used.
    Got a harness because the airbag in the steering wheel is known to be wayyyy too close to your face and can kill you. Airbag has been made ‘safe’ and harness keeps your face off the steering wheel.

  2. I think interest rates are going higher, and last week 30 year fixed mortgages are getting close to 8%. Today I wondered, what are auto loans interest rates, and this is what I found –

    Finance Rate on Consumer Installment Loans at Commercial Banks, New Autos 60 Month Loan
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RIFLPBCIANM72NM

    Finance Rate on Consumer Installment Loans at Commercial Banks, New Autos 72 Month Loan
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RIFLPBCIANM72NM

    ——————

    Used car loans could EASILY BE ABOVE 20% IN 2024

    Average Finance Rate of Used Car Loans at Finance Companies,
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RIELPCFAUNQ

    ———————–

    Motor Vehicle Loans Owned and Securitized
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MVLOAS

    The last chart, total outstanding auto debt, is probably peaking (as increasing interest rates will kill car loans) and will reverse soon.

    The curve is exponential, which explains why cars are so damn expensive, new cars prices are being floated on a mountain of debt.

    Look at the chart, in 1945 auto loans was 0 dollars
    Today total outstanding auto loans is 1533 billion dollars

    CAR PRICE INFLATION WAS CAUSED BY AUTO LOAN DEBT

    ———————-

    https://www.cnet.com/personal-finance/mortgages/mortgage-rates-climb-higher-on-aug-22-2023-what-does-that-mean-for-you/

    “The average 30-year fixed mortgage interest rate is 7.62%, which is an increase of 11 basis points from one week ago. (A basis point is equivalent to 0.01%.) ”

    IMO when home mortgages breach 8% it will send shock waves into the market.

    If interest rates exceed 1980 highs, that will send real estate market into a coma. IMO that is coming.

    10 year Treasury MEGAPHONE chart – interest rates are going to the moon –

    https://i.ibb.co/Wx61MkL/10-YEAR-TREASURY-MEGAPHONE-interest-rates-are-going-to-the-moon-yukon-jack-grpahic.jpg

    ——————–

    What did Jerome Powell say last week at Jackson Hole Fed campout?

    “Although inflation has moved down from its peak — a welcome development — it remains too high. We are prepared to raise rates further if appropriate, and intend to hold policy at a restrictive level until we are confident that inflation is moving sustainably down toward our objective,”

    Is the Fed a joke? They jacked the M1 16 TRILLION DOLLARS
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL

  3. This is what Uncle Ted warned about. Society is becoming industrialized. We are being pushed into the easily controllable mold.

  4. I’ve always asked myself “Why in God’s name does a seatbelt law even exist?! How does me not buckling up harm others?”. That’s like giving someone “lead poisoning” for not using an umbrella during a rain shower. Ditto for bicycle helmet laws. The fact that most people accepted “mandatory self-preservation”, means that they would have absolutely zero qualms about the government enforcing “safe sex”, for instance. Don’t ask how, but when there’s a will, there’s a way.

    • Indeed, Blue –

      I’ve been trying to get people to see the issue at hand for years. If the government can legitimately use force against a person “for his safety” or “for his health” then the government can use force against a person to make him eat his veggies – and prohibit him from doing anything the government decides is “unsafe.” Such as drive. At all.

      That is not government. It is pathological parenting – without the usual actual good intentions of the parent toward his child.

      • Trust me, I know from EXPERIENCE…when someone working for “Uncle”, usually in uniform, is your “father”, “mother”, and every other authoritative figure in your family…it’s as DYSFUNCTIONAL as it gets.

        At least with Drill Instructors, the term of parental “supervision” is TEMPORARY. Imagine how it is when you’ve got a dedicated bureaucrat, large and in charge. Anyone dumb enough to buy their primary residence in an HOA, and has to deal with self-appointed petty tyrants, drunk with power, should understand exactly of what I speak.

    • I guess they can do whatever they want when you’re on “our” roads. I always wondered about the implied consent laws. By taking a license, I am somehow agreeing that the state can force me to provide evidence against myself if some cop thinks I might be drunk. The state forces you to get a license if you want to drive on “our” roads (our, meaning taxpayer funded) and then says “it’s a privilege” and if you want to take advantage of such privilege, you have to give up your fifth amendment right. My state also demands you give a blood sample if you’re in a serious accident, whether the wreck was your fault or not and whether you show any evidence of impairment or not.
      As to seatbelts, the states passed the laws after the federal government via the DOT, threatened to withhold shares of “highway money” (paid by state citizens, no less) if they didn’t. I remember New Hampshire was the lone holdout for awhile and I’m not sure if they caved or not. In Indiana, they assured us that it was not a “primary” offense, meaning you would not be pulled over for not wearing one. You would only get a ticket for not wearing your strap-on if the cop saw it when stopping you for something else, like speeding.
      Next thing you know, we’ve got seatbelt checkpoints and cops standing in the middle of 4-way stop intersections, peering into people’s cars. They got away with it because it wasn’t to bust people; it was educational, you see.

  5. Off Topic. I have a confession to make, don’t excoriate me, I am an addict.

    I eat nothing but plant based food. As do we all.

    Glad I got that off my chest.

    Keep being honest, listen more than you talk and take care of those that need care.

    • Bacon, eggs, ham, sausage, burgers, steaks, are ALL “based” on plants…what food, pray tell, do you think the “food for human carnivores” EAT? It’s call the food pyramid, with mankind the APEX predator.

    • If that does not cause a problem for the Brits, I don’t know what will. As a descendant of IRA rebels that moved to America ( for various good reasons).

      I wish nothing well on the Brits. The real problem I have is Ireland may be worse than the Brits. To bad the Irish Republican Army has gotten old. Maybe some of the sons and daughters of those warriors will have to step up and fight the new enslavement of the world.

      • Ugg, that reminds me of a discussion I had with two Irish friends who spend quite a bit of time back on the auld sod.

        It went like this:

        “Apparently the differences between the Irish Catholics and English Protestants were enough to be a cause for war, but the differences between the Irish and the Islamic Africans and Middle Easterners is enough to be a cause for celebration.”

      • The Brits are DESTROYING these cameras left and right! Their destruction has caused London Mayor Sadiq Kahn no small amount of consternation as his ULEZ policy is undercut.

  6. I was recently pulled over a few weeks ago by an Oklahoma Highway Patrol. While not on a highway.

    — Side note: I hate that expression “pulled over”. It’s so gentle sounding, isn’t it? No, I was forced off of the road by a government worker with intimidating flashing lights and sounds, with the implied thread of deadly force if I chose not to comply. —

    He started off by looking at me and asking “Do I know you?”. What the hell kind of question is that? How the hell do I know if you know me? I don’t normally associate with GovCo parasites. Didn’t say that, but thought it. After he bizarrely told me he thinks I looked like his doctor, he told me, “You know, it’s pretty easy for me to see that you weren’t wearing your seat belt in that car. I was driving my 79 Firebird, windows down. With a dumbfounded look on my face I’m sure, I asked “Is that really why you stopped me??”

    “Oh yeah, you gotta wear your seat belt. It’s the law.”

    I said, “Hey, did you know that when they passed that law in the 70’s, they promised they would never pull you over because of not wearing a seat belt. They would have to pull you over for a legitimate reason, and then an extra fine could be tacked on if you also were not wearing your seat belt.”

    He said he had not heard that and he’s been doing this for 20 years. He went back to his car, came back with the $20 ticket, gave it to me and proceeded to tell me something about a digital signature on the ticket that says I agree to pay or show up for court. Uh, no, that’s not legally binding if I did not physically sign it.

    He then switched to “officer friendly mode” and talked to me for a few minutes about my car, I guess he liked it. He pulled away and parked just down the street. I assume he was waiting for me to drive off without my seat belt again so he could do it all again. After all, they have the time, right?

    I begrudgingly put it on and drove off until he was out of site and then I unbuckled. I promptly threw the ticket in the trash when I got home.

    • Appreciate you sticking up for your beliefs but not paying the ticket will lead to a bench warrant being issued for your arrest. The next time you get “pulled over” they will not be so friendly.

      • KK, I am sure my friend Phil is aware of things that might happen. The last time I was “pulled over” was 13 years ago. Got a ticket, went to court, it was dismissed. Have a pair.

        • “Have a pair”? Instead of paying $20, risk getting pulled over again for no belt and this time handcuffed, printed, jailed, until trial on the original ticket? That’s not ballsy, that’s stupid. I know the poster was making it all up but it’s a dumb idea regardless.

        • Since a ticket is a civil matter (failure to appear is a separate ‘offense’ of contempt of court, which the judge can impose a ‘civil’ penalty, including incarceration until you’re willing to comply, in general, rather than spend money to make you a ‘guest’ of the county, they’ll offer you a chance to post a rather STIFF bail, which, should you default, will settle the matter, but, of course, IF you had to use a bondsman, then you have to deal with HIM), in general, they have a three-year statute of limitations.

          However, other remedies, rather than go to the trouble of extradition (if the ticketing jurisdiction was in another state), are often employed…such as entering a default judgment, and attaching your tax refunds, wages, and so on. Again, a “civil” matter, but it should bring home the lesson that what they want is YOUR money.

        • I don’t know about Oklahoma but in the people’s republic of Illinois it can get quite bad for a productive person that is a citizen. I think the first step is a license suspension which will end up in the cops’ computer system which can then snowball into other things. Of course if one fights the ticket then they have penalties for fighting it.

          I understand the robbery of the $20 but resisting that only makes a person a target to steal much more and/or use it as leverage for their more vile pleasures. Also remember that the lawyers, courts, cops, etc are all part of the racket. The deeper one goes the more people there are that want a piece.

    • Hi Philo,
      Same here, supposedly the AGW couldn’t pull you over for not wearing a seat belt alone, but it doesn’t take much for them to make up some other excuse – your car is dirty, don’t like its color, etc. 😆. That only lasted a few years and now they can use that as a reason too, unless you have dark skin – then they are “profiling”.

      • They also can prolong the stop and call for the phoney “drug dog”, which does the song-and-dance about “alerting”, never mind no one really knows what Fido is actually getting a whiff of. Attorneys that deal with this term it, “probable cause on a LEASH.” Once they perform that routine, then they will forcibly search your vehicle to find “contraband”, and it’s all you can do to hope that they’re not too “determined” to “find” SOMETHING.

        The standing advice is to repeat, over and over, “Am I being detained? Am I FREE TO GO?” Often the coppers won’t even respond, verbally, but if you take my other standing advice to always record, Record, RECORD any encounter with law enforcement, then the video SHOULD make it clear that you did NOT voluntarily consent to being detained, or search. That way, if there’s problems with how the cops justified the search, at least you won’t have given them, however inadvertently, “consent” to being detained and searched. For the cops, “consent” cures ALL.

        It should also go w/o saying to make your that when you record, the video is being uploaded to the cloud, or, if not possible (no cell reception in the middle of Nevada, for example, and not everyone invests in a Sat phone), to a remote device via Bluetooth. It can be as simple as a spare “sail fawn” or a Raspberry PI with a battery pack, hidden well enough that the cops don’t find and destroy them ALSO.

    • Uh,

      Most of the seat belt laws have been changed to make it a primary violation, meaning that the cops can pull you over for just that. When they were first instituted, seat belt laws were a secondary violation; that meant that a driver couldn’t be penalized for failing to wear their seat belts unless pulled over for a primary violation, e.g. speeding. But yeah, most of the seat belt laws have since been changed to a primary violation.

  7. We know where this is going –
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d7SaO0JAHk

    I think the situation is way, way worse than any of us imagine, and here is some evidence to support that contention:

    MORE EVIDENCE – 2 Miles from Lahaina Fire A Melted Car Surrounded by Gravel! D.E.W. or What?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9L9WvlCli0

    NBC News Accidentally Shows US/UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield As Shape-Shifting Demon
    https://www.bitchute.com/video/QuLfaV8jEwlT/

    UFOs descending and ascending over Jerusalem Dome of the Rock
    https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZSkJ5gY1xfoE/

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18530582/china-organ-harvesting-live-patients/

    China soup –
    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/VqbiskVzwAU/maxresdefault.jpg

    Tesla – the car for stupid people – epic tesla fails – A TESLA IS A ROLLING FIRE BOMB
    https://www.bitchute.com/video/p35xWxFwUY4o/

  8. WHERE WILL IT END???!!!!
    If they put any more crap in these cars they’re going to end up being the size of locomotives!
    Of course it is a given that the citizenry will just accept it like they’ve accepted everything else, and will continue to accept anything….

    Disgusting.

  9. Didn’t we go thru this mandatory seat belt thing back in the early 70’s? Certain makes of car wouldn’t start if you didn’t buckle up. So you had two choices – you put on the seat belt or you just buckled it and sat on it….I’d imagine people will do the same in newer cars with this “feature”.
    Guess the automakers don’t know history – hence they are repeating it!

    • Yeah…My aunt had a 1974 Chrysler Imperial that wouldn’t start unless you buckled the seat belts. If you wanted to start the car and not sit in it, you had to buckle the belts.

      She thought it was broken when she first got it!

      • That, thankfully, only lasted a few years. Many “Congress Critters” found this “feature” on THEIR new rides to likewise be annoying, and given Detroit’s *ahem*, painstaking attention to quality control, took unexpected trips to “Malfunction Junction”. Only when it affects THEM is anything done!

        What I also “fondly” remember is those “passive restraint” belts in the late 80s and early 90s. Yeech. I had a ’94 Ford “Prostitute” (Escort) for some time as a beater, many moons ago. Thing was a pain in the ass to get in and out of….just like a REAL hooker, I suppose.

        • It didn’t even make it a full model year before people rebelled and the seat belt interlock became a horrible annoyance and hazard (because of the malfunction). I can’t remember now if it was ’73 or ’74.

          My ’73 has a very annoying prolonged buzzer. Which I disconnected with in moments of getting the car home and haven’t heard since.

      • What I can’t figure out is, doesn’t the fact that the 1974 seat belt interlock mandate was implemented and then cancelled a year or so later set a precedent, that would make it virtually impossible to implement again? Same with the 1974 55mph national speed limit, which was also cancelled later?

  10. Given that cars are 50k, and
    Many can’t afford the retail. I suspect a regulation rollback in the future. It happen before in the 80s when regs like the 85 mph were repealed.

  11. ‘A driver who accelerates – or brakes or maneuvers – “aggressively” will be presumed impaired and the car will correct him. It may pull itself over and park – to await the law.’ — eric

    ‘Not enough!’ hissed Mayor Pete. ‘After pulling itself over and parking, the vehicle must lock the driver inside until he/she/zhe/it/they can be detained.’

    ‘But Pete …’ whispered an aide. ‘What if there’s an emergency — a flood, a fire, an injured person?’

    ‘That is of no consequence,’ replied Pete, with a steely glint in his eye. ‘We shall deliver drunkards into the hands of an angry god!

    • “‘What if there’s an emergency — a flood, a fire, an injured person?”

      Easy Peezy,,,,, The Maui police has the answer to that,,, just block their exit. We are so well trained the munchkins obeyed the nice officer! Women and children burnt to death. The value of real estate goes up with each charred body! 2000 kids missing still after almost two weeks. Not even a news item any more. Corporate Carpet Baggers all over the place.

      It’s no longer “Build Back Better” Now is’ “Burn Back Better”.

      • ‘Corporate Carpet Baggers all over the place.’ — ken

        Case in point:

        ‘A recent Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) report estimates that Russia fired 12 million artillery shells in 2022 and would discharge seven million in 2023. Russia is producing 2.5 million shells a year, in addition to munitions imports from North Korea and Iran.

        ‘In stark contrast, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) estimated that the United States could only produce 93,000 155mm shells a year, all of which go to training exercises.

        ‘If the military achieves an accelerated production schedule, it will produce 240,000 shells yearly, still less than 10 percent of Russia’s current production. Ukrainian artillery fires 8,000 rounds daily, consuming an entire month of current U.S. munitions production.’

        https://www.moonofalabama.org/2023/08/ukraine-sitrep-us-to-prolong-its-proxy-war.html#more

        With a trillion-dollar military budget that exceeds all of its allies combined, how does the US manage to faceplant on even covering the basics such as producing shells to like, you know, fight?

        Pervasive, “ten percent for the Big Guy” corruption, that’s how. Titanic levels of official graft and money laundering are sucking the economy dry. Welcome to the impoverished gangster state of Bidenstan.

    • Any country that would put a Sodomite that openly flaunts his “preversion” (thanks be to the late Keenan Wynne as Col. “Bat” Guano in “Dr Strangelove”) or obvious suffer from gender dysphoria, like our current “Sturgeon General” (I’ve seen female impersonators that at least could look halfway attractive, which that blob is decidedly NOT), is FUCKED.

  12. It seems that these new technologies can also pose a danger. It’s one thing for the seat belt indicator not to work properly, you can still drive even if the damn thing is chiming away. However if the car won’t move, or pulls to a stop, and you have an emergency situation, the the design of the car can be a cause of loss of life or similar if you can’t get to the hospital for example. The lawsuits for something like this will be huge. And when you consider the possibility of failure of one of these complicated systems the auto companies are going to face a lot of bad situations. The black market for shutting this stuff off is going to be huge.

  13. They are very good at regulating the influx of such horse excrement. Not too fast, else they might get push back. Not that it matters that much. We are falling off an economic cliff, and very few will be able to afford a new car much longer.

  14. Just rolled my 23 year old Jap car after a lot of my mechanical / garage therapy. Now slowly healing up from assorted bumps and bruises, and cuts. I have another one that got a bit of my attention awhile back, and it’s 29 years old, keepers for sure.

  15. GEO displays zones of various risk levels in which flight may pose safety or security concerns and allows users to unlock them.

    https://fly-safe.dji.com/home

    The manufacturer dictates where you may or may not fly. Actually, the various government agencies supply DJI (a Chinese owned company) a list of places where they don’t want drones flying. This includes controlled airspace, usually about 10 NM around airports. That’s a lot of square footage that requires clearance, and therefore permission from DJI, before your aircraft will take off. The FAA has a mostly automated system called LAANC for obtaining clearance. DJI’s Fly Safe is outside of that system.

    If you don’t log into your DJI account on a regular basis you will be restricted to flying 20 meters AGL and 50 m away from the launch point. Unknown why this is required but my guess is so that when you run afoul of Charman Biden they can prove you were the one on the sticks.

    All this is happening today, on a $3000 quadcopter. It’d be trivial to add this “feature” to $70,000 cars, if it isn’t already there just waiting to be switched on. DJI is happy to comply with government orders. After all, it is one of the darlings of the CCP, and their primary market is government agencies (who can get a permanent unlock of course).

    Why doesn’t the O’Biden regime complain about China? Professional courtesy (and jealousy).

  16. I already refuse to accept for service any vehicles ‘temporarily’ (or otherwise) equipped with an ‘interlock’, aka ‘breathalizer’. Since I also do not perform ‘while you wait’ service’, said vehicles and their operators are not part of my repertoire at my shop. Those devices DO have the ability to be put in ‘service’ mode. These interlock installers are VA State Licensed (aka not State owned or operated), but refuse to divulge codes to other auto service facilities, even licensed VA State Inspection stations (also privately owned and operated). So, I will continue to exercise my 1st Amendment Freedom of Right to Association, as a private business owner.

    I will also do the same should these constitutionally illegal devices become standard fare. I swear, the sheeple are inexorably culling themselves, and everyone else, with their incessant safety cultism. Likewise, I am all too happy to refuse to participate in their stupidity.

  17. I have this habit of not wearing a seatbelt while backing up. The BMW x3 throws a mighty fit. The 23 year old Sierra doesn’t give a shit. Nor should it or any other vehicle. They’re inanimate objects. As the driver I’m in control, not some nameless faceless nanny who’s no more concerned about my safety than I am theirs.

  18. Had no idea it was getting this bad. Forget what I said about reviewing the 2024 Envision.

    As the organization I work for is more and more predominately ruled by women, there are more and more rules related to safety and a propensity to monitor everyone’s behavior. I postulate that this is the reason why our gubberment bureaus have become so tyrannical.

    • Hi Scooter –

      I think there’s much truth to what you’ve said. Certainly, there are men who are like women – in being overly “concerned” about “safety.” But women are – in general – the softer sex. Literally as well as emotionally. This is not a criticism of women. Thank God for them and their softness, which counterbalances the male tendency to be hard. Women knit together the family and so the community and thus, the nation. They are the natural and primary protectors of children in the sense of watching over them. A man’s natural role is to protect the woman. These roles become confused when women become like men – while still being women. It is why we have the phenomenon of the bossy woman, who wants to parent us.

      Men can be bossy, too – but in a less cloying (more overtly physical) way. I do not believe we’d have the Cult of Safety were it not for feminism.

      • Femi-naziism, which is actually the destruction of femininity, and not by coincidence either. Again, like ‘autonomous cars’, terminology being subverted to advocate that which is directly opposite of the words being used. Double-speak and hypocrisy all around.

      • You stated that well, Eric. Especially the yin/yang of the sexes. As an Appalachian boy in a Yankee Blue state, this safety/feminism thing is easy to recognize. It’s when men are cowered by the girl boss that bad stuff happens. When we don’t assert our leadership is when they start to hate us, and rightly so.

      • Agreed. Safety (as we know it today) was not really invented until the late 1960s at the earliest.

        Prior to that, you wore a hard hat, or you didn’t, you took your chances, and you got things done largely in the way you saw fit. And if you screwed around or endangered others on a job site, they would take care of the problem by yelling at you or maybe even taking away your tools & demoting you to gofer for the day. If you lost a finger you learned an important lesson; if you did it twice you were just dumb. (This is largely my dad’s approach, his approach to hard hats is “pester me again and I’ll teach you everything you need to know about overhead hazards.” He’s an older Boomer who came of age & entered the work force (and stopped doing that kind of labor) before that crap got started.)

        Now it’s a whole different ballgame (if you want to keep your job).

        • My buddy worked in a shipyard, they dealt with a-hole supervisors by dropping a large chain “next” to them from on high to get the message across. “Ya know, next time ya might not be so lucky, how about not being a di**head from here on”

        • Yes but a lot of that was driven by unions not government, that were looking out for the safety of their members. It wasn’t until the arrival of OSHA ( under Nixon I think) that federally mandated safety got started. Which was also promoted by unions (govt sector).

        • Auto Safety goes way back. In the 1930s automotive safety was avoiding crashes. See the Jam Handy GM film “Wreckless”, 1935 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1m0AOMzdzA

          Automakers also tried to sell padded dashes, seat belts, and much more in the 1950s. People didn’t buy.

          SAE standards were created for various things that got implemented that people couldn’t see or notice but were along the lines of preventing crashes and some to surviving them.

          Then the government stepped in. Real life safety figures stagnated as a result. Eventually starting to improve again in the 1970s.

          It wasn’t until the 1980s that the automakers could successfully sell safety.

    • Risk, violence, and death are the purview of men. Care, nurturing, and life are the purview of women. Dangerous for either to have absolute control, at any level. From the family on up. They need to work toward an equilibrium, where both influences achieve a desired balance between risk and reward.

    • And how did feminism occur? Wimpy men. Sure, we can blame government with destroying the nuclear family, but a strong man and a strong woman can see through that and would not have been enticed by suckling Uncle Sam’s teat. Harsh? Yes, but the truth usually is.

      Men whine about women wanting to be men, but men walk out on just as many relationships and responsibilities as women do. The man vs woman scenario is just as dangerous as the black vs white or or any other argument that our government hopes to ensnare us into to divide each other. It looks like their plan is working splendidly.

      • In the 1970’s we called it the Battle of the Sexes, which culminated in Billie Jean King beating out Bobby Riggs at a USTA tournament in Forest Hills, NY.

        I agree, with my own failings, with your contention that men and women are equally responsible for the degradation in society.

        A new approach is needed by both sexes in this ongoing push and pull game.

        It is up to men to lead the way on all of this. If you are having trouble finding a woman that can support all of this, look overseas, but treat her right. Or at least try a lot harder.

        • Hi swamp,

          I agree with your post. We all have to try a little harder and the ground rules need to be explained ahead of time. Before we were married my husband and I sat down and stated or “no-gos”. Mine are pretty simple:

          1. No lying
          2. No cheating
          3. No raising a hand to me in anger

          Anything else could be worked out. My husband added another one:

          4. No drugs

          We both follow these rules. Other marriages/partnerships will have different rules, but both he and I abide by these (it doesn’t flow one way).

          Every relationship is going to have issues – you can’t live with someone and not run into disagreements, but each party has to respect each other and realize the relationship should be prioritized above everything else (yes, even including the kids).

        • That whole “Battle of the Sexes” was a JOKE. Riggs, who was in his mid-fifties and obviously well past his competitive days, had, in a prior match. utterly destroyed Margaret Court, who was every bit as good as Ms. King. There is also evidence that Riggs, who owed money to *ahem*, “gambling interests”, may have thrown the entire match, but made it look convincing, to not only settle his debts but also walk away with a tidy sum.

          • That 1970s circus event has been replaced with something much more telling. Women’s national and maybe pro soccer teams getting beat by boys HS teams. And usually not the seniors but the freshmen.

            Then they decided to repeat this experiment taking on a recreational league team of 50+ year old men. Then they were absolutely destroyed and the game called in a slaughter rule type fashion.

            As a team sport there’s a distribution on both sides and it’s comparing the best women in the sport to men on both sides of their prime.

            And yet the delusions persist.

      • RG,

        Normally I agree with you, but I have to take issue here. Who files the majority of divorces? WOMEN DO! They file first 80% of the time; if she’s college educated, then she’ll file first 90% of the time. Oh and BTW, women cite adultery as a reason for divorce about 24% of the time-same as men do. Do you know why women normally file for divorce? They got bored. They weren’t happy. Or it’s some other BS reason. So, who has a greater problem with commitment, hmmm?

        • Hi Mark,

          Okay, I will play ball.

          If we are throwing out statistics 75% of married men have strayed sometime in their marriage. Umm, that seems pretty close to the 80% of divorces filed by women.

          But, let’s say adultery isn’t on the table. Why is she bored? Just by observing the couples around me who are in unhappy relationships…both have stopped trying.

          1. They no longer put the needs (and sometimes wants) of the other person ahead of their themselves, the children, or work.

          2. They stop communicating.

          3. They stop enjoying being with each other.

          4. They don’t carve out time for the other person.

          5. Compromise becomes a dirty word.

          6. Intimacy becomes non existent.

          7. Mostly, importantly, they stop showing appreciation for the things that the other person does for them…no matter how small or large.

          A relationship is like a plant. If one does not keep it watered and provide it plenty of sunlight it will die. It cannot be saved by one person, but needs to be cared for by both.

          Most men don’t just cheat to cheat and most women don’t just walk because they become disinterested. People do these things when they feel they are being taken advantaged of, unappreciated, and neglected.

          • Hi RG,

            This is well-said. I’d only add that, sometimes, communication is misunderstood communication. One person assumes he (or she) heard what the other didn’t actually say and acts accordingly.

            • Hi Eric,

              Ah, the seer complex…”I know you didn’t say that, but you meant it.” 😉 I think a lot of people are either a) looking for an excuse to run or 2) looking for affirmation (usually due to insecurity). Not everybody is best at the spoken word. If you two people want the relationship to work it needs to be action based. Words are only going to take us so far.

          • RG,

            While you raise good points, women are cheating as often as, if not more than, men nowadays. Also, if men are straying in such huge numbers, then why don’t women cite that as a reason for filing the divorce?

            I like the plant analogy-good one.

            Watering plants seems to work EXCEPT with the cat grass I get at PetSmart; no matter what I do, that stuff DIES within two weeks of bringing it home! I follow the instructions on the cat grass and water it when they say you should, yet it still dies on me. I think it has a termination gene or something…

            • Hi Mark,

              Are women cheating more than men these days? Are more married women becoming lesbians, because that would be the only way the number of women are cheating more than men? Usually it takes two to tango. Which I will also concur distorts the 75% of married men that will cheat during their marriage, because they usually cheat with a woman.

              As for the adultery claim not being used in divorced as much usually (the man or woman) committed the act a while back and tried to make the marriage work. Some marriages/relationships are able to overcome this, others the trust is gone and they may stay for sake of the children, jobs, assets, etc. In a future year, they end up divorcing, but the cause is not infidelity, but a broken marriage stemming from infidelity (or a multitude of other things).

              • I have seen no comment in this string regarding the “men are evil POS” position. Which I’m pretty sure ended my 35 year marriage. We went to a female marriage counselor, and everything was my fault. Fairly sure she was gay too. I had no interest in seeing her again. My wife did. In less than a year we had parted ways. I’ve tried to make contact since, but she is uninterested. So, I haven’t spoken to her, or vice versa in 10 years.

                • Hi John,

                  I don’t think anyone on here believe men are evil POS. 🙂

                  I am sorry you had to go through that. Personally, I am not a fan of marriage counselors. Whenever a third party is introduced into any relationship it is usually never for the best. It sounds like you had a horrible one.

          • I have never seen thus 75% stat. Every time I’ve seen it it was much lower and men and women were within about 3% of each other.

            But there is an apparently alarming amount of men that are raising other men’s children unknowingly. Exact figures are difficult to determine. Given that feminists block efforts for DNA testing we can make assumptions this game is quite important and bigger than assumed.

            • I haven’t seen it, either. If it’s true, it begs an obvious question: WHY are men cheating in those numbers? Why are they seeking intimacy outside of the marriage? IMO, to ask those questions is to answer them.

              Also, do you know that DNA testing is PROHIBITED in France? A man can only have it done if Wifey approves. If she were cheating, how likely is that approval?

            • Hi Brent,

              “Another estimate from the journal of Marriage and Divorce concludes that a mind blowing 70% of married Americans cheat at least once in their marriage. More reliable numbers from the US General Social Survey point to lower statistics for infidelity, but they are still worrisomely high.”

              What are feminists doing to block DNA testing? Also, why are more men raising someone else’s children? Did they sleep with the woman or not? Did they use protection? I don’t see how a judge could force a man to raise another’s child if the gentleman called for a DNA test. Maury Povich built an entire television show around it.

              Are there skanky women out there? Yes. But, to sleep with multiple men in a very short period of time and push off someone else’s baby as his is not the standard.

    • You are right, Scooter. To use the movie analogy, we’ve gone from Big Brother (1984) to Mommie Dearest.

      Re Safety, hey, it’s your coconut.

      • Interesting how Ms. Crawford, nearly bankrupt after the juicy roles dried up, and all the work she could get was of the “Crazy Auntie” variety, married Alfred Steele, chairman of PepsiCo. It was Steele’s third marriage and Crawford’s fourth. Contrary to what the “Mommie Dearest” movie portrays, Steele had repaid the personal loan from his company for their Manhattan luxury penthouse some months prior to his passing in April of 1959. He’d also retain enough voting stock so that his widow retained a seat on the board, which she did until 1973, and Joan lived well off the divided and board member stipends.

        Just shows that most “independent women” are simply angling for a BETTER DEAL.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here