It looks so sexy, right, when cute little Avril sings about having been good all her life? But What The Hell, it's time for a little rabble rousing including theft, destruction of private property, attempted shoplifting, and basically being a gigantic bitch to her boyfriend. Girl Power! Girls rock! Don't let 'em keep you down, Avril! You go!
So millions of young impressionable girls absorb that message, and you get this in real life:
She drives in a snowstorm, gets caught in a massive 50-60 vehicle pileup, and a tow truck pulls her out. But the bill - $225 - is more than she wants to pay, so she goes on a rampage at the towing company, assaults an employee, and does about $10,000 worth of damage to the office. In front of her boyfriend and son. I watched the raw footage yesterday, and the saddest thing about it was her child crying and begging her to stop.
In the discussion on M-Live yesterday, many people objected to the cost of the tow. I found this comment very enlightening:
Liberals demand a high level of regulation and control:
- US DOT compliance and number
- Michigan Public Service Commission authority and door tag
- drug testing for any CDL drivers - commercial license plates
- marking requirements
- license and liability insurance
- OHSA, EPA and Workmen's Comp regulations
-record-keeping up the wazoo
to name a few. This is before any ordinary and normal business expenses like rent, wages and taxes and more taxes on top of the taxes.
A service business like towing is high risk (drivers are hurt or killed everyday) and low profit or no profit.
All you armchair business geniuses, however, can see big profit margins (mostly non-existent), so by all means please run out and buy yourself a new tow truck and start making that big money.
At the end of the day, when your stuck with a smashed car, an unpaid bill and a trashed office, and had your business flamed in M-Live by all the local Harvard MBAs, was it really worth it?
It is very expensive to run a small business, and not that many people are willing to go out in a blizzard and risk both life and property to tow out people like this woman. From the video, it doesn't look like the owner is operating in the lap of luxury.
This woman will now be arrested and charged with several felonies. As she should. I hope they throw the book at her. Assault is assault, no excuses, and no passes because she's female. She could have really hurt that man, and the wrecker is unlikely to get a dime out of her and will have to muddle on and replace his own equipment. His insurance premium will probably go up.
Again, the sad thing here is the situation of the child. I can't comment on her mothering skills, except to say that no mature adult would do what she did and certainly never in front of her child, but it seems unlikely that his father is an active parent and upstanding citizen. He may be one of millions of fathers shafted by family court and denied access to his kid, but it's more likely she chose a thug to have a baby with. Which means the boy will probably go to a relative or to state custody. All of which is made possible by a society that tolerates illegitimacy and gives financial incentives to women who can't afford to have children but do anyway.
I've been following the discussion between The Thinking Housewife and The Spearhead, which more or less boils down to whether men should be encouraged or coerced to marry or otherwise support women when marrying or supporting women is 1) contrary to his own best interests and 2) could lead - via family court income extraction - to servitude and/or lifetime penury. While I am a strong believer in marriage as a building block of civilization, my view is that men should not be encouraged or coerced to marry for several reasons:
1) The short term good marriage offers for women and children can easily be undone by women at any time if she decides she wants out. And, yes, for the people who will sputter at me, men can walk too. But we are not trying to shame or coerce women into marriage here. We know subconsciously that marriage is a very good deal for women; we've just been trying to repress it because it seems "sexist." Coercing men to contract themselves to women and then allowing women to break that contract at will makes no sense.
2) The short term isn't even the point. Those conservatives who want the traditional family back want it back long term. Bailing water by the bucketful into a breaking dam is a futile action. Laughable, really.
3) Allowing the marriage market to readjust via supply and demand is much more effective. If you bring something to market highly overpriced, no one will buy it and you will go home none the richer. You can either lower your price or keep your goods. Wives are currently overpriced not because intrinsically they are better or worse than they ever were but because the market itself has been distorted by government intrusion - family courts, no fault divorce, affirmative action - and because the goods themselves have been damaged by the stuff we women have been telling ourselves for decades and the lives we've been leading in response. You can monkey with the system a little longer or try and shame or coerce the buyer into taking something he doesn't want, but that's just kicking the can. The market always corrects itself. Kicking the can will just result in a little more violent correcting. People know when they are getting a bad deal and they resent it and work against it. They will undermine you, run away, revolt, and eventually, given nothing more to lose, set fire to everything. It's the way people work. It's the way people have always worked. Property owners during the Depression bulldozed their own buildings rather than pay exorbitant property taxes the could not afford because they couldn't get rent from their tenants. They bulldozed their own buildings.
4) As women we need to absorb these hard truths and hope for a swifter correction to this market. Because:
- We don't want that violent correction. Widespread violence is beyond the ability of women to control.
- We have it harder when we allow this. Women who act badly work against the interests of other women. They create problems other women - grandmothers, social workers, teachers, second wives - have to mop up. They make us all look bad too, especially when we say nothing about the grievous wrongs they do to their men and children.
- We see the unhappiness and dysfunctional lives of countless women around us. Does anyone think either of the women in the above two videos are happy? And the Lori Gottliebs of the world who spent their youth getting overeducated, proud, and sleeping with men who cared nothing for them - are they happy? The Sex and the City women - with their fancy, create-nothing jobs and no children - are they happy? One of the women I once worked with spent her twenties and thirties with a number of completely unsuitable men. She is now writing online letters to her future husband, the man she knows will come to her. She had some fun in her day, yes, but she seems profoundly miserable now. Letting women do as they will, with no restrictions, when they are young has not lead to widespread societal happiness and prosperity. Even as a fantasy, it's kind of depressing. How 'bout we chuck it?
- We allow the souls of these women to be imperiled. The argument I'm referencing has a certain religious component to it. We need to remember that when we allow people to behave badly without consequences, we create tyrants and bullies who only get worse. Not only are they unhappy and a danger to others but spiritually they are degraded. How can we as Christians advise others to avoid the near occasion of sin when we are in fact constantly sustaining and shoring up a society-wide sinfulness?
- Finally and very importantly, we should care about the suffering of our men. They are our fathers, brothers, sons, nephews, friends, and coworkers. They are a part of us. When they hurt, we should hurt and we should want to stop the injustice they face.