My experience with game

[Farm Boy]

Most people want fancy job for themselves, and let somebody else do the dirty stuff.

Yup. You can often tell what sort of work somebody has done in their life by their attitude. I'm sure wait staff knows this way better than I do, but I can sometimes see it with people who work outside. Water and bathrooms, in that specific case. I thinned corn/pollinated/detassled for a series of summers in the early aughts*. We'd get shipped around to different test plots on rented acreage around the area. I hated thinning corn(if your job is to count really fast you can't think about what you want to think about without losing your place, I found it maddening), but I really learned to love random elderly farm wives. They tended to bring us things like kool aide or freezy pops when it would have been just as easy to not notice that the vans had shown up and we were out there.

*easier than mowing hay! Actually that's confusing without pronunciation. Putting it up in the haymow to store, not mowing it as in cutting it so you can mow it later. It's mostly an obsolete job, people use those big round bales these days and just tarp them outside, barns are built differently. That was ridiculously thirsty work.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Your snarky non-response indicates you concede the point due to lack of real engagement therefore Ultra-Communism Wins Forever No Takebacksies.

Lol. I'm only replying in kind in this regard though.

I didn't think you'd made your point or any point really.

I have:

Women's representation among several classes of work is used as a point to indicate discrimination against them. However, this logic is not-self consistent, as it does not extend to vocations such as his examples (even tough work in these fields that would not require high physical strength).

The discussion was regarding systemic discrimination and whether one or both sides pushes for supremacy rather than equality. Inconsistent narrative indicated by quoted is not consistent with an equality narrative.

Based on what I've seen most advocacy groups push for supremacy rather than equality in practice, regardless of race/gender/whatever element is used to group them.

What do YOU want right now?

Policy wise? I'd prefer merit based systems to non-merit based systems, and for whatever is done to be consistent with what people claim the policy will accomplish. Tangential to the current discussion though.

The Civil Rights Act didn't lead to perfect assortment by race at the next election, therefore other barriers MUST be in effect.

Speaking of "simple-minded", obviously there is the possibility of more than one barrier. Adding additional barriers such as affirmative action or long-term welfare on populations that can work still adds more barriers.

is really doing a much better job than some of you others at paying attention and understanding.

The arguments presented ignored multiple points of discussion outright and in one case outright lied about the position put forth by other posts. Asserting "attention/understanding" in such a context is asserting malice.

but that's why you need to listen to others

Try it yourself.

Consider for one thing complaints about women not doing "undesirable" jobs: do you really know why? Because women aren't respected. Do you have any idea how hard it is for women to get those types of jobs?

It's true that people rarely get jobs they don't apply for, which is what's really going on in this case. In many STEM fields women are underrepresented despite discrimination in their favor. The Google memo nonsense didn't happen because Google had too many female applicants relative to what they were willing to hire for example.

One big part of male privilege, is when you fail your failure isn't blamed on your gender.

This happens when an individual is capable of taking personal responsibility rather than blaming someone/something else whenever possible.

If taking responsibility is a "privilege", why have you refused it in this thread so many times? Where was the evidence to answer to the call for arguing in reality, after calling people out on it? The realization + admission of mistake regarding the misandry discussion? Actually quoting and addressing points made directly?

Some women do these things effectively. When they don't do these things, they aren't taken seriously and it's not because they're women.

If you simply learn to respect women

It's strange to show disrespect and ask for respect on behalf of a broad group of people. I do respect women, that's why I hold them to standards. In this discussion, like Senethro you're not meeting that standard (not addressing argumentative points, ignoring things said in posts that are inconvenient). More broadly in the work force, if we're to buy systemic discrimination there needs to be evidence that it happens. When data is selected to misrepresent what really happens, it makes the person/people doing it less credible.

On the other hand, several of your posts have shown disrespect for men in general.

 

[red_elk]

Yup. You can often tell what sort of work somebody has done in their life by their attitude. I'm sure wait staff knows this way better than I do, but I can sometimes see it with people who work outside. Water and bathrooms, in that specific case. I thinned corn/pollinated/detassled for a series of summers in the early aughts*. We'd get shipped around to different test plots on rented acreage around the area. I hated thinning corn(if your job is to count really fast you can't think about what you want to think about without losing your place, I found it maddening), but I really learned to love random elderly farm wives. They tended to bring us things like kool aide or freezy pops when it would have been just as easy to not notice that the vans had shown up and we were out there.

*easier than mowing hay! Actually that's confusing without pronunciation. Putting it up in the haymow to store, not mowing it as in cutting it so you can mow it later. It's mostly an obsolete job, people use those big round bales these days and just tarp them outside, barns are built differently. That was ridiculously thirsty work.

Our family used to grow potatoes. Not professionally, just needed to get food somewhere, in 90-s.
Hate field work since then.

 

[Farm Boy]

All of it? I don't usually hate weeding unless it's hands and knees, but that might be because it's slower pace and you can ponder.

I haven't dug a lot of potatoes, I think that'd probably get old pretty fast. Hand tools or mechanical?

 

[Senethro]

The discussion was regarding systemic discrimination and whether one or both sides pushes for supremacy rather than equality. Inconsistent narrative indicated by quoted is not consistent with an equality narrative.

Both sides? Which other side? If you mean yourself, then who is that?

Additionally, are you saying that someone is supreme right now?

Regarding equality narrative: You are making an unspoken assumption that the work currently performed by women is not equivalent (by whatever means you choose to define it) to the sewerjacks, therefore if women gain CEO-ships they are somehow "stealing" status (or something). Perhaps you would like to demonstrate this?

On the other hand I don't see whats so odd about advocating for obviously high status decision makers in public and private fields to be more than pale stale and male. It just looks like someones running a scam otherwise.

Based on what I've seen most advocacy groups push for supremacy rather than equality in practice, regardless of race/gender/whatever element is used to group them.

I agree! Among the most prominent examples being the Republican Party. Also worth noting that here again you are asserting the hidden motives you claimed I lied about.

Policy wise? I'd prefer merit based systems to non-merit based systems, and for whatever is done to be consistent with what people claim the policy will accomplish. Tangential to the current discussion though.

It is not tangential. Every position is in competition with the status quo and with each other. I'd like to know more about your competing proposition, because it sure as hell isn't the status quo you're describing.

Speaking of "simple-minded", obviously there is the possibility of more than one barrier.

I said barriers! Look at the quote! Barriers. Plural. Barriers. Reading comprehension much or just too eager to make the burn?

Adding additional barriers such as affirmative action or long-term welfare on populations that can work still adds more barriers.

Can you show that they are barriers and that they are among the most significant barriers since the 1970s in the US?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Both sides? Which other side? If you mean yourself, then who is that?

Additionally, are you saying that someone is supreme right now?

We were talking about your "hidden feminism" strawman lie and my refutation about it. What are you talking about now?

Regarding equality narrative: You are making an unspoken assumption that the work currently performed by women is not equivalent

Nope.

On the other hand I don't see whats so odd about advocating for obviously high status decision makers in public and private fields to be more than pale stale and male. It just looks like someones running a scam otherwise.

Demonstrate evidence of the scam, though that'd be a heck of a conspiracy given the scale.

I agree! Among the most prominent examples being the Republican Party. Also worth noting that here again you are asserting the hidden motives you claimed I lied about.

What's your hard-on for "hidden motives"? From the start I have been calling out groups for motives they openly state.

Let me repeat that since it seems to be hard for you to grasp in this discussion:

I don't need to assert hidden motives because the motives are openly stated.

For emphasis:

• the motives are openly stated.
• the motives are openly stated.
• the motives are openly stated.

And in case you weren't aware, I have asserted the motives weren't hidden. This red herring about "hidden motives" is nonsense, carries no credibility, and is a distraction at best. This SHOULD have been obvious several pages ago...

I'd like to know more about your competing proposition, because it sure as hell isn't the status quo you're describing.

You're right that it isn't, but I was mostly arguing against a statement demonstrating misandry in a thread about "game" initially. We could split to a different thread on optimal policy in this regard if you wish, because it would be even more tangential than this one has already gotten.

I said barriers! Look at the quote! Barriers. Plural. Barriers. Reading comprehension much or just too eager to make the burn?

Yet you're still advocating to introduce barriers in the name of removing barriers.

Can you show that they are barriers and that they are among the most significant barriers since the 1970s in the US?

Thomas Sowell has given some pretty damning statistics regarding welfare state impact since the 1970's, suggesting that it has harmed the black community greatly (longer lasting economic impact than the recovery period post abolition). It does tie into the single-parent household statistics in general as well, which have higher baselines for poverty & crime.

In contrast, I won't assert that affirmative action is among the "most significant" barriers, just that it is a barrier (it's discrimination, which can't reduce discrimination).

 

[Senethro]

We were talking about your "hidden feminism" strawman lie and my refutation about it. What are you talking about now?

No we weren't. You were using a modified version of someone elses example of groups of workers to show how a movement pushing for equality is supposedly inconsistent in its motives. You then made reference to another "side" and now I am asking for clarification.

Additionally, you still seem to be struggling with the idea that a movement pushing for equality might sensibly prioritize high status decision making positions? Like, whats unreasonable about that? I apologize for essentially repeating myself here but somehow you didn't answer it.

Furthermore even if we take your straw feminism that wants 50/50 M/F CEOs (not that CEOs in their current incarnation are good or desirable imo) and 100/0 sewerjacks, then how is that a problem? I mean, I think it is suboptimal, but what actually is the problem? Who is hurt? I think it is less suboptimal than the status quo.

(And I still think you're making that hidden assumption and possibly one other but lets come back to that)

Demonstrate evidence of the scam, though that'd be a heck of a conspiracy given the scale.

Did you hear about America prior to some famous civil rights legislation? Big scam. Major conspiracy. It was white people, did you know? They'll steal the land out from under you if you let them.

Is this joke undermined if I indicate it is a joke? It is a joke. Laughs. Bantz.

What's your hard-on for "hidden motives"? From the start I have been calling out groups for motives they openly state.

Let me repeat that since it seems to be hard for you to grasp in this discussion:

I don't need to assert hidden motives because the motives are openly stated.

For emphasis:

• the motives are openly stated.
• the motives are openly stated.
• the motives are openly stated.

And in case you weren't aware, I have asserted the motives weren't hidden. This red herring about "hidden motives" is nonsense, carries no credibility, and is a distraction at best. This SHOULD have been obvious several pages ago...

Yah but you're wrong. Feminism is not openly supremacist as you claim, to the contrary indeed, it is self descriptively egalitarian (mostly, usually) so for you to claim that it is supremacist you must necessarily be saying that this is a hidden aspect to them. Like, the claim that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is not democratic can be sustained pretty convincingly but I don't think you've made a watertight case as that.

Yet you're still advocating to introduce barriers in the name of removing barriers.
Thomas Sowell has given some pretty damning statistics regarding welfare state impact since the 1970's, suggesting that it has harmed the black community greatly (longer lasting economic impact than the recovery period post abolition). It does tie into the single-parent household statistics in general as well, which have higher baselines for poverty & crime.

In contrast, I won't assert that affirmative action is among the "most significant" barriers, just that it is a barrier (it's discrimination, which can't reduce discrimination).

What in particular of his did you find convincing?

Re: New Thread - If you wish. Might wanna RD it or talk with a mod for ground rules.

 

[red_elk]

All of it? I don't usually hate weeding unless it's hands and knees, but that might be because it's slower pace and you can ponder.

I haven't dug a lot of potatoes, I think that'd probably get old pretty fast. Hand tools or mechanical?

Hate is probably too strong word, just from physical jobs I'd still prefer to do stuff like construction or renovation.
We used mostly hand tools, cultivated several relatively small patches of land. Sometimes used tractor, our relatives had it.
Many older people still have this habit, to grow and save several potato sacks for winter, just in case. Of course younger people and those who live in cities including myself just go to supermarket and buy whatever they need. But since even my grandparents remembered war and famine, I can understand people who continue to maintain their piece of land. Must survive in all possible circumstances

 

[Hygro]

Construction in the bay area is playing no less than $20 and entry highway teams allegedly $55 an hour. $45/hour with assured overtime for many just-certified specialists not risking the highway.A lot of women in the latter crews. Dunno the wages in SA, definitely way lower for manual work (probably 40%), and a fair amount but fewer women here.

 

[Farm Boy]

Hate is probably too strong word, just from physical jobs I'd still prefer to do stuff like construction or renovation.
We used mostly hand tools, cultivated several relatively small patches of land. Sometimes used tractor, our relatives had it.
Many older people still have this habit, to grow and save several potato sacks for winter, just in case. Of course younger people and those who live in cities including myself just go to supermarket and buy whatever they need. But since even my grandparents remembered war and famine, I can understand people who continue to maintain their piece of land. Must survive in all possible circumstances

Coolness. Yeah, I find mud/dirt level impacts how you feel at the end of the day and turning dirt by hand is exhausting. You get used to it pretty fast, but still. First thing I noticed the year I spent picking apples was how clean, relatively, the work was compared to traipsing through cultivation.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Additionally, you still seem to be struggling with the idea that a movement pushing for equality might sensibly prioritize high status decision making positions? Like, whats unreasonable about that? I apologize for essentially repeating myself here but somehow you didn't answer it.

Those positions represent a tiny % of all positions total. Even if they were literally held by only women, most women would never have a chance at them (similar to how the odds of any *randomly selected* person having such a position is nearly the same right now).

So yes, I call into question the sensibility of a movement prioritizing these positions when talking about "equality", while ignoring inequality of much larger scales at less-desirable (but still productive) positions all while simultaneously advocating for selective discrimination elsewhere.

Furthermore even if we take your straw feminism that wants 50/50 M/F CEOs (not that CEOs in their current incarnation are good or desirable imo) and 100/0 sewerjacks, then how is that a problem? I mean, I think it is suboptimal, but what actually is the problem? Who is hurt? I think it is less suboptimal than the status quo.

It's no strawman, when it comes to positions these groups advocate for women getting they do not care about the "sewerjacks". The problem is that they are openly making a power play that is inconsistent with their own narrative - when someone does this they are not trustworthy.

Yah but you're wrong. Feminism is not openly supremacist as you claim, to the contrary indeed, it is self descriptively egalitarian (mostly, usually) so for you to claim that it is supremacist you must necessarily be saying that this is a hidden aspect to them.

The site I linked, which is just one example, openly says who should receive affirmative action and representation. That language is not about equality, even as they simultaneously claim to be about equality later on the same page.

That's a relatively benign example too, so chosen since it still has open power play language and is a .org site.

Like, the claim that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is not democratic can be sustained pretty convincingly but I don't think you've made a watertight case as that.

I'm also not claiming that amount of severity. They're making a relatively common powerplay similar to other advocacy groups, not staging a coup in favor of a dictatorship or some super matriarchy Amazon land.

What in particular of his did you find convincing?

Marriage, single family household, crime, and poverty statistics for black Americans before and after the introduction of sustained welfare on large scales.

 

[red_elk]

Who is hurt?

The one who is unable to get the job. Not by professionalism criteria, but because of having wrong stuff in his/her pants.

 

[Senethro]

Those positions represent a tiny % of all positions total. Even if they were literally held by only women, most women would never have a chance at them (similar to how the odds of any *randomly selected* person having such a position is nearly the same right now).

So yes, I call into question the sensibility of a movement prioritizing these positions when talking about "equality", while ignoring inequality of much larger scales at less-desirable (but still productive) positions all while simultaneously advocating for selective discrimination elsewhere.

lol whats the problem? like at worst this is a criticism of inefficiency of feminism, not against the intent

its not a problem unless you think some kind of exchange or tradeoff is occurring that feminists are evading paying

alternatively see hygros post (which was my assumption 2 i was saving for later pretty much)

It's no strawman, when it comes to positions these groups advocate for women getting they do not care about the "sewerjacks". The problem is that they are openly making a power play that is inconsistent with their own narrative - when someone does this they are not trustworthy.

when women campaigned to get the vote, was that a powerplay?

The site I linked, which is just one example, openly says who should receive affirmative action and representation. That language is not about equality, even as they simultaneously claim to be about equality later on the same page.

That's a relatively benign example too, so chosen since it still has open power play language and is a .org site.

???? What link? those bullet points in a previous post? they dont seem to be clickable

I'm also not claiming that amount of severity. They're making a relatively common powerplay similar to other advocacy groups, not staging a coup in favor of a dictatorship or some super matriarchy Amazon land.

ok, so what I think i'm getting here is that you think all advocacy is a powerplay. thats fine. well, its not, but its consistent at least

but so, given that white men made their powerplay first (i.e. the last 400 years of western history), why shouldn't we undo that?

like, advocacy and activism is such a weak powerplay as compared with what came before that it probably needs a different word for it...

thinking on it a bit, why is powerplay a scary word?

Marriage, single family household, crime, and poverty statistics for black Americans before and after the introduction of sustained welfare on large scales.

wow its like pulling teeth with you

can you give me an answer already or do i have to read the guys entire published works

 

[TheMeInTeam]

when women campaigned to get the vote, was that a powerplay?

You could make a legit case it was for equality, since women provable did not have equal access in that case.

What it did not do was zero-sum men out of voting, so it's not a good comparison.

???? What link? those bullet points in a previous post? they dont seem to be clickable

I might have put it in the abortion thread, some of the discussion is similar.

ok, so what I think i'm getting here is that you think all advocacy is a powerplay.

No, I am stating that power plays are common among advocacy groups, not that all advocacy is a powerplay. There's an important enough difference that the latter is straw.

but so, given that white men made their powerplay first (i.e. the last 400 years of western history), why shouldn't we undo that?

??? Patriarchal societies have existed far further back than 400 years. If anything said power was already starting to erode over the past few centuries, albeit very slowly until 20th century.

As you might have noticed, women *can* vote now, and in fact represent a majority of voters. What power do I have that an arbitrarily selected adult woman lacks in modern western countries?

There's a burden of evidence in asserting I have such a thing, or that men in general do.

can you give me an answer already or do i have to read the guys entire published works

Depending where I am, i have a harder or easier time getting direct source material links. If you don't happen upon it I might be able to scrape that up later.

 

[Hygro]

Dude oppression olympics get in there!

 

[Lexicus]

can you give me an answer already or do i have to read the guys entire published works

Sowell is a typical black conservative. His work is 'convincing' if you know nothing about sociology, and/or are a white racist looking for "scholarship" that justifies the racist public policies you want to implement.

Bonus points when the same people who claim to be "above" identity politics claim that his ideas can't be racist because he's black.

 

[riddleofsteel]

If the genders were switched, would wanting the guy punished be man-hating? Or are men fair game for enjoying seeing punished?

I agree that lenient sentences for women for the same crime are not a plot against men, but male sexism towards women in seeing them as weaker and less threatening. If we are to ever reach equality, people must face the same consequences for the same crimes regardless of their sex, class, or race, don't you think?

Exactly. How is this so difficult for some to comprehend? It's been stated elsewhere in this thread I believe that divorce courts, child custody courts and domestic violence courts are biased towards women. Domestic violence courts deservedly so, but it isn't always accurate. Even if this young woman is psychotic, which may or may not be true, such a short prison sentence won't do anything but make her behavior worse. So @MaryKB , because this poor kid had already attempted suicide it's no big deal? This evil person told him to 'get back in the car' when he wanted to abandon his last attempt. She might not have killed him with her hands, but with her emotions. Are you seriously saying that his mental state makes him responsible, and her mental state absolves her? Can some of you even understand how unreasonable that sounds? Major depression runs on both sides of my family, and I've been medicated for it for most of my life. Nobody would give a damn about that if I got tried for some crime. And how do you justify continuing to put words in my mouth? I take no pleasure in seeing a woman or anybody being punished. I only would hope for the closest thing to justice for the victims family regardless of gender. Based on your "arguments", I get the impression you might take pleasure in bending things to your will.

Look, all I've ever stated is that women as a whole shouldn't be given a pass because OTHER women at OTHER places and times have been mistreated. It also doesn't give women the right to bully, harass and demonize men as a group. It also definitely doesn't excuse women's crimes against men or other women because other women have been mistreated. All facts which can't be disproven. I seriously can't understand why some of you so vehemently try to defend such skewed and unenlightened viewpoints.

I mean, a quick looksie at the user's other posts would seem to suggest a general slant towards being anti-women. It's not a random personal attack.

You're really reaching here, and I'm disappointed. 99% percent of my posting has been about Civ until this particular quagmire. Disagreeing with me doesn't make me anti-women. I've tried my darndest to not to attach labels or make sweeping judgements on any of you.

I feel it's problematic when I see men complaining about that first, like "We'll achieve equality when we start punishing women more severely". Really no one gets off as easy as affluent white men, consider Brock Turner like I mentioned, and they even have a thing called "Affluenza" where a rich white man was let off for manslaughter because he's incapable of thinking like a normal person. Male-female imbalances in sentencing is really more about how much joy white men take in punishing black men, it's a racist thing.

I'm totally in favor of sentencing reform, like @Synsensa I totally believe in rehabilitation and help rather than punishment, but that's a totally different thing and not related to gender equality. How much you punish people has nothing to do with equal respect and representation, but it's something sexists love to bring up because it lets them derail the conversation and the idea of seeing women suffer pleases them.

The key take away here is affluence. Pick any news site you like and you'll find examples of money getting women out of trouble with money. Re: rehabilitation, if the boyfriend in the aforementioned article had driven his girlfriend to get back in a car and kill herself, would you want him to be given a rehabilitation sentence? Wouldn't his mental state excuse him since he was in a desperately low point in life? Again you use your straw generalizations. I brought it up to augment a line of reasoning, not to derail one. I take NO delight in seeing anyone suffer. How can you even say such an unkind thing? Frankly, I'm beginning to worry about you.

This is an actual thing with women receiving less painkillers in ERs than men do. (Various studies linked from here https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog...ies-in-experience-and-treatment-2017100912562 )

Pain in women is culturally devalued.

Troubling statistic but not sure how it factors in here. Are doctors and nurses sexist? Yes, I understand that we're talking about inequality, but is the statistic because doctors and nurses don't like women?

Oh yes, men love women being sweet and agreeable, that's what we're supposed to be and all's good when I'm living my assigned gender role. Men like me too and call me "nice" when I'm being cute and pretty and not causing trouble. But when I speak my mind about something important to me, about issues facing women and challenge men's power structure, I'm a "horrible person" and even men I like (and who generally like me) will turn on me, because men defend men's interests, which include continual suppression of women and our voices.

And it's much easier for me speaking here, in real life I'm very quiet, and in situations like this I'd just try to get out of it, because you also have a physical intimidation factor to worry about. But as long as women you know don't challenge you, and keep in their place like you feel they should, you like them - and this is what misogyny is all about.

And it's not like I don't care about men's pain, I know you have issues, it's just you try to drown out women's voices, who frankly right now have much bigger concerns you'd rather totally ignore.

Imagine a man and a woman in a room: her arm has just been broken, and he stubbed his toe. She's in great pain and needs medical attention, but all he cares about is talking about how much pain he's in. Her attitude is "I know you're hurting, but I'm afraid I really don't care at this moment because frankly your injury isn't nearly severe as mine, but after you help me get my arm fixed and I'm healed I'll be happy to comfort you, but not before my pain is treated. Especially since you're the one who broke my arm."

Yikes. There's so much wrong here. The toxic, silencing absolutes is something I'm not surprised by. ALL men like you when you're being cute and pretty? What are you trying to prove with that? Did it ever occur to you that men disagree with you because you're wrong about something and your debate practices are underhanded and inflammatory? I could go on but I'm getting sickened reading this.

The middle line about "not like I don't care about your pain" is the most "sorry-not-sorry" hogwash I think I've ever read.

The closing illustration is pure propaganda and underscores what's been previously said about your tactics.

 

[Hygro]

Wrong thread y'all. I made a thread for you. None of this is about game.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Consider for one thing complaints about women not doing "undesirable" jobs: do you really know why? Because women aren't respected. Do you have any idea how hard it is for women to get those types of jobs? Do you know how much difficulty a woman contractor has finding work? Because women are viewed as inferior, people think "Pft a woman can't do this job, she should go back to working in daycare or being a secretary or something." People don't want a woman plumber coming into their homes and fixing something, because they don't believe she can do it right.

The question wasn't "why aren't women in these jobs", the question was "why do feminists not seem to care about getting women into these jobs anywhere near as much (if at all) as into the boardroom".

I don't need to assert hidden motives because the motives are openly stated.

I'd go one step further than that in that you weren't even talking about motives, but actions. Visible actions. The literal opposite of hidden motives.

 

[Lexicus]

Are you seriously saying that his mental state makes him responsible, and her mental state absolves her?

Are you seriously stating that he was a healthy totally non-suicidal teenager before this evil young woman showed up and maliciously convinced him to kill himself, which he would definitely not have done without her intervention?