I got an email on a mailing list today that had this attached---a signature, I think---"People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs." It got me to thinking about this part in the movie Spaceballs where the Princess says, "You can't do this to me! I'm rich!" and the girl who told my Big Guy, after she tried to kick a field goal with his balls, "You can't hit me! I'm a girl!" Maybe the train of thought isn't obvious. The one that sticks out and I will never, ever forget is the part in Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark where the girl says, "You can't do this to me, I'm an American!"

It's funny how people confuse "can't" and "shouldn't". The girl that kicked my Big Guy and discovered that he's another Iron Crotch (google him, he's cool), actually thought she wouldn't get hit. He punched her. He pulled it, true; he would have broken a man's jaw, but he still hit her. He just didn't look like the kind of guy who would hit a woman (she sooooo deserved it), so she felt safe enough to mess with him and when it turns around and bites her on the ass, it's sudeenly "can't". Of course, if he'd been wearing his leather that night instead of a cable knit sweater, she never would have done it.

I wonder if people think about "can't" and "shouldn't" when they choose who they should be confrontational with, sometimes. I think that's one itty bitty little semantical problem in civilization. People think that others around them "can't" hurt them, so they're safe to do whatever they want to do when the fact is that the only thing restraining them are mores they've been socialized into. It's also a semantical problem when it comes to criminals. Criminals and law-abiding citizens have two different takes on what one can't do. Criminals only think they can't do something if the risk of getting caught outweighs the benefit. Law-abiding citizens think they can't do something if there's a law against it or ethical concerns.

Bikers are a strange group to hang out with, in the "can't" and "shouldn't" respect. They're both outside the law and inside of it. I'm not talking the so-called 1%-ers, the actual criminals, or the white-collar "weekend warriors". I'm talking the average folks that call their girlfriends "old lady" and "show your tits" is the same thing as a kissing a woman's knuckles. They scare people, especially when in large groups or at a bar. They're loud and obnoxious. They're confrontational and do habitual misdemeanors. They believe in civilization, to an extent. It's like the old saying, "An armed society is a polite society." Only not always with the weapons. Power within the groups is often just as much about physical power as mental power. Sure, ABATE and HOG and other, local riding groups and/or clubs are organized the same way that knitting circles are. Leaders are chosen democratically, not by who can beat up whom. However, bikers are one of the few groups that I've been around that seem to universally understand that a man "shouldn't" hit a woman, not that he can't.

Of course, PETA seems to understand that rich ladies can't break your bones and bikers can, so they pick and choose who to mess with. Maybe it's about PR? Who cares if a bunch of animal-rights activists throw red paint on a bunch of bikers? Well, they might find the ensuing brawl to be front page news. It's definitely news if they throw red paint on women wearing mink. Maybe it's because leather comes from cows, which aren't cute, furry little critters. And we use the entire cow, not just the skin. That's pretty speciesist, if you ask me. Why aren't cows as worthy of dying of old age as mink? Maybe it's the "show your tits" thing. Most biker guys that I know will just hoist a brewski if you throw red paint on them and then flash boob.