It seems that my hero, Brett Favre, is in some trouble. It seems that while he was playing for the New York Jets, he sent voice mails to a buxom in-house “reporter” named Jenn Sterger, and what she “believes” are pics of his man package. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has ordered an investigation, although it is curious that there has been no suggestion that there will be punishment meted out for Jets players and coaches involved in the alleged sexual harassment of Ines Sainz; perhaps this is because she is actually a legitimate sports reporter for a Mexican television station. Sainz, as I have pointed out in a previous blog, dresses the way she does because it is fairly common practice (at least among the Latin American Euro-elites) in that culture; she was not trying to provoke Jets players. The same cannot be said of Sterger, however. In the current American unisex culture, in the post 1960s “free love” and mini-skirt age, prancing around in skimpy outfits is designed to provoke a response (but only from the “right” people, of course). Sterger’s eye-popping bosom (artificially-enhanced) in a bikini top at a Florida State football game led Brent Musberger to exclaim "1,500 red-blooded American males just decided to apply to Florida State."
Playboy soon came calling, and Sterger obliged by putting her birthday suit on display. Count on the Jets to help her parlay her form into a job as a “reporter,” and from there on to cable television, where skimpily-clad young women are the order of the day. Don’t mistake me; I have no issue with semi-nudity on television—it certainly is less dull that than all these Barbie Doll TV actresses who “won’t do nudity” in films. But most of these women are talentless, whining bores. Sterger has her own show on Versus; by all accounts it is awful, which might explain the sudden need to bring all this Favre stuff up two years after it allegedly occurred.
I have no doubt that Favre, the lonely country boy in the Big City (certainly not Green Bay) saw this pleasing-to-the-eye in-house female reporter, and who might want to “chill” with him and maybe even talk about football (after all, she was a team “reporter”). Favre (assuming that’s his voice) sounded like an uncomfortable Hillbilly on the call—almost apologetic—insisting that this wasn’t a “set-up”—meaning, we can assume, not for sex. Sterger hasn’t made that claim; in fact earlier she stated that she and her friends found the voice mails highly amusing, and she derided Favre as being an “old man.” Sounds like the classic description of a “victim.”
The pics that Sterger provided (isn’t it amazing how she is trying to “distance” herself from her greed and self-promotion by passing this stuff through a “third party?”) that she “thinks” are of Favre’s man package, have been treated by the media in general as established “fact.” The media must do this to justify in delving in sleaze for ratings, but it is wrong in assuming that most people are not annoyed by all this dirt-dealing; the fact is that it is only holier-than-thou media types and the fanatical few that only sounds like millions that turns greedy victimizers into “victims.”
Sexism is an increasing problem in this country, except that it isn’t exactly what feminists and their media supporters claim it is. I’ve already discussed part of it in previous post. Another aspect is the way crime is reported on the news and portrayed on television. A murder victim is typically considered newsworthy if that person happens to be a white female, the more attractive the better. On crime shows, the vast majority of murder victims are white females. Is this an expression of reality, or an assumption that white female victims have more “appeal” than male victims? Appealing to whom? The white female audience that is repeatedly told on one hand that they are “superior” to men, and the other that they are perpetual victims. There is a “war against women,” or so say activist pundits. It is a “given” fact.
But does reality match the “facts?” According to the 2010 Statistical Abstract and Department of Justice crime statistics, nearly 80 percent of all murder victims are male. Although white and black male victims are roughly equal in raw numbers, black males are much more likely to be murder victims: 37.59 per 100,000 compared to 4.63 per 100,000 white males. Black females have a 5.62 per 100,000 rate compared to 1.61 per 100,000 for white females. The disparity indicated by these figure should be staggering. Blacks are nearly seven times more likely than whites to be a murder victim, and black males 23 times more likely than white females. What does this tell us? It tells us that the media—both news and “entertainment”—prefer the cheap emotional manipulation rather than confront the real disparities and iniquities in this country.
But it’s no good to fight this, especially with people like attorney Gloria Allred around. Allred recently accused anyone who was not a feminist to be a “bigot,” although her recent proclivity toward targeting black male athletes makes one wonder who the “bigot” really is. I recall back in 1991, feminist Eleanor Smeal had the audacity to claim that media coverage of the Pamela Smart murder case (Smart persuaded her teenage “lover” to murder her husband) was evidence of “racism against white women,” which, if nothing else, shows how self-obsessed these people are. Allred—whatever moral high ground she might have claimed in the past—is now nothing more than a sleazy shakedown operator—just like her clients. One of her recent “victims” of the prevailing “patriarchy,” porn star Devon James (or whatever she’s calling herself these days), claims to have a tape of herself in flagrant flagrante with Tiger Woods; none of the “mainstream” porn production companies, surprisingly, would touch this, so James set-up her own. But there may be a glitch; her former manager claims that James and her porn “actor” husband approached her with the idea of a video with a Tiger lookalike, but refused to participate. After a judge threw-out James’ paternity suit against Woods, her own mother called her a “pathological liar.”
In the midst of the Woods’ scandal Allred appeared before the news networks to explain why she represents women who knowingly enlist themselves in adultery. We all know, of course, that the women involved with Woods knew he was married, but there was a certain “wow” factor of having the attentions of a famous man, especially with one who has a lot of money to throw around. Allred ludicrously told the Today Show that Woods needed to “apologize” to James for “breaking her heart.” James, of course, was married herself, although it would take some thinking to determine what marriage means to porn performers still active in their trade. All this suggests that Allred further sullies the already sullied reputation of feminists, to whom distorting or inventing facts to suit their agenda is not a matter of embarrassment. Embarrassment or no, Allred told the Today Show and others that men needed to “pay’ for the mistakes, meaning, in her case, she wants to make them “suffer”—meaning ruining their lives and careers as best she can, and if she and her clients make a million bucks or so off of them, all the better. Allred really does like making men suffer for being men. You’d have to ask her why her hatred knows no limits; she claimed that she was raped by a “well-respected doctor” at gunpoint in Mexico in 1966, for which she provides no supporting evidence; on the other hand, she did abandon her first husband when she discovered he had bipolar disorder (I wonder what stories she has told their daughter to justify the abandonment); he later committed suicide, which I am sure didn’t then and still doesn’t trouble Allred (or her allies) the slightest bit.
But Allred is only one face of a culture of oppression and intolerance. We live in a society that not only tolerates but elevates such hollow bigots as Nevada senatorial candidate Sharron Angle, merely because women should be elevated. Now I am reading a post on ESPN’s website by a woman named Jemele Hill, who tells us that what Favre allegedly did was “much worse” than Tiger’s serial adulteries which were “consensual” affairs. Sterger has claimed that she received hundreds, maybe thousands, of text messages and pics from men—many of them athletes. On one local sports radio program, where the host and friends are having a hard time keeping a straight face with all the factors considered, the woman who does the traffic was sent out to conduct a “poll” to see if any of her female friends received pics of a man’s package. She reported that 18 out of 58 responded claimed to have received such donations, out of which 5 or 6 felt some measure of discomfort. We are left with wondering if Sterger, in her quest for another 15 minutes of fame to resurrect her lousy show on Versus, decided that the pics she actually kept for two years (as well as the voice mails?) could be useful, other than sources of amusement for her and her girlfriends. Beyond that, what did Favre do? He asked a woman he hadn’t met for a “date”—as if Sterger didn’t know who Favre was. Why don’t we just hang 90 percent of all males while we’re at it? Allred would certainly be up for that.