There was a story recently in the Seattle Times about gender activists at the University of Washington being “outraged” at some on-line posting advising would-be cheerleaders on proper appearance, i.e. make-up, fake eyelashes, length of hair and presenting your typical statuesque blonde white female as the “ideal” candidate. Frankly, I thought it was a put-up job by someone who wanted to make trouble for the school, since it read like an old National Lampoon caricature. But it was a non-story as far as I was concerned. Cheerleading is not a “sport,” it is “entertainment” that is peripheral to the action if noticed at all, and it is mainly for those vain enough about their looks to want to be noticed. And it is perfectly within their rights to be “noticed” for their looks; after all, no red-blooded American male wants to look at, let alone listen to, intensely tiresome and conceited women’s studies activists. More to the point, cheerleaders above the high school level are an anachronism in this day and age, and it wouldn’t be a great loss if the program was discontinued.
Gender activists are constantly inventing less-improved versions of the same old stories that no longer have much in the way of validity, thus they always put their credibility into question. This is especially true of white women, who as I discussed before want it both ways: to be treated as a “disadvantaged minority” to the detriment of actual minorities, yet retain all the social and economic advantages of being white in this country. Over and over again, victim myths and “epidemics” are invented and given “credence” by phony “studies” and deliberately skewed “surveys” designed to reach one conclusion.
False gender issues can easily be replicated in the “real” world of politics, and we see it happening now as Bernie Sanders is relegated to media afterthought and now the focus is on Donald Trump and his “misogyny.” Oh, I’m not going to say that Trump is not “insensitive” about gender any more than he is about race; he is. But his complaints about female hypocrisy is just “insensitive”; in regard to minorities and immigrants (especially Hispanic), he sets the dogs on them, usually in human form. Nobody is beating up white women in his name, but some have taken to beating up blacks, Hispanics and others stereotyped as “terrorists”; I watched in the Metro bus tunnel some ragged white man screaming at every non-white person he saw, accusing them all of being a “terrorist.” While others (like me) just thought he was off his medication, one black male confronted him, which sort of quieted him when he realized his offensive speech might get him hurt, until tunnel security showed up to “save” him. The only presidential candidate lumping entire groups into the “terrorist” camp is Trump, so it isn’t a stretch to imagine from where his “inspiration” is coming from.
Some women are certainly offended by Trump’s clearly over-the-top blustering directed at those he considers pretentious, and whose pretensions have no foundation in substance, and he obviously believes that most Americans believe this as well, whether they say it out loud or not. But let’s face facts: all Trump’s blustering about this female or that doesn’t really mean a damn thing in the grand scheme of life—the white female’s strangle-hold on the social and political discourse in this country has seen to that. We see in his flip-flopping on the transgender bathroom “issue” that he really isn’t all that ideological on social issues, save when it comes to manufacturing non-white scapegoats for his white rats to gnaw on. The paranoia and hatred Trump excites about minorities, immigrants and Muslims has far greater impact on their lives than his politically-incorrect commentary has on the arrogant, “entitled” and privileged thin-skinned gender advocates.
Nevertheless, the media has made Trump’s alleged “misogyny” a campaign issue, and I see it as an early effort to divert public attention away from this indisputable fact: Hillary Clinton’s unsuitability to hold the highest and most powerful office in the world. She already enters the arena as one the most corrupt, unethical, dishonest and unprincipled candidates ever to run for president, if not the most. “Fighting for Us”? Bullshit. She wasn’t paid millions and millions of dollars in speaking fees for a few minutes by the biggest Wall Street high rollers because she gives a damn about the “common people,” who this self-styled “patrician” in reality feels the greatest contempt for behind their backs, much like Larry “Lonesome” Rhodes in the 1957 film A Face in the Crowd. If you want to talk about Trump’s “misogyny,” then the misandry of Clinton and her old-line feminists supporters is also worth fair comment; when she was “first lady,” 29 of her 30 staff members were women, she called men “too complicated” and confided to Madeline Albright that “we know all men are ‘assholes.’” Albright, of course, was the one who said that all women who voted for Sanders should “burn in hell.”
The hypocrisy of Clinton and her media supporters is nothing new; after all, the media believed her every pathological lie during repeated news conferences to “explain” her role (or rather, her lack of a role) in numerous “gates” during the first Clinton administration—including her cold-blooded denial of any culpability in Vince Foster’s “suicide.” William Safire was one of the few who called out her “congenital” lying, and repeated investigations revealed that a string of Clinton statements before the press were “factually false.” In 2008, it was not Barack Obama or John McCain who made race an issue; it was Hillary Clinton who played the race card, and it was the Clinton News Network which ran the Rev. Wright “controversy” 24/7 for weeks in a bare-faced effort to save the Clinton campaign. And she and the media have the absolute audacity to play the gender card now.
A New York Times story written the other day by two women opined that “With the nation on the verge of a presidential election between the first woman to lead a major party and an opponent accused of misogyny, Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump are digging in for a fight in which he is likely to attack her precisely because she is a woman.” But they have it precisely wrong in their gender entitlement program. Trump does not need to talk about gender to sow seeds of doubt about Clinton’s lack of qualification to be president; all he needs to do is talk about her non-record of “accomplishments” and her very real record of corruption and perjury.
We all need to ask questions about why the Justice Department and the media is shielding Clinton from her crimes. The few in the media who are asking the right questions, like Al Hunt, have attempted to press Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Clinton with the presidential election so close at hand; isn’t it owed the American people to get Clinton’s illegal email server matter cleared-up as soon as possible, instead of delaying the FBI investigation report until, say, after the election? Why would release of the report be delayed if it didn’t contain any “serious” incidents of wrongdoing that constitute criminal acts? Lynch claimed that this case shouldn’t be treated any differently than any other case, when in fact it has been from start, when the Justice Department refused to do anything, hoping to avoid dealing with the issue and allow it to “go away,” before the FBI decided to unilaterally conduct its own investigation.
Clinton has acted as if she is “above the law” ever since she was old enough to be corrupt and unethical in the pursuit of power and money. She is a user, and she has used millions to achieve these entirely self-serving goals, and she has been aided in all of this by the feckless media, submissive sycophants and law enforcement awed by her “glow.” This, not her “gender,” should be the real issue of this presidential season. But the pro-Clinton media wishes to avoid such revelations at all costs, in the quest of “history.” Another Clinton in the White House surrounded by submissive slaves to her unprincipled megalomania could set back the “cause” of women for decades to come. Think relations between the Obama administration and the Republican Congress are bad now?
What cannot be gainsaid is that Clinton’s alleged “superior” female qualities are nowhere in evidence, but rather she apparently “bests” most men in her ability to escape paying the price for her crimes over the years. Just ask former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, convicted of breaking campaign fundraising laws which are not even fractionally as serious as that committed by Clinton during her “celebrity” event during her 2000 run for the U.S. Senate. She has been the beneficiary of illegal bundling which others have gone to prison for—and she does not know anything about it? Pathological liar, anyone? Criminal, anyone? Blind media, anyone? Prosecutors blinded by her "stardom," anyone? Potential witnesses against the Clintons threatened and intimidated, anyone? Neither Clinton nor anyone close to her ever required to testify under oath, anyone?